29 Sept 2023
Leave to bring a second appeal was granted because the relevance and weight of CPA 2016 registration as a factor in sentencing is unsettled in this Court, the facts present a suitable vehicle to consider the issue, and the High Court did not expressly address the matter.
25 Aug 2023
The application for recall was declined because the applicant did not identify any special reason to justify recall, the proposed second appeal did not raise a matter of general or public importance, and there was no identified risk of miscarriage of justice; recall jurisdiction does not permit re‑litigation of the merits.
6 Apr 2023
Leave to bring a second appeal was declined because the proposed appeal raised a factual issue specific to the circumstances (whether the 6.24 pm text fell within the parenting order exception), the 6.24 pm text did not mention the children and was not within the exception, the matter did not raise a question of general or public importance, and there was no demonstrated risk of miscarriage of justice requiring a second appeal.
21 Oct 2022
The court found that the wording of cl 7.9 is clear and the word 'unless' creates express exceptions; because the appellant's vehicle had no rear seats the literal meaning operated to provide a defence, leave for a second appeal was granted as the issue raised matters of public importance, and the conviction and fine were set aside.
22 Apr 2021
Leave to bring a second appeal was granted because there was a real risk of miscarriage of justice: the applicant raised a plausible case that the starting point may have been manifestly excessive and that the discount for mental health may not have been correctly calibrated, warranting appellate examination.
7 Oct 2019
The High Court held the District Court did not err in characterising the offending as moderately serious or in assessing culpability and consequences; the proffered expert affidavit was admitted only as generic context but was not fresh or decisive enough to show a miscarriage of justice, therefore leave to bring a second appeal was refused.
5 Dec 2017
Extension of time to file the application for leave was granted because delay was explained and respondent suffered no prejudice; leave to bring a second appeal was declined because the application did not raise any matter of general or public importance and did not demonstrate that a miscarriage of justice had occurred or was likely to occur — trial counsel was competent and the trial judge's credibility and factual findings were open on the evidence, and the District Court and High Court were entitled to decline a discharge without conviction.
13 Dec 2016
Leave to bring a second appeal was declined because s 100(3) unambiguously requires the disqualification order to have been in force for at least one year and one day measured from when it takes effect; backdating the start date under s 85 cannot alter that requirement, and the proposed appeal did not raise a matter of general or public importance nor a miscarriage of justice.