GAR v R

The case involved an appellant who was convicted of robbery armed with an offensive weapon with wounding. The appellant sought leave to appeal against their sentence, including an extension of time to appeal, on the basis of fresh evidence. This evidence included the appellant's development of cirrhosis post-sentencing and the possibility that the appellant was infected with hepatitis B at the time of sentencing. The appellant also cited the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the appeal process as grounds for an extension of time. The court was required to decide whether the extension of time and leave to appeal should be granted based on the fresh evidence and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the evidence of the appellant's medical condition and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the appeal process constituted fresh evidence. This evidence could potentially affect the appellant's sentence. Consequently, the court granted an extension of time and leave to appeal in respect of these grounds. However, the court determined that the appellant's appeal against the sentence was unlikely to succeed and dismissed the appeal.

The court's reasoning hinged on the weight and significance of the fresh evidence. While the evidence of the medical condition and the COVID-19 pandemic was deemed relevant, the court concluded that it was not sufficiently strong to warrant a reduction in the sentence. The court emphasised that the severity of the crime and the need for deterrence played a crucial role in its decision.

The final orders of the court were to grant leave to appeal in respect of the grounds based on fresh evidence, but to dismiss the appeal against the sentence. The court also noted that the appellant's sentence would remain as originally imposed, with no modifications.