Robert Arthur Meade v The Queen

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

ROBERT ARTHUR MEADE

v

THE QUEEN

[2016] HCASL 191
M30/2016

  1. The applicant requires an extension of time in which to bring this application for special leave.  He has provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay.  However there is no utility in an order dispensing with the time limit:  the application, considered with the proposed amendments to the summary of argument that are the subject of the summons filed on 17 May 2016, does not raise any question of law suitable for the grant of special leave.  There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria.  Special leave is refused and the summons dismissed.     

  2. 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.

V.M. Bell
30 August 2016 		S.J. Gageler
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Robert Arthur Meade v The Queen 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
[2016] HCASL 191
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in the case, Robert Arthur Meade, sought an extension of time to bring an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court. The application was filed in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The nature of the dispute revolves around the applicant's request for an extension of time to bring his application, and the respondent, the Crown, opposing the extension and the merits of the application itself. The case was heard by the High Court, which was tasked with determining whether the application should be granted special leave to appeal.

The legal issues before the Court were twofold: first, whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in bringing the application; and second, whether the application raised any questions of law suitable for the grant of special leave. The Court examined the reasons provided by the applicant for the delay and assessed the merits of the proposed amendments to the summary of argument. The Court also considered the correctness of the decision made by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The High Court found that although the applicant had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, there was no utility in granting an extension of time as the application, even with the proposed amendments, did not raise any question of law suitable for the grant of special leave. The Court was not convinced that there was any reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. As a result, the Court refused special leave and dismissed the summons. The Court further directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application, in accordance with the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

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.