Asplund v R (Cth) [2014] NSWCCA 237

Asplund v R (Cth) [2014] NSWCCA 237

The application for an extension of time was refused because the delay was not adequately explained and, after considering the merits as required by Kentwell, none of the proposed grounds had prospects of success: the sentencing judge gave adequate consideration to imprisonment for Count 2, properly applied totality, and took the applicant's age into account when finding special circumstances and reducing the non-parole period ratio.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Extension of Time Within Which to Seek Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'influencing a Witness' 'possessing Child Pornography' 'totality Principle' 'advanced Age as Mitigation']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'influencing a Witness' 'possessing Child Pornography' 'totality Principle' 'advanced Age as Mitigation']

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

Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Extension of Time Within Which to Seek Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was just in the circumstances to grant an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against sentence.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in relation to Count 2 by failing to consider how a term of imprisonment should be served, including possible alternatives to full-time custody.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to apply the totality principle by reviewing whether the aggregate sentence was just and appropriate and not crushing.' "Whether the sentencing judge failed to treat the applicant's age as a mitigating factor."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time was refused because the delay was not adequately explained and, after considering the merits as required by Kentwell, none of the proposed grounds had prospects of success: the sentencing judge gave adequate consideration to imprisonment for Count 2, properly applied totality, and took the applicant's age into account when finding special circumstances and reducing the non-parole period ratio.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for extension of time refused.']