and Glen Burns (a pseudonym)[1] v The Queen

The appellant, Glen Burns, appealed against his sentence following his conviction for stalking, recklessly causing injury, aggravated burglary, indecent assault (two charges), rape, and breaching an intervention order (two charges). The appeal pertained to the time within which he could seek leave to appeal against the sentence. The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal his sentence, arguing that new evidence about his psychiatric condition had come to light. The court needed to determine whether the new evidence was sufficiently compelling to warrant an extension of time and whether there was a reasonable prospect that the Court of Appeal would impose a less severe sentence if the appeal were to proceed.

The court examined the new material provided by the appellant, which related to his psychiatric condition. The court found that the new evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate a miscarriage of justice if the appellant were not permitted to rely upon it. The court also considered whether there was a reasonable prospect that the Court of Appeal would impose a less severe sentence. In the absence of such a prospect, the court was not persuaded that an extension of time was warranted. The court ultimately concluded that the new material was not sufficiently compelling to warrant an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal against sentence.

In light of the court's findings, the appellant's application for an extension of time to appeal his sentence was refused. The court's decision was based on the lack of compelling new evidence and the absence of a reasonable prospect of a less severe sentence being imposed by the Court of Appeal. The appellant's total effective sentence of 7 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 5 years, remained unchanged. The court did not grant the appellant an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against his sentence.