Henson (a pseudonym) v The Queen

The appellant, identified as Henson, appealed against his conviction and sentence for multiple criminal offences, including rape, threat to kill, and common assault. The appeal was brought before the court seeking leave to appeal against both the conviction and the sentence. The central issues revolved around whether the prosecutor's closing address had any improper influence on the jury, which might have affected the fairness of the trial, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court examined the prosecutor's closing address to determine if it had any elements that improperly influenced the jury, such as reversing the onus of proof, undermining the defence counsel's stature, encouraging emotive or speculative reasoning, or containing submissions not supported by evidence. The court concluded that none of these elements were present, and thus, the prosecutor's address was permissible. Furthermore, the court found that the grounds proposed for the appeal against the conviction were not reasonably arguable.

In relation to the sentence, the court considered whether the total effective sentence of 8 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 6 years and 3 months, was manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offences committed and that the complaints of manifest excess were not reasonably arguable. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against both the conviction and the sentence was refused.