The King v Bredal

Case [2024] HCASL 202


THE KING

v

BREDAL

[2024] HCASL 202
S72/2024

  1. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal from the whole of a judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales (Harrison CJ at CL, Button and Dhanji JJ), dismissing an appeal against the sentence imposed in the District Court of New South Wales (Allan DCJ).

  2. There is insufficient reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Criminal Appeal's judgment to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal.

  3. Special leave to appeal is refused.

    Gageler CJ
    Gordon J
    Edelman J
    Steward J
    Gleeson J
    Jagot J
    Beech-Jones J

    8 August 2024

Continue reading The King v Bredal

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
The King v Bredal [2024] HCASL 202
Case
[2024] HCASL 202
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The King, represented by the Commonwealth of Australia, sought special leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales in the case of Bredal. The applicant, Bredal, had originally been sentenced in the District Court of New South Wales and subsequently appealed the sentence, which was dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The High Court of Australia was asked to determine whether special leave should be granted to Bredal to appeal against the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether there was sufficient reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Criminal Appeal's judgment to warrant granting Bredal special leave to appeal. The Court had to consider whether the appeal raised a significant question of law of general public importance or whether there was a substantial miscarriage of justice that warranted further review. The Court also had to assess the likelihood of success of the appeal and the potential impact on the administration of justice if special leave were granted.

The High Court, in its judgment, found that there was insufficient reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Criminal Appeal's judgment. The Court determined that the appeal did not raise a significant question of law of general public importance and that there was no substantial miscarriage of justice that would warrant further review. The Court concluded that the appeal was unlikely to succeed and that granting special leave would not be in the interests of the administration of justice. Consequently, the High Court refused special leave to appeal.

The final orders of the High Court were that special leave to appeal was refused, thereby upholding the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal. The applicant, Bredal, was not granted permission to further appeal the sentence imposed by the District Court of New South Wales.

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.