Zanon v The State of Western Australia

MARC QUAID
v
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
P33/2016
ROBERTO ZANON
v
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
P52/2016; P53/2016
[2016] HCASL 347

Were special leave to be granted in application P33/2016, there are insufficient prospects that the appeal would succeed. The applicant in P52/2016 and P53/2016 requires an extension of time in which to apply for special leave. There is no utility in an order dispensing with the time limit in either application. Application P52/2016 raises the same issue as P33/2016 and is subject to the same assessment. Application P53/2016 does not raise any point of sentencing principle of general application suitable for the grant of special leave. Special leave should be refused in each application.
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 applications.

V.M. Bell

14 December 2016

G.A.A. Nettle

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the applicants, Marc Quaid and Roberto Zanon, sought special leave to appeal against their convictions and sentences imposed by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The applicants were convicted of various offences related to drug trafficking and money laundering. The applicants argued that the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the evidence, and that the sentences imposed were excessive. The applications for special leave were heard by the Full Court of the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicants had established that there were sufficient prospects of success on appeal, and whether there were any grounds for granting an extension of time to apply for special leave. The court also considered whether there were any points of sentencing principle of general application that warranted the grant of special leave. The court noted that the applicants' arguments were largely based on the re-evaluation of the evidence and the assessment of the trial judge's decision, which was not an appropriate ground for the grant of special leave.

The court found that there were insufficient prospects that the appeal would succeed, as the applicants' arguments were largely based on the re-evaluation of the evidence and the assessment of the trial judge's decision. The court also found that there was no utility in granting an extension of time to apply for special leave, as the applications were not made within a reasonable time after the conviction or sentence. The court further found that the applicants had not established any point of sentencing principle of general application that warranted the grant of special leave.

Accordingly, the court refused special leave in each application and directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the applications. The applicants' convictions and sentences therefore stand affirmed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established