12 May 2011
Leave to appeal was granted because the legal question whether the appellant's conviction can stand after the quashing of a joint co‑accused's conviction and that co‑accused's discharge under s 347 raises a matter of sufficient importance and requires determination by the Court.
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.
18 Dec 2007
Even if Judge Sharp's admissibility ruling under s 125(1) may have been open to challenge, the High Court refused to exercise its s 4(1) discretionary jurisdiction because the prosecutor had alternative remedies (s 344A at depositions and s 380 reservation) that were not used, the alleged perjury was peripheral to the protection order issue, the plaintiff was not an impartial private prosecutor, and revisiting the s 347(3) discharge would be inappropriate and unfair to the accused; therefore the judicial review application was dismissed.
21 Mar 2007
On a de novo assessment applying the two-stage test in R v The Queen and related authorities, the High Court found that specific prejudice arose from a long unexplained delay, the loss/unavailability of contemporaneous police, medical and counselling records and witnesses, and the accused's drug-related memory impairment; those factors together jeopardised the second respondent's right to a fair trial and justified a stay and discharge under s 347 of the Crimes Act 1961, so the application for judicial review was refused and the discharge upheld.