Gould v R [2023] NSWCCA 103

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Gould v R [2023] NSWCCA 103 Hearing dates: 22–24 November 2022 Date of orders: 10 May 2023 Decision date: 10 May 2023 Before: Bell CJ at [1]; Rothman J at [148]; Garling J at [164] Decision: An extension of time within which to file the application for leave to appeal is refused. Catchwords: APPEALS – leave to appeal – principles governing – second application for leave to appeal – where applicant had previously been refused leave to appeal against conviction in the Court of Criminal Appeal pursuant to r 4.15 of the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW) after a hearing on the merits – where applicant sought to bring a second application for leave to appeal, notwithstanding that there had been no change in circumstances other than appointment of new lawyers – whether prior refusal of leave to appeal created a jurisdictional bar precluding the Court of Criminal Appeal from entertaining a second application for leave to appeal – whether extension of time should be granted to bring the second application for leave to appeal APPEALS – procedure – time limits – extension of time – relevant considerations – finality – second application for leave to appeal – where applicant had previously been refused leave to appeal against conviction in the Court of Criminal Appeal pursuant to r 4.15 of the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW) – where applicant sought to bring a second application for leave to appeal, notwithstanding that there had been no material change in circumstances – whether extension of time should be granted to bring the second application for leave to appeal – prior refusal of leave to appeal a powerful factor weighing against the grant of leave CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – extension of time in which to appeal – relevant considerations – finality – second application for leave to appeal – where applicant had previously been refused leave to appeal against conviction in the Court of Criminal Appeal pursuant to r 4.15 of the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW) – where applicant sought to bring a second application for leave to appeal, notwithstanding that there had been no change in circumstances – whether extension of time should be granted to bring the second application for leave to appeal – prior refusal of leave to appeal a powerful factor weighing against the grant of leave CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – incompetence of counsel – where applicant had previously been refused leave to appeal against conviction in the Court of Criminal Appeal after a hearing on the merits – where applicant sought to bring a second application for leave to appeal – applicant alleged (among other things) that counsel were incompetent both at the trial and the first application for leave to appeal – allegations of incompetence of counsel were not raised in grounds of appeal or written submissions – no incompetence of counsel demonstrated – extension of time to bring the second application for leave to appeal refused Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 11 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) s 79(1)(b), Pt 7 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 43 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 5(1)(b), 10(1)(b) Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) s 279, Pt 6.3 Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW) rr 3.5(1)(b), 4, 4.15 Cases Cited: Abdul v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 247 Abusafiah v R (1991) 24 NSWLR 531; (1991) 56 A Crim R 424 Alkhair v R (2016) 255 A Crim R 419; [2016] NSWCCA 4 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden [1999] NSWCA 313 AP v R [2013] NSWCCA 189 Applicant NAFF of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 221 CLR 1; [2004] HCA 62 Association of Architects; ex parte Municipal Officers Association (1989) 63 ALJR 298; [1989] HCA 13 Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) (1993) 176 CLR 300; [1993] HCA 6 Brimaud v Honeysett Instant Print Pty Ltd (1988) 217 ALR 44 Brown v R (2018) 99 NSWLR 151; [2018] NSWCCA 257 Burrell v The Queen (2008) 238 CLR 218; [2008] HCA 34 Crampton v The Queen (2000) 206 CLR 161; [2000] HCA 60 Darwiche v R; El-Zeyat v R; Aouad v R; Osman v R (2011) 209 A Crim R 424; [2011] NSWCCA 62 Dickson v R (No 2) [2018] NSWCCA 183 DJL v Central Authority (2000) 201 CLR 226; [2000] HCA 17 D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1; [2005] HCA 12 Dow Jones v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575; [2002] HCA 56 El-Jalk, Antoine v R [2009] NSWCCA 139 Elliott v The Queen (2007) 234 CLR 38; [2007] HCA 51 Fingleton v The Queen (2005) 227 CLR 166; [2005] HCA 34 Gallo v Dawson (1990) 64 ALJR 458; [1990] HCA 30 Germakian v R (2007) 70 NSWLR 467; [2007] NSWCCA 373 Greenhalgh v R [2017] NSWCCA 94 Grierson v The King (1938) 60 CLR 431; [1938] HCA 45 Ilioski v R [2006] NSWCCA 164 Jackamarra v Krakouer (1998) 195 CLR 516; [1998] HCA 27 Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37 Laurence v Gunner (No 3) [2016] NSWCA 18 Lowe v The Queen (2015) 249 A Crim R 362; [2015] NSWCCA 46 Lowe v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 141 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63 Matta v The Queen (1995) 126 FLR 127 McPhillamy v R [2017] NSWCCA 130 Mesterovic v R [2016] NSWCCA 140 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj (2002) 209 CLR 597; [2002] HCA 11 Misrachi v Public Guardian [2019] NSWCA 67 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 Nguyen v R (2017) 264 A Crim R 405; [2017] NSWCCA 4 Nudd v The Queen (2006) 162 A Crim R 301; [2006] HCA 9 Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221 Osman v R (2011) 209 A Crim R 424; [2011] NSWCCA 62 Pantorno v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 466; [1989] HCA 18 Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297; [1999] HCA 37 Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12 Pemble v R (1971) 124 CLR 107; [1971] HCA 20 Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589; [1981] HCA 45 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26 Prestney v Corporation of Tolchester (1883) 24 Ch D 376 R v Ali [2008] QCA 39 R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677; (1990) 48 A Crim R 385 R v Condon (1995) 83 A Crim R 335 R v Edwards [No 2] (1931) SASR 376 R v Fuge [2001] NSWCCA 208 R v GAM (No 2) (2004) 9 VR 640; [2004] VSCA 117 R v Gopurenko [2017] QCA 242 R v Grierson (1933) 50 WN (NSW) 71 R v Lumley [2008] QCA 155 R v Lumley [2009] QCA 172 R v MAM [2005] QCA 323 R v McNamara (No 2) [1997] 1 VR 257; (1996) 86 A Crim R 339 R v Nudd [2007] QCA 40 R v Parenzee (2008) 101 SASR 469; [2008] SASC 245 R v Reardon (2004) 60 NSWLR 454; [2004] NSWCCA 197 R v Saxon (1998) 101 A Crim R 71 R v Tripodina (1988) 35 A Crim R 183 R v Upson (No 2) (2013) 229 A Crim R 275; [2013] QCA 149 R v Upson [2013] QCA 76 R v Williams [2016] QCA 204 R v Young [1999] NSWCCA 275 Re Australian Bank Employees Union ex parte Citicorp Australia Ltd (1989) 167 CLR 513; [1989] HCA 41 Re Jarman; ex parte Cook (1997) 188 CLR 595; [1997] HCA 13 Renshaw v New South Wales Lotteries Corporation Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 41 Sanderson (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 18 July 1994, unrep) Seiler v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 48 FCR 83; [1994] FCA 878 Sinkovich v R [2014] NSWCCA 97 Sullivan v Department of Transport (1978) 20 ALR 323; [1978] FCA 48 The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35 TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2002] HCA 46 Tomko v Palasty (No 2) (2007) 71 NSWLR 61; [2007] NSWCA 369 Tsiakas v R [2015] NSWCCA 187 Tu'uta Katoa v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2022) 96 ALJR 819; [2022] HCA 28 Visser v The King [2023] VSCA 10 Wilkshire and Coffey v The Commonwealth of Australia (1976) 9 ALR 325 Wong v R [2009] NSWCCA 101 Xie v R (2021) 386 ALR 371; [2021] NSWCCA 1 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Vanda Russell Gould (Applicant) Rex (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: