Bidong v The Queen

Bidong, the applicant, appealed against his sentence, contending that it was manifestly excessive and that the judge had failed to adequately moderate the sentence in line with the principle of totality. Additionally, he argued that the non-parole period of 24 months invited scrutiny. The appeal was heard by the Victorian Court of Appeal. The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, whether the judge had failed to sufficiently moderate the sentence considering the principle of totality, and whether the non-parole period warranted scrutiny.

The court addressed these issues by first examining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. It held that there were very poor prospects of success for the applicant’s appeal against sentence, a significant factor in determining whether an extension of time to appeal should be granted. The court then considered whether the judge had failed to sufficiently moderate the sentence, noting that the principle of totality was appropriately applied. The court also assessed the non-parole period, finding that it did not invite scrutiny. The applicant had not provided an adequate explanation for the delay in lodging the appeal, further weighing against the grant of an extension of time. The court referred to previous cases such as Madafferi v R [2017] VSCA 302 and Sayer v R [2018] VSCA 177 in reaching its decision, while distinguishing the case from R v VZ (1998) 7 VR 693.

In conclusion, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, that the principle of totality had been properly applied, and that the non-parole period did not warrant scrutiny. Given the poor prospects of success of the appeal and the inadequate explanation for the delay, the court refused the applicant's application for an extension of time to appeal against his sentence.