There seems to be much talk about whether this film is romantic revisionism or relevant social commentary. As far as the actual Ned Kelly is concerned, no one knows the truth. The same could be true for Rob Roy, the Scottish cattle rustler and/or hero, whose life was also made into a movie.
The point I would like to make as far as these discussions/arguments are concerned is this: The actual facts of these individuals lives is really irrelevant to the greater social commentary. In both these individuals cultures there existed injustices that mirrored the ones described in these movies. The police/Marquise may not have unfairly targeted Kelly or Roy specifiably, but they did misuse power and abuse those they were supposed to protect. The lawlessness of some law enforcers is NOT some interesting quirk of the past. ( I myself have seen cops break the law, the D.A. bold faced lie, CPS workers cover incompetence, stupidity and weak egos with lies and see their victims suffer.- I am a CPS worker.) In many areas of the world and even the US, police and political corruption is firmly with us. The poor are more likely to be the victims of such abuse. (I have never seen a rich/middle class person have their children removed without first be found guilty of a crime.) The poor have less legal recourse and less political clout. This is why the social discourse that movies like this invoke is important. It is important for us to examine our own social inequities and decide what type of culture we wish to live in. Looking at the past, even a fictionalized one that tackles the greater truths, is just one way to do this.