GAR v R [2021] NSWCCA 265

GAR v R [2021] NSWCCA 265

The interests of justice did not require an extension of time for the manifest excess ground because no satisfactory explanation was given for the 17-year delay, the applicant had previously abandoned a sentence appeal, and the sentence, although stern, was justified by the objective seriousness and the applicant's subjective circumstances. Time and leave were granted for the cirrhosis and COVID-19 grounds because those matters arose only later, but the appeal failed: the applicant did not establish that cirrhosis was caused by a condition existing at sentencing, the condition was being managed in custody and was not sufficiently burdensome to warrant intervention, and the COVID-19...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence With Application for Extension of Time / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Extension of time and leave to appeal granted only for the second and third grounds of appeal; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'application for Leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'manifest Excess' 'fresh Evidence' 'medical Condition After Sentencing' 'covid 19 Pandemic and Parole' 'armed Robbery With Wounding']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing' 'appeals'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'application for Leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'manifest Excess' 'fresh Evidence' 'medical Condition After Sentencing' 'covid 19 Pandemic and Parole' 'armed Robbery With Wounding']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence With Application for Extension of Time / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended under s 10(1)(b) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) for an application for leave to appeal filed more than 17 years after sentence.' 'Whether the sentence for armed robbery with wounding was manifestly excessive.' "Whether evidence of the applicant's cirrhosis of the liver justified appellate intervention in the sentence." 'Whether evidence concerning the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on external leave programs and parole justified appellate intervention in the sentence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The interests of justice did not require an extension of time for the manifest excess ground because no satisfactory explanation was given for the 17-year delay, the applicant had previously abandoned a sentence appeal, and the sentence, although stern, was justified by the objective seriousness and the applicant's subjective circumstances. Time and leave were granted for the cirrhosis and COVID-19 grounds because those matters arose only later, but the appeal failed: the applicant did not establish that cirrhosis was caused by a condition existing at sentencing, the condition was being managed in custody and was not sufficiently burdensome to warrant intervention, and the COVID-19...

Court Disposition

Extension of time and leave to appeal granted only for the second and third grounds of appeal; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The time within which the notice under s 10(1)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) is required to be given to the Court is extended to 8 April 2021 in relation only to the second and third grounds of appeal, being the ground identified in the document headed Submissions filed on 31 March 2021 and the ground...