29 Jun 2021
Application was declined because the applicant in reality sought standby counsel to assist him in presenting his case after legal aid was refused, which is an inappropriate basis for court appointment; appointment as counsel assisting was not justified because the parties were capable of addressing the issues and the matter did not require counsel to assist the court on points of law.
25 Oct 2018
Given the appellant's impecuniosity, the potential for serious prejudice (bankruptcy) and the existence of arguable grounds that could not be excluded at this preliminary stage, the Court reduced but did not dispense with security for costs to $1,000 to preserve access to appeal while protecting the respondent; reduction was justified because the appeal had a non-negligible realistic prospect of success.
10 Oct 2018
Appointment of an amicus was declined because such appointments are exceptional, legal aid had been refused twice, the applicant's statement of claim was clear and focussed showing he could articulate issues, the Crown would provide a full opposing case obviating need for a contradictor, and no novel or complex point of law was identified that required court assistance by independent counsel.
11 Apr 2017
The appeal was dismissed under s 338(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 because the appellant repeatedly and egregiously failed to comply with multiple court directions to file particularised grounds despite ample opportunities and notice, and because the claimed grounds showed no evident merit; the interests of justice did not require preservation of an abandoned, meritless appeal.
26 Jul 2016
The appeal is dismissed as moot because the proposed claim has been materially altered and remains unpleaded; the Court will not direct the Commissioner to consider a new, materially different claim that has not been considered by any decisionmaker and will not issue advisory determinations when no live dispute remains between the parties.
2 May 2014
The recall application was dismissed because the applicant did not demonstrate an adequate basis to recall the earlier leave judgment; leave decisions address statutory leave criteria and do not determine substantive limitation questions absent leave.
8 Jul 2010
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish any arguable basis meeting s13 criteria; the Court of Appeal's findings that the guilty pleas were voluntary, that trial counsel did not improperly pressure the applicant, and that there was no realistic prospect of successful defence were dispositive.
8 Feb 2010
The appeal is dismissed. Although the Panel erred by conducting a merits based review of the Agency's decision, that error did not prejudice the appellant because the Agency's decision to refuse legal aid under s9(4)(e) was within its wide discretion, rationally concluded given Miller J's factual findings on informed consent and the limited role of the contested psychological material, and the prospect of success on appeal was low; expert evidence from an employee was admissible where qualified and relevant and weight, not admissibility, addresses potential bias.
8 May 2009
Waiver of security for costs was refused because the appellant did not establish exceptional circumstances: legal aid had been refused (and reconsideration dismissed), the appellant failed to comply with procedural directions and did not address the merits of the appeal, and the matters asserted were not uncommon or special; accordingly security of $1,600 was ordered to protect the successful respondent and to deter unmeritorious appeals.
24 May 2007
The appellant was not legally aided, had obtained private funding for the appeal and the appeal had little prospect of success (as indicated by the refusal of legal aid); the respondent incurred significant expense resisting a misguided appeal; accordingly costs should follow the event and a global costs award close to solicitor/client level is justified — the appellant ordered to pay $4,000 to the respondent.