R v Kelly (No 2)

The appellant, Ian William Kelly, applied to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to correct his sentence. The Court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was contrary to law and whether it could be amended under the slip rule. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

The primary legal issue was whether the sentence was contrary to law and if the slip rule could be applied to amend the sentence. The appellant argued that the sentence was contrary to law as it included an incorrect date and an incorrect calculation of the cumulative sentence. The Crown argued that the sentence was not contrary to law and that the slip rule could not be applied to correct the sentence.

The Court held that the sentence was not contrary to law as it did not affect the overall sentence imposed. However, the Court found that the slip rule could be applied to correct the sentence as the errors did not affect the overall sentence imposed. The Court amended the sentence by correcting the date and the calculation of the cumulative sentence. The Court also amended the reasons for the sentence to reflect the correct calculation.

The Court ordered that Ian William Kelly be excused from attendance at the hearing. The Court also amended the sentence by omitting the incorrect date and substituting the correct date. The Court further amended the reasons for the sentence to reflect the correct calculation of the cumulative sentence.