Johnson, Malcolm Keith v Holmes, Ralph Murray & Ors [1998] FCA 1482

Johnson, Malcolm Keith v Holmes, Ralph Murray & Ors [1998] FCA 1482

The applicant failed to demonstrate any appellable error in the exercise of discretion by the primary judge, and principles against fragmenting the criminal process and the absence of exceptional circumstances support refusal to extend time for the appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'reasonable Time' 'judicial Discretion' 'fragmentation of Criminal Process' 'adjr Jurisdiction']
['criminal Law' 'administrative Law'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'reasonable Time' 'judicial Discretion' 'fragmentation of Criminal Process' 'adjr Jurisdiction']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in dismissing the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) application on the ground it had not been made within a reasonable time' 'Whether there was appellable error in the exercise of discretion by the primary judge' 'Whether fragmentation of the criminal process militates against granting an extension of time']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate any appellable error in the exercise of discretion by the primary judge, and principles against fragmenting the criminal process and the absence of exceptional circumstances support refusal to extend time for the appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of O'Loughlin J on 16 October 1997 be dismissed." "The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the application."]