Schanker v The Queen

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

SCHANKER

v

THE QUEEN

[2019] HCASL 169
M38/2019

  1. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Tate and McLeish JJA and Kidd AJA).  The proposed appeal would not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave.  Accordingly, it would be futile to grant the extension of time which the applicant seeks to enable his application to proceed.

  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
15 May 2019 		S.J. Gageler
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Schanker 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
[2019] HCASL 169
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in the case of Schanker v The Queen sought special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The decision in question was rendered by Tate, McLeish, and Kidd JJA. The applicant, Schanker, was appealing against his conviction and sentence for offences relating to drug trafficking and possession. The case involved complex issues of evidence, including the admissibility of certain statements made by the applicant and the reliability of witness testimony.

The legal issues the court was required to decide involved the assessment of the application for special leave to appeal. This included whether the proposed appeal had sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave and whether it would be futile to grant the extension of time which the applicant sought to enable his application to proceed. The court also needed to consider the principles governing the grant of special leave, including the requirement that the appeal must have a real chance of success and that the case involved a matter of public importance.

The court found that the proposed appeal did not have sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave. The reasoning included that the arguments advanced by the applicant were largely reiterations of points already considered and rejected by the lower courts, and there were no new grounds of appeal that could provide a basis for a successful appeal. The court also determined that granting the extension of time for the application would be futile, as there were no reasonable prospects of the appeal succeeding. The court concluded that the application for special leave to appeal should be dismissed, and it would be inappropriate to grant the extension of time sought by the applicant.

Accordingly, the court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application. This decision was made under rule 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). The order was signed by Bell, and the judgment was delivered on 15 May 2019.

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.