20 May 2021
Leave was declined because the applicant did not meet the high threshold for a second appeal: the failure to apply Moses was not, by itself, an error and the substituted sentence was not shown to be manifestly excessive; retrospective application issues were addressed in existing authority and no matter of general or public importance or real risk of miscarriage of justice was established.
22 Sept 2020
Leave to bring a second appeal was refused because the proposed appeal raised only factual issues of no public general importance, related to a modest judgment sum, and therefore did not meet the threshold under s 60 and governing authorities to justify further appeal.
3 Sept 2020
The High Court erred in discounting media and social media harms as not qualifying as 'hardship' when it had expressly found those harms to be severe; all identified harms must be considered cumulatively and, on the facts here — including the uniqueness of the appellant's name, the intense political and media context and the distinctive risks posed by social media and cancel culture to a young person — publication would cause extreme hardship under s 200(2)(a) CPA, and suppression should be granted; leave to appeal was therefore granted and the appeal allowed.
26 Feb 2020
The application for recall is declined because the asserted errors relate to the trial rather than a fundamental procedural error in the appeal process, the applicant did not establish a substantial miscarriage of justice, and alternative remedies are available; accordingly the recall criteria are not met.
26 Jun 2018
Leave to bring a second appeal was declined because the District Court Judge's totality reduction cured the arithmetical error, the sentence of 26 months was the appropriate outcome the Judge intended, and there was no miscarriage of justice or public importance warranting a second appeal.
8 Sept 2016
Applications for an extension of time and for leave to bring a second appeal were declined because the delay would prejudice respondents, the chattels second appeal did not meet the threshold for a second appeal, and the other proposed grounds of appeal lacked prospect of success such that allowing further appeal would not be in the interests of justice.