A routine application of the R v Tait framework for extension of time applications, confirming that where the proposed appeal has no viable grounds, it is not in the interests of justice to extend time. A notice under s 124(4) of the TORUM Act that does not challenge the accuracy of the speed detection device or the time at or way in which it was used does not comply with s 124(5) and is invalid.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.