Jamieson Andrew Santos v State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case [2017] HCASL 146

JAMIESON ANDREW SANTOS

v.

STATE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS & ORS

[2017] HCASL 146
P11/2017

  1. An extension of time is necessary to allow this application to proceed.  Having regard in particular to this Court's decision in Rizeq v The State of Western Australia [2017] HCA 23, the proposed appeal does not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. The application should be dismissed. In the circumstances, it would be futile to grant an extension of time.

  2. Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

P.A. Keane
22 June 2017 		J.J. Edelman
Details
AGLC
Jamieson Andrew Santos v State Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] HCASL 146
Case
[2017] HCASL 146
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jamieson Andrew Santos sought an extension of time to appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The case involved Santos being found guilty of various drug-related offences. The High Court was required to determine whether Santos' application for an extension of time to appeal should be granted. The legal issues were whether the application had sufficient prospects of success and whether it was in the interests of justice to grant the extension.

The High Court considered the criteria for granting an extension of time to appeal, including the merits of the appeal and the need to prevent an injustice. The Court noted that in a similar case, Rizeq v The State of Western Australia, the appeal did not have sufficient prospects of success to warrant special leave to appeal. The Court held that Santos' proposed appeal did not have sufficient prospects of success to warrant granting an extension of time. The Court also held that it would be futile to grant an extension of time given the circumstances of the case.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the application for an extension of time. The Court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. The Court held that it would be inappropriate to grant an extension of time given the lack of prospects of success of the proposed appeal and the futility of doing so. The Court did not grant Santos an extension of time to appeal against his conviction and sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.