North Melbourne great Glenn Archer received bad legal advice from his former lawyer, a court has been told, and will appeal his conviction for assaulting a runner during a junior football game.
In September, Mr Archer was convicted and fined $2000 after pleading guilty to unlawfully assaulting the runner during a game at Heidelberg, when the former Kangaroos star was watching his son play.
The two-time AFL premiership star told the County Court on Tuesday he was never told he could appeal against the conviction.
After hearing of the confusion Mr Archer encountered in his dealings with various lawyers, judge Paul Grant found in the former footballer's favour and set a three-day hearing for March, when he will plead not guilty to the charge.
The assault allegedly occurred when Mr Archer argued with a boundary umpire when a fight started between two players, and was asked to leave the field by the runner.
Police allege the 44-year-old struck the runner to the side of the head and broke the man's glasses.
The conviction and fine annoyed Mr Archer, as he had expected to be ordered to pay only for the cost of the man's glasses when he pleaded guilty at Heidelberg Magistrates Court.
On the day of the hearing, he complained to magistrate Catherine Lambie: "Am I allowed to defend myself? You haven't heard the full story. Are we allowed to appeal this?"
Later that day he told media it was "crazy" he could be judged on the "3 per cent of the story" the police prosecutor read to court.
Mr Archer asked his lawyer Andrew Harris to appeal but, the court heard on Tuesday, the ex-player thought his only option was a challenge against the sentence, as he didn't know he could appeal against the conviction.
By the time he learned he could challenge the conviction, more than a month had passed since the initial hearing and he had run out of time to appeal. He now has new lawyers.
"It was put to me to take the easy road," Mr Archer said of the advice Mr Harris gave.
"I thought I was walking into a slap on the wrist and would have to pay for the guy's glasses ... the way it [the police prosecutor's summary] was read out made me sound horrible."
Mr Archer conceded he should have paid closer attention to the brief of evidence against him before he faced the magistrate, and "should have learnt" from a 1999 court appearance, when he was convicted of unlawful assault.
But he said Mr Harris never explained he could plead not guilty on appeal or that there was a four-week window in which to lodge an appeal.
Sam Norton, now acting for Mr Archer, said it was in the interests of justice that the former footballer be allowed to have his case re-heard, and that exceptional circumstances prevented the appeal being lodged in time.
But prosecutor Andrew Halse said Mr Archer was legally represented all the way through.
"Having a bad lawyer doesn't necessarily found a ground of appeal," Mr Halse said.
Judge Grant said it would be unfair to deny Mr Archer his right to plead not guilty and contest the charge. Next year's case could feature up to 12 witnesses.
The court heard a judge had the right to impose a higher sentence if Mr Archer lost his case on appeal.
