Kolalich v The Director of Public Prosecutions (New South Wales)
Case
•
[1991] HCATrans 198
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Kolalich v The Director of Public Prosecutions (New South Wales) [1991] HCATrans 198
[1991] HCATrans 198
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerns an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia by Mr Kolalich against a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The Director of Public Prosecutions (New South Wales) was the respondent. The dispute arose from an ex officio indictment for murder found against Mr Kolalich, following committal proceedings. Mr Kolalich had initially been successful in obtaining a stay order in respect of this indictment from Mr Justice Sully. However, the Director of Public Prosecutions appealed this decision to the Court of Criminal Appeal, which overturned Mr Justice Sully's order. The present application to the High Court was made out of time, and Mr Kolalich sought an enlargement of time within which to file the application.
The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether to grant leave to appeal and, consequently, whether to enlarge the time for the application to be heard. The applicant sought to rely on an explanation for the delay in filing the application, as detailed in the affidavit of his instructing solicitor, Mr Bellamy. The respondent indicated that it would oppose the substance of the application rather than the procedural aspect of the time delay.
The court was presented with an outline of submissions and an affidavit detailing the chronology of events. The applicant's legal representatives highlighted specific paragraphs within Mr Bellamy's affidavit that explained the delay, asserting that it was not occasioned by the solicitor or his client. The court indicated its willingness to proceed with the hearing of the application, despite the applicant being out of time, and invited the applicant's counsel to present their arguments.
The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether to grant leave to appeal and, consequently, whether to enlarge the time for the application to be heard. The applicant sought to rely on an explanation for the delay in filing the application, as detailed in the affidavit of his instructing solicitor, Mr Bellamy. The respondent indicated that it would oppose the substance of the application rather than the procedural aspect of the time delay.
The court was presented with an outline of submissions and an affidavit detailing the chronology of events. The applicant's legal representatives highlighted specific paragraphs within Mr Bellamy's affidavit that explained the delay, asserting that it was not occasioned by the solicitor or his client. The court indicated its willingness to proceed with the hearing of the application, despite the applicant being out of time, and invited the applicant's counsel to present their arguments.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Stay of Proceedings
-
Charge
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
0
Mei Ying Su v Australian Fisheries Management Authority (No 2)
[2008] FCA 1485