Jamie Landale (a pseudonym) v The King

JAMIE LANDALE (A PSEUDONYM)
v
THE KING
[2024] HCASL 155
M13/2024

The applicant requires a substantial extension of time within which to seek special leave to appeal from part of the judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Kyrou, T Forrest and Walker JJA), which refused the applicant's applications for an extension of time to file notices of leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence in the County Court of Victoria (Judge Allen).
There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal. The proposed appeal, which also raises new grounds of appeal that were not raised in the Court of Appeal, would not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal. Accordingly, it would be futile to grant an extension of time.
Special leave to appeal is refused.
Edelman J
Jagot J
6 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Jamie Landale (a pseudonym) versus The King, the High Court of Australia heard an application for a substantial extension of time to seek special leave to appeal. The applicant, Landale, sought to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria which had previously refused his application for an extension of time to file notices of leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence in the County Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the High Court was whether it should grant an extension of time for Landale to seek special leave to appeal, considering the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal and the prospects of success of the proposed appeal.

The High Court examined the grounds upon which Landale sought the extension of time, including new grounds that had not been raised before the Court of Appeal. The Court considered whether there was any reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal’s decision and whether the proposed appeal had sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal. The Court found no basis to question the Court of Appeal’s decision and determined that the proposed appeal, including the new grounds, did not possess sufficient merit to justify granting an extension of time. The Court concluded that granting such an extension would be futile.

The High Court, in its judgment, declined to grant the requested extension of time. The Court found that the proposed appeal did not have sufficient prospects of success, and therefore, it was not in the interests of justice to grant the extension. Consequently, the application for special leave to appeal was refused.

The final order of the Court was that special leave to appeal was refused. This decision underscores the stringent criteria for granting extensions of time in such circumstances, particularly when the proposed appeal raises new grounds and lacks a reasonable chance of success.

Keep reading for free

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established