Kelly v Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT)

The applicant, Kelly, sought leave to appeal against a conviction and sentence handed down by the Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT). The appeal was lodged significantly out of time, prompting the court to consider whether an extension of time should be granted.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant an extension of time for Kelly to lodge an appeal against his conviction and sentence. This required the court to assess the applicant's explanation for the substantial delay and to determine if the proposed grounds of appeal were "strongly arguable" enough to justify departing from the usual time limits. The grounds of appeal themselves, including the retirement of a juror, the multiplicity of charges, the assertion that the verdict was unsafe and unsound, and the claim that the sentence was manifestly excessive, were relevant to this assessment.

Refshauge ACJ applied the principle that a strongly arguable case is a prerequisite for granting an extension of time for an out-of-time appeal, particularly where there has been a substantial delay. The court considered the reasons provided for the delay and found them insufficient to warrant an extension. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.