Jamieson Andrew Santos v The State of Western Australia

JAMIESON ANDREW SANTOS
v
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
[2014] HCASL 226
P46/2014

In 2011, the applicant and his co-accused were found guilty in the District Court of Western Australia of two counts of possession of a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply it to another, contrary to s 6(1)(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA).
In 2013, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (McLure P, Buss and Mazza JJA) dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal against conviction[1]. In 2013, this Court (Bell and Gageler JJ) dismissed the applicant's application for special leave to appeal from that decision[2].
[1]Santos v The State of Western Australia [No 2] [2013] WASCA 39.
[2]Jamieson Andrew Santos v The State of Western Australia [2013] HCASL 123.
The applicant now makes a new application for special leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal. As the applicant does not have legal representation, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.
The application is brought out of time and the applicant seeks an order under r 41.02.2 dispensing with the requirement to comply with the time limit in r 41.02.1. It is not necessary to decide whether that order should be made.
The applicant has filed a notice of a constitutional matter under s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). No constitutional matter arises in this case.
To the extent that the applicant relies on the grounds agitated in his previous application for special leave, the new application is an abuse of process. To the extent that the applicant seeks to raise new grounds, those grounds enjoy no prospects of success. Accordingly, special leave to appeal is refused.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

K.M. Hayne
10 December 2014 S.M. Crennan

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jamieson Andrew Santos, the applicant, filed an application for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of his appeal in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, following his conviction in the District Court for drug possession with intent to supply. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in 2013, and Santos subsequently applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court in the same year, which was also dismissed. Santos, unrepresented, now makes another application for special leave to appeal, arguing that the Court of Appeal's decision was incorrect and that a constitutional matter exists. The High Court considered whether the application was an abuse of process and whether the new grounds for appeal had any prospect of success.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the application for special leave to appeal should be treated as an abuse of process, given that it was out of time and relied on grounds previously considered, and whether the new grounds had any prospect of success. Additionally, the Court needed to determine whether the application raised a constitutional matter, which would necessitate the High Court's jurisdiction. The Court held that the application was an abuse of process to the extent it relied on previously agitated grounds and had no prospect of success regarding the new grounds. The Court also found that no constitutional matter was present.

The High Court found that the application for special leave to appeal was an abuse of process as it was based on grounds that had already been considered and rejected by both the Court of Appeal and the High Court. The Court held that the new grounds for appeal had no prospects of success and did not warrant further consideration. Additionally, the Court found no constitutional matter in the application, as the applicant's claims did not raise any issues of constitutional significance. Consequently, the High Court refused the application for special leave to appeal and directed the Registrar to dismiss the application.

The High Court dismissed the application for special leave to appeal and directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order to that effect. This decision reinforces the principle that applications for special leave to appeal must be timely and based on new grounds with a realistic prospect of success. It also confirms that the High Court will not entertain applications that are an abuse of process or do not involve a constitutional matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established