Purcell v The Director of Public Prosecutions [2021] NSWCA 269

Purcell v The Director of Public Prosecutions [2021] NSWCA 269

The District Court wrongly concluded that the applicant's application for leave to appeal was outside the three month period in s 13(2) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001. The application was received on 3 December 2020, and because the conviction and sentence date of 3 September 2020 was excluded under s 36(1) of the Interpretation Act 1987, the application was within time. The District Court thereby mistakenly denied the existence of its jurisdiction. Assuming any materiality threshold applied, it was satisfied because the application for leave could realistically have been granted in the interests of justice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 / Court of Appeal Determination of Amended Summons Seeking Relief From District Court Decision and Extension of Time
Outcome
Relief granted; time extended; District Court judgment and orders set aside; matter remitted to the District Court to determine the application for leave to appeal according to law; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['district Court Conviction and Sentence Appeal From Local Court' 'time Limits for Applications for Leave to Appeal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'materiality' 'extension of Time']
['judicial Review' 'criminal Procedure' 'appeals'] ['district Court Conviction and Sentence Appeal From Local Court' 'time Limits for Applications for Leave to Appeal' 'jurisdictional Error' 'materiality' 'extension of Time']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under S 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 / Court of Appeal Determination of Amended Summons Seeking Relief From District Court Decision and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time should be granted for commencement of the Court of Appeal proceedings.' 'Whether the District Court erred in determining that the application for leave to appeal was not made within 3 months after the relevant conviction or sentence.' 'Whether any error by the District Court was jurisdictional.' 'Whether a further threshold of materiality had to be satisfied before jurisdictional error was established.']

Ratio Decidendi

The District Court wrongly concluded that the applicant's application for leave to appeal was outside the three month period in s 13(2) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001. The application was received on 3 December 2020, and because the conviction and sentence date of 3 September 2020 was excluded under s 36(1) of the Interpretation Act 1987, the application was within time. The District Court thereby mistakenly denied the existence of its jurisdiction. Assuming any materiality threshold applied, it was satisfied because the application for leave could realistically have been granted in the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

Relief granted; time extended; District Court judgment and orders set aside; matter remitted to the District Court to determine the application for leave to appeal according to law; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rule r 59.10(2), extend the time for the applicant to file the summons in this proceeding up to and including 11 June 2021;' 'Pursuant to s 69 of the Supreme Court Act 1970, the judgment and orders of the District Court in the matter of Isaac Fred Purcell v R (2017/256380) be...