Leach v The Queen

Leach
v
The Queen
[2022] HCASL 157
B10/2022

The applicant seeks special leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Fraser, Morrison and Bond JJA), dismissing his application for leave to appeal and judicial review of a decision of the District Court of Queensland (Smith DCJA) refusing a permanent stay.
Consistently with the outcome in Kinghorn v The Queen & Ors [2022] HCATrans 80, the constitutional arguments of the applicant are not sufficiently substantial to warrant consideration by this Court.
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

19 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Leach v The Queen, the applicant sought special leave to appeal a decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal, which had dismissed his application for leave to appeal and for judicial review of a decision of the District Court of Queensland. The applicant's initial application was regarding a refusal to grant a permanent stay. The matter before the High Court was to determine whether the applicant's constitutional arguments were substantial enough to warrant consideration by the Court. The High Court found that the applicant's constitutional arguments were not sufficiently substantial to warrant further consideration.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the applicant's constitutional arguments were substantial enough to warrant consideration by the Court and whether special leave should be granted to appeal the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal. The Court considered the outcome of a similar case, Kinghorn v The Queen & Ors, and determined that the applicant's constitutional arguments did not meet the threshold for special leave to be granted. The Court also considered the relevant rules and procedures for special leave applications, including the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

The High Court found that the applicant's constitutional arguments were not sufficiently substantial to warrant consideration by the Court. The Court noted that the outcome of the Kinghorn case was similar, and that the applicant's arguments did not provide a sufficient basis for special leave to be granted. The Court also found that the relevant rules and procedures for special leave applications had been followed, and that the Registrar should draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. The Court concluded that the application for special leave to appeal should be dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established