Asplund v R

The applicant in this case, Asplund, appealed against his sentence on the grounds of an extension of time not being granted for the application. The applicant was already serving a sentence for two serious indictable offences when he was subsequently sentenced for charges of doing an act with the intention of influencing a witness and possessing child pornography. The legal issues the court had to determine were whether the trial judge had failed to consider a non-custodial alternative to a custodial sentence, whether the principle of totality had been properly applied, and whether the applicant's age should have been taken into account as a mitigating factor.

The court found that the trial judge had adequately considered the need to impose a custodial sentence and had properly observed the principle of totality. The applicant's age had also been fully taken into account, and there was no adequate explanation for the delay in lodging the application for an extension of time. The interests of justice did not require the granting of an extension of time. The court was satisfied that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate and that the applicant's appeal against sentence should be dismissed.

The court refused the applicant's application for an extension of time and dismissed the appeal against sentence. The court ordered that the applicant's appeal against conviction be heard together with the appeal against sentence on a future date. The court also ordered that the applicant's costs of the appeal against sentence be paid by the applicant.