Jason David Signal v The Queen

Jason David Signal sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal, which had dismissed his appeal under the Bail Act. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether it had jurisdiction to hear this appeal under section 68 of the Senior Courts Act. The court needed to decide whether the definition of "civil proceeding" in section 65 of the Senior Courts Act, which includes a proceeding under the Bail Act, applied in light of the express provisions in section 43(3) of the Bail Act that there is no right of appeal against the decision of an appeal court in relation to an appeal under section 42 of the Bail Act.

The court examined whether section 68(a) of the Senior Courts Act, which excludes the right of appeal where another enactment provides that there is no right of appeal, applied to proceedings under the Bail Act. It was clear that section 43(3) of the Bail Act expressly precluded any appeal from the Court of Appeal's decision in a bail matter, thus removing the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to hear such an appeal. The court held that there was no basis to assert jurisdiction on the ground that the Court of Appeal's decision contained an error that would vitiate it. The express language of section 43(3) precluded any such exception. The court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal in this case.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal. The court found that section 43(3) of the Bail Act clearly precluded any appeal from the Court of Appeal's decision, thus removing the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to hear such an appeal. The express language of section 43(3) precluded any exception based on an alleged error in the Court of Appeal's decision.