R v Kelly Summary | CaseChat AU

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
KEANE JA
CHESTERMAN J

CA No 175 of 2005

THE QUEEN

ROBIN WILLIAM KELLY Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 12/04/2006

JUDGMENT

MR P MURPHY (of Patrick Murphy) for the appellant

MR C W HEATON (instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland)) for the respondent

THE PRESIDENT: This appeal was lodged in October last year. It has a long history of adjournments which are set out in the order granting the adjournment on 1 February 2006. I will not repeat that history here. The applicant on that occasion was told that he could not expect any further successful adjournment of that appeal unless there were some quite exceptional reasons. Mr Murphy appears for him today asking for a further adjournment.

It seems that he has now been able through a third party to place Mr Murphy in funds and Mr Murphy intends to brief an experienced appellate counsel to conduct his appeal if the adjournment is granted. Mr Murphy is not in a position to conduct the appeal today because of matters raised by the appellant in respect of the conduct of counsel and other matters. The appellant has served in full the term of imprisonment imposed on him. He is presently paying off his fine through SPER despite his recent bankruptcy.

In circumstances where he has successfully been able to raise funds to brief counsel, and Mr Heaton for the respondent does not oppose the adjournment, it seems to me that the interests of justice would best be served by granting one further adjournment of this appeal. I would, however, point out that the chances of any further adjournment being granted are even slighter on this occasion than on 1 February 2006 when the Court last dealt with the matter. I would be inclined to grant the adjournment and order that the appellant follow all directions given by the Deputy Registrar (Appeals) in preparing the matter for hearing.

KEANE JA: I agree.

CHESTERMAN J: I agree.

THE PRESIDENT: That is the order of the Court.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal, comprising McKean P, Keane JA, and Chesterman J, delivered its judgment on the 12th of April 2006 in the case of R v Kelly. The appellant, Robin William Kelly, was appealing his conviction and sentence. The case arose from the appellant's previous conviction and sentence for various criminal offences, which he sought to challenge on appeal.

The legal issues before the court included the validity of the appellant's appeal, the sufficiency of the reasons provided for a further adjournment, and the overall interests of justice in granting an adjournment. The court had to consider the appellant's financial situation, the availability of new counsel, and the potential impact of a further adjournment on the judicial process.

The court granted the appellant's application for a further adjournment of his appeal, recognising that he had been able to raise the necessary funds to engage experienced appellate counsel. The court emphasised that the chances of any further adjournment being granted were slim and that the appellant must adhere to the directions provided by the Deputy Registrar (Appeals) in preparing the matter for hearing. All judges concurred on the decision to grant the adjournment, highlighting the importance of ensuring the appellant's right to a fair appeal while balancing the interests of justice.

R v Kelly

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established