Kellett v The Queen

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

KELLETT

v

THE QUEEN

[2022] HCASL 131
B46/2021

  1. The applicant requires an extension of time within which to seek special leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Morrison and Mullins JJA and Jackson J) dismissing the applicant's appeal against conviction.

  2. The application does not raise any legal principle or question of general importance that would warrant the Court's intervention.  Special leave should be refused.  Accordingly, it would be futile to grant the extension of time sought.

  3. Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

S.J. Gageler S.H.P. Steward
18 August 2022
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Kellett v The Queen and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2022] HCASL 131
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kellett, the applicant, sought an extension of time within which to seek special leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The decision dismissed the applicant's appeal against conviction, with Morrison, Mullins JJA and Jackson J sitting. The primary matter before the court was whether to grant an extension of time for the applicant to seek special leave to appeal the decision. The application did not raise any legal principle or question of general importance that would warrant the Court's intervention.

The legal issue before the court was whether an extension of time should be granted to the applicant. The court considered the application and noted that special leave should be refused. The court found that it would be futile to grant the extension of time sought, as the application did not raise any legal principle or question of general importance that would warrant the Court's intervention. The court held that the application did not satisfy the criteria for an extension of time under the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). Therefore, the court dismissed the application and directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

The court's reasoning was based on the fact that the application did not raise any legal principle or question of general importance that would warrant the Court's intervention. The court found that the application did not satisfy the criteria for an extension of time under the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). The court held that it would be futile to grant the extension of time sought, as the application did not raise any legal principle or question of general importance that would warrant the Court's intervention. Therefore, the court dismissed the application and directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.