RB v The King

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

RB

v

THE KING

[2024] HCASL 65
S113/2023

  1. The applicant applies for an extension of time to file an application for special leave to appeal from the whole of a judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales given on 29 June 2022 (Fagan J, Harrison and Wright JJ agreeing), allowing an appeal against sentence imposed by the District Court of New South Wales (Latham ADCJ).

  2. The application has insufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal. Accordingly, it would be futile to grant an extension of time.

  3. Special leave to appeal is refused.

    Gageler CJ

    Gordon J

    Edelman J

    Steward J

    Gleeson J

    Jagot J

    7 March 2024

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read RB 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
[2024] HCASL 65
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, RB, applied for an extension of time to file an application for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The original judgment, rendered on 29 June 2022, upheld an appeal against the sentence imposed by the District Court of New South Wales. The appeal was heard by Fagan J, with Harrison and Wright JJ concurring. The application for an extension of time was made directly to the High Court. The applicant's request was considered in the context of whether it had sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal.

The legal issues before the court involved assessing the merits of the applicant's application for an extension of time and determining if the application for special leave to appeal had sufficient prospects of success. The court examined whether the application for special leave to appeal was likely to succeed on the merits. Given the Court of Criminal Appeal's judgment and the reasons provided, the High Court concluded that the application did not have sufficient prospects of success. The court also considered the futility of granting an extension of time if the application itself lacked merit.

The High Court found that the application for an extension of time did not have sufficient prospects of success. The reasoning was based on the merits of the Court of Criminal Appeal's judgment and the factors that were considered during the original appeal. The High Court determined that allowing an extension of time would be futile since the application for special leave to appeal was unlikely to succeed. Consequently, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed, and the extension of time was refused. The court's decision was made by Gageler CJ, Gordon J, Edelman J, Steward J, Gleeson J, and Jago J.

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.