22 Mar 2023
Leave to withdraw the notice of abandonment was refused because the abandonment was a deliberate and informed decision after thorough legal advice, no exceptional interests of justice were shown to justify setting it aside, and the unexplained three year delay undermined the application.
30 Aug 2022
All statutory prerequisites of s338 were satisfied (failure to prosecute, adequate notice, failure to rectify) and the Court, exercising its discretion in light of the appellant's inaction over almost two years and the public and victims' interest in finality, properly dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence.
29 Jul 2022
The application for recall is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate a very special reason or substantial injustice; the application merely re-argued matters resolved at trial or on appeal or raised points not pursued previously and would not have altered the outcome; the principle of finality therefore precludes recall.
9 Aug 2019
Brewer J was correct to direct the Registrar not to accept the documents for filing because the material was unintelligible, did not comply with filing requirements, and—importantly—advanced substantially the same 'dual identity' grounds previously rejected, so ss 14(1A) and 15(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 permitted refusal without further rehearing; consequently the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed that habeas corpus was not the appropriate vehicle for the identity claims.
8 Jul 2019
The applications to recall were dismissed because nothing new was put forward that would justify recalling the leave judgments; the matters raised merely re-argued points already considered by the Court, so there are no grounds for recall.
3 Dec 2014
The Court dismissed the further application for recall and refused to entertain a further rehearing because the appeal had already been concluded and prior applications for recall had been dismissed, rendering the matter at an end.
5 Dec 2008
The Court refused leave to admit the Clyde & Co affidavit because the evidence did not meet r 45 requirements (not shown to be fresh as it could have been obtained with reasonable diligence) and exceptional circumstances were not established; the second Erceg affidavit is included in the appeal record but not admitted at this stage; the Harper affidavit (court events witness) is admitted; the Registrar is directed to request an associate judge's report under r 46. Finality of summary judgment and strict timetable adherence governed the decision.
15 Feb 2007
The application was dismissed because s15(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 bars a further habeas corpus application that requires re-examination of substantially the same questions previously considered; the Family Court had reconsidered the child's status and provided opportunities to be heard, so habeas corpus is not the correct vehicle for these complaints.
24 May 2006
The appellant voluntarily abandoned the appeal after consultation with her solicitor; the evidence does not establish the withdrawal was a nullity or that the solicitor's advice was inadequate such that the Court should reinstate the appeal; accordingly the application to reinstate is refused (no order as to costs).
4 Apr 2006
The Court will not reinstate an appeal voluntarily withdrawn unless the withdrawal was not intended or there is manifest injustice; on the evidence the withdrawal was voluntary and informed, so the application to reinstate must be dismissed and the appeal remains withdrawn.