Nah v The King - [2025] HCADisp 6

NAH
v
THE KING
NAH
v
THE KING
[2025] HCADISP 6
B57/2024
B59/2024

In matter B57/2024, the applicant seeks special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Mullins P and Burns J, Dalton JA dissenting), dismissing the applicant's appeal against conviction on two counts following a trial by jury in the District Court of Queensland (Judge Lynham). In matter B59/2024, the applicant applies for an extension of time within which to seek special leave to appeal from the same judgment insofar as it dismissed the applicant's appeal against sentence.
The proposed appeals do not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal and, further, are not appropriate vehicles to determine any question of law of public importance which may arise. Accordingly, it would also be futile to grant the extension of time that is sought in matter B59/2024.
Special leave to appeal is refused.
Gageler CJ
Gordon J
Edelman J
Steward J
Gleeson J
Jagot J
Beech-Jones J
6 February 2025

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Nah v The King 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: [2025] HCADisp 6
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves an applicant seeking special leave to appeal a judgment from the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant had previously been convicted on two counts following a trial by jury in the District Court of Queensland, and the appeal against both the conviction and the sentence was dismissed. The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal from the High Court, both in relation to the conviction and in relation to the sentence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proposed appeals had sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. Additionally, the court had to consider if the appeals were appropriate vehicles to determine any question of law of public importance, and whether granting an extension of time for the application would be futile.

The court found that the proposed appeals did not have sufficient prospects of success, and that they were not appropriate vehicles to determine any question of law of public importance. Consequently, the court refused to grant special leave to appeal and dismissed the application for an extension of time. The court determined that the proposed appeals would be futile and did not warrant the use of the High Court’s appellate jurisdiction.

The final orders of the court were to refuse special leave to appeal in both matters B57/2024 and B59/2024, and to dismiss the application for an extension of time.

Orders