Kumar v The Queen

Kumar was charged with multiple sexual offences committed against disabled persons within supported care accommodation. The appeal was brought against his conviction and sentence. The primary judge dismissed Kumar’s application to appeal against his conviction and sentence, and Kumar sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the primary judge’s decision. Kumar sought an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal, claiming that the delay in filing the Notice was not attributable to him and that there was a arguable appeal against conviction. The Court of Appeal considered Kumar’s application for an extension of time, and the legal issues were whether the delay was excusable and whether there was an arguable appeal against conviction.

The Court of Appeal held that Kumar’s application for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal was dismissed. The Court held that the delay in filing the Notice was not excusable, and that Kumar had not shown that there was an arguable appeal against conviction. The Court noted that Kumar had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the Notice of Appeal, and that the delay was significant. The Court also held that Kumar had not shown that there was an arguable appeal against conviction, as the primary judge had considered all the evidence and had made findings of fact that were open to him on the evidence.

The Court of Appeal held that the application for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal was dismissed, and that Kumar’s appeal against conviction and sentence was therefore precluded. The Court noted that the primary judge had considered all the evidence and had made findings of fact that were open to him on the evidence. The Court held that Kumar had not shown that there was an arguable appeal against conviction, and that the delay in filing the Notice of Appeal was not excusable. The Court held that the primary judge’s decision was correct, and that there was no error shown.