Riddell v R (No 2)

In the case of Riddell v R (No 2), the applicant, Riddell, was appealing a decision in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had rejected his application to withdraw his appeal against a conviction and sentence. The applicant sought leave to file a notice of motion to re-agitate an earlier application for leave to withdraw his appeal. The central issue before the court was whether the applicant should be granted leave to file the notice of motion and, if not, whether leave should be granted to withdraw the appeal to the extent necessary.

The court considered the circumstances surrounding the applicant's attempts to withdraw his appeal. It noted that the application to withdraw the appeal had already been considered and dismissed by the Supreme Court, and the applicant's current application was essentially a reiteration of that earlier application. The court held that, given the prior rejection and the lack of new grounds or significant change in circumstances, the applicant was not entitled to re-agitate the issue through a notice of motion. However, the court recognised the applicant's right to withdraw his appeal and granted leave to withdraw the appeal to the extent necessary.

The court's decision effectively denied the applicant's request to file a notice of motion to re-agitate the withdrawal of his appeal but acknowledged the applicant's right to withdraw the appeal itself, granting the necessary leave to do so. This ruling ensures that the applicant can proceed with withdrawing his appeal, subject to the conditions set by the court.