A conviction obtained upon a misconception of the law, as later corrected by an authoritative judgment, does not of itself entitle the convicted person to an extension of time to appeal. The applicant must demonstrate that the interests of justice favour the extension having regard to all relevant considerations, including the principle of finality, prejudice to the applicant, absence of prejudice to the respondent, and any conflict between the subsisting conviction and the later authoritative judgment. The question whether the English 'substantial injustice' threshold applies in Australia remains open.
The full text is available to signed-in members.