Ho v R

The appellant, Ho, appealed against his conviction and sentence in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appeal was against his conviction for two counts of aggravated sexual assault and one count of deprivation of liberty, as well as the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court. The appeal was lodged out of time and required special circumstances to be established for the application for leave to appeal out of time to be granted. The appellant's application for leave to appeal was also dependent on whether there had been an error in the determination of the non-parole period which offended the parity principle.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the appellant had established special circumstances to justify the late filing of his application for leave to appeal, and whether there had been an error in the determination of the non-parole period which offended the parity principle. The court found that the appellant had established special circumstances in that he had been unaware of the need to lodge an application for leave to appeal out of time until he had received legal advice some time after the relevant time period had expired. The court also found that there had been an error in the determination of the non-parole period which offended the parity principle.

The court granted the appellant leave to appeal out of time and leave to appeal. The court found that the error in the determination of the non-parole period was a significant one which warranted the intervention of the Court of Appeal. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, but the court ordered that the appellant's non-parole period be reduced to reflect the correct calculation. The decision provides guidance on the circumstances in which leave to appeal out of time may be granted and the factors which will be taken into account in determining whether the parity principle has been offended.