VP v The Queen

VP
v
THE QUEEN
[2021] HCASL 195
S77/2021

The applicant requires an extension of time in which to seek special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (McCallum JA and N Adams J; Campbell J dissenting). In circumstances in which defence counsel accepted that a tactical decision was made not to ask the Crown to call the certain family members as witnesses, the proposed grounds have insufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. It would therefore be futile to grant an extension of time. The application should be dismissed.
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.

M.M. Gordon J.J. Edelman

7 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case were the applicant, VP, and the Crown, represented by The Queen. VP was appealing against a judgment made by the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which consisted of McCallum JA and N Adams J, with Campbell J dissenting. The applicant sought an extension of time in which to seek special leave to appeal from the judgment. The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the proposed grounds for the appeal had sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal and whether it would be futile to grant an extension of time.

The court found that the applicant's proposed grounds for appeal did not have sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. The court reasoned that it would be futile to grant an extension of time, as the applicant's proposed grounds were based on a tactical decision made by defence counsel not to ask the Crown to call certain family members as witnesses. The court held that it would be inappropriate to grant special leave to appeal in these circumstances. Therefore, the application for an extension of time should be dismissed.

The court dismissed the application for an extension of time and directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. This was pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). The judges who delivered the decision were M.M. Gordon and J.J. Edelman, and the decision was made on October 7, 2021. The court found that the applicant's proposed grounds for appeal did not have sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal and that it would be futile to grant an extension of time. The decision is final and binding on the parties involved in the case.

Keep reading for free

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established