Modra v Police

Modra sought an extension of time to appeal against the sentence imposed by the magistrate on 1 March 1994, and to appeal the sentence itself. The applicant was charged with six counts of breaking and entering a building and committing an offence to which the repealed s 170 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 applied, namely, theft, and one count of breaking and entering a building intending to commit an offence to which the said section applied, namely, theft. The applicant was also asked the magistrate to take into account 19 other offences of breaking and entering at sentencing, which were not the subject of charges. The magistrate imposed a sentence of 6 years imprisonment, to be served cumulatively on an existing sentence that the applicant was serving of 16 years, 8 months and 15 days. The magistrate extended the existing non-parole period by a period of 18 months.

The legal issues to be decided were whether the time for the institution of the appeal should be extended, and if so, whether the appeal should be allowed. The court considered the principles governing applications for an extension of time, and whether the applicant had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in instituting the appeal. The court also considered whether there was a risk of a miscarriage of justice if the extension of time was not granted, and whether the appeal would be dismissed on the merits if the extension of time was granted.

The court held that the applicant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in instituting the appeal, and that the appeal was out of time by a very substantial period. The court held that even if the extension of time was granted, the appeal would be dismissed on the merits. The court held that there was no risk of a miscarriage of justice if the extension of time was not granted. The court held that the application for an extension of time was dismissed.

The court dismissed the application for an extension of time to institute the appeal.