Clancy v Director of Public Prosecutions [2018] NSWCA 102

Clancy v Director of Public Prosecutions [2018] NSWCA 102

The Court refused the extension of time because the case for reviewing the refusal to state a case under s 5B was not reasonably arguable; the draft stated case failed to identify a bona fide question of law, and arguments advanced disclosed no legal error. Without merit, no basis existed to consider extending time, regardless of the explanation offered for delay.

Parties
Applicant: James Martin Clancy; First Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW); Second Respondent: District Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal Court of Appeal (nsw)
Outcome
Application to extend time refused; amended summons for judicial review dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the Director's costs.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Extension of Time, State Case Procedure, Appeals From Local Court, Criminal Appeal Act S 5 B, Uniform Civil Procedure Rules R 59.10
Civil Procedure Criminal Procedure Judicial Review Extension of Time State Case Procedure Appeals From Local Court Criminal Appeal Act S 5 B Uniform Civil Procedure Rules R 59.10

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Martin Clancy

Applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)

First Respondent

District Court of New South Wales

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal Court of Appeal (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an application to extend time for judicial review should be granted when proceedings are significantly out of time
  2. 2 Whether the proceeding had reasonable prospects of success
  3. 3 Whether there was an adequate explanation for the delay

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused the extension of time because the case for reviewing the refusal to state a case under s 5B was not reasonably arguable; the draft stated case failed to identify a bona fide question of law, and arguments advanced disclosed no legal error. Without merit, no basis existed to consider extending time, regardless of the explanation offered for delay.

Court Disposition

Application to extend time refused; amended summons for judicial review dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the Director's costs.

Orders

  • Refuse the application to extend the time for commencing the proceedings.
  • Dismiss the amended summons for judicial review.