Klaus Julius Andres v The Queen

KLAUS JULIUS ANDRES
v
THE QUEEN
[2016] HCASL 1
B59/2015

The applicant requires an extension of time in which to seek special leave to appeal to this Court. An extension of time would be futile.
This application for special leave to appeal does not raise any question of principle of general importance and there is no reason otherwise to doubt the correctness of the judgment of the Court of Appeal. It would not be in the interests of justice generally or in the particular circumstances of this case to grant special leave to appeal.
The application for special leave is dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

G.A.A. Nettle
9 March 2016 M.M. Gordon

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, Klaus Julius Andres brought a case against The Queen seeking an extension of time to apply for special leave to appeal. The appeal was from a decision of the South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal, which had dismissed his appeal against a conviction and sentence. Andres was convicted of two counts of murder and two counts of attempted murder, among other offences, and was sentenced to a lengthy period of imprisonment. The crux of this case was the applicant's request for an extension of time to apply for special leave to appeal to the High Court, a matter which the Court of Appeal had previously denied.

The legal issues before the High Court involved whether an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal should be granted, and if the application raised any question of principle of general importance. The Court needed to determine whether the application for special leave to appeal was futile, and whether there were any compelling reasons to grant special leave that would be in the interests of justice.

The High Court considered the arguments put forward by Andres and found that an extension of time would be futile. The Court concluded that the application for special leave to appeal did not raise any question of principle of general importance and there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Court held that granting special leave to appeal would not be in the interests of justice generally or in the particular circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed. The Court further directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application, in accordance with rule 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

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