26 Jun 2023
The extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is dismissed because the proposed appeal has no arguable merit: the Court of Appeal addressed the alleged trial errors and found no miscarriage of justice, the jury verdict was not shown to be unreasonable, and the leave statutory criteria of public importance or real risk of miscarriage of justice are not met.
9 Mar 2020
The application for recall was declined because the Lyon v R test was not met: there was no fundamental procedural error, no substantial miscarriage of justice established, the appellant failed to provide supporting medical evidence and alternative remedies existed (including seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court).
26 Feb 2020
The applicant is detained under a valid warrant issued pursuant to s168(4) Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and has not challenged the warrant's validity; therefore habeas corpus is not available, interim release is inappropriate because bail would not be granted, and the applicant must pursue his appeal; application dismissed.
29 Apr 2019
The application for a writ of habeas corpus is declined because the applicant is lawfully detained pursuant to valid convictions and sentence and habeas corpus is not the appropriate procedure to challenge those convictions under s14 of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001.
17 Apr 2018
Leave to appeal dismissed because the applicant's arguments merely repeated the Court of Appeal's arguments, raised no point of general or public importance and did not demonstrate a miscarriage of justice.
21 Dec 2017
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal was fact‑specific, the Court of Appeal had carefully analysed the facts and applied the correct legal test under s 200(2)(a), and no matter of general or public importance or miscarriage of justice was shown; prior suppression orders were varied only to permit publication of the mere fact that the pre‑trial challenge involved medical records and privilege.
25 Oct 2016
The appeal on the receiving conviction is dismissed because the Judge did not err in concluding the appellant was reckless as to whether the vehicle was stolen based on the totality of evidence; the appeal on the offensive weapon conviction is allowed because the sole significant evidence (location of the hatchet) was insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to use it to cause bodily injury, creating a miscarriage of justice, and the offensive weapon conviction is set aside; the six month sentence for the receiving conviction stands.
8 Jun 2015
The application for bail was dismissed because the appellant failed to demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that exceptional circumstances exist; the asserted grounds of appeal were not shown to be sufficiently meritorious on the material before the Court and there was no established appreciable delay such that continued detention would be unjust.
18 Sept 2014
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant did not raise any question of law of general or public importance nor demonstrate a substantial miscarriage of justice; the Court of Appeal had carefully considered the circumstantial evidence and the applicant's complaints and there is no basis for a further appeal to this Court.
24 Oct 2013
The Court refused leave because the Court of Appeal correctly concluded the evidence overwhelmingly supported inference that the applicant directed and was aware of the offending operations; any error in admitting a prior statement was harmless given corroborating witness evidence; RMA liability extends to discharges that may enter water; no matter of general principle or substantial miscarriage of justice arose.