Schmidt v The Queen - [2018] HCASL 263

SCHMIDT
v
THE QUEEN
[2018] HCASL 263
B27/2018

The applicant requires an extension of time in which to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (McMurdo JA, Fraser JA and Jackson J agreeing) dismissing the applicant's appeal against conviction and refusing the applicant leave to appeal against sentence on a count of conspiring with others to traffic in a commercial quantity of a controlled drug, namely cocaine, contrary to ss 11.5(1) and 302.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). It would be futile, however, to grant the extension sought. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's judgment.
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.

G.A.A. Nettle
12 September 2018 M.M. Gordon

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 Schmidt 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: [2018] HCASL 263
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Schmidt sought an extension of time to appeal against his conviction for conspiracy to traffic in a commercial quantity of a controlled drug. The Supreme Court of Appeal had dismissed his appeal against the conviction and had also refused him leave to appeal against his sentence. The High Court was asked to consider whether an extension of time to appeal should be granted. The legal issues were whether the appeal should be permitted and whether there was any justification for an extension of time. The High Court found that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's judgment and that granting an extension would be futile. Therefore, the application was dismissed and the orders of the Court of Appeal were upheld. The High Court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

Orders