Nona v The Queen

The case of *Nona v The Queen* concerned an appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory by Dennis Michael Nona against decisions of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The dispute arose from charges of sexual offences against children, where Mr. Nona sought a permanent stay of proceedings due to significant delays in prosecution. The Supreme Court had refused to grant a stay, leading to Mr. Nona's application for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether to grant an extension of time to appeal against the Supreme Court's refusal to grant a stay, and whether to grant leave to appeal against that refusal. Specifically, the court had to consider the principles governing the exercise of discretion in granting extensions of time and leave to appeal, particularly where an appeal against conviction had already commenced. The court also had to assess the Supreme Court's reasoning regarding the common law and the *Human Rights Act 2004* (ACT) in relation to the delay in prosecuting the charges.

The Court of Appeal applied principles of appellate jurisdiction and discretion. It recognised that justice between the parties is paramount and that an appellate court should consider the full range of justiciable issues when an appeal against conviction has already been initiated. The court found that the delay in prosecuting the charges concerning the first complainant was significant and that the Supreme Court had erred in its approach to the *Human Rights Act 2004* (ACT), particularly in its calculation of when Mr. Nona was "charged" for the purposes of s 22(2)(c). The court also considered the Supreme Court's finding that Mr. Nona's rights under s 22(2)(c) had been breached, but that a stay was not automatic.

The Court of Appeal ordered an extension of time for Mr. Nona to apply for leave to appeal against the Supreme Court's decision of 23 March 2012. Leave to appeal was granted in respect of the charges involving the first complainant, but refused in respect of the charges involving the second complainant. The appeal for which leave was granted was ordered to be heard concurrently with another appeal by Mr. Nona.