Manning v The King

MANNING
v
THE KING
[2024] HCASL 309
B47/2024

On 16 March 2022, Keane and Edelman JJ refused the applicant an extension of time for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland dismissing the applicant's appeal against conviction and application for leave to appeal against sentence: Manning v The Queen [2022] HCASL 42.
On 9 February 2023, the Court of Appeal (Morrison and McMurdo JJA, Brown J) refused the applicant an extension of time to appeal against the same convictions and sentence, and to seek special leave to re-open the previous appeal. The Court of Appeal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear a further appeal against conviction once the applicant's earlier appeal against conviction had been determined on the merits and that the second application for leave to appeal against sentence was an abuse of process.
The applicant requires an extension of time to seek special leave against the second decision of the Court of Appeal, but it would be futile to grant the extension which is sought. An appeal to this Court would have insufficient prospects of success.
Special leave to appeal is refused.
Gordon J
Steward J
5 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia was asked to consider the case of Manning versus The King. Manning sought an extension of time to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland, which had dismissed his appeal against conviction and application for leave to appeal against sentence. The Court of Appeal had already refused Manning an extension of time to appeal against the same convictions and sentence, and to seek special leave to re-open the previous appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Court of Appeal had the jurisdiction to hear a further appeal against conviction once the applicant's earlier appeal against conviction had been determined on the merits. The court also needed to decide if the second application for leave to appeal against sentence was an abuse of process. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether it would be futile to grant Manning the extension of time he sought for his appeal to the High Court.

The High Court found that the Court of Appeal had correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a further appeal against conviction once the earlier appeal had been determined on the merits. The Court of Appeal was also correct in finding that the second application for leave to appeal against sentence was an abuse of process. The High Court further concluded that an appeal to this Court would have insufficient prospects of success, making it futile to grant the extension of time sought by Manning.

The High Court refused special leave to appeal, affirming the decisions of the Court of Appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established