Lepine v R

The matter involved an appeal by Lepine against his conviction, where he sought leave to appeal on the basis of an extension of time, citing an unsatisfactory explanation for the substantial delay. The decision was handed down by the court, which was required to determine whether the application for leave to appeal should be granted, considering the unsatisfactory explanation for the delay and the lack of merit in the proposed appeal. The court also needed to assess the reasonableness of the verdicts and whether they were inconsistent.

The court examined the explanation provided for the delay in seeking leave to appeal and found it unsatisfactory. It further considered the merits of the proposed appeal, finding it lacking. The court also evaluated the evidence presented, including the complainant's testimony and other supporting evidence for the charges of indecent assault but not for sexual intercourse. It was noted that the jury could have reasonably found that the applicant made admissions to the charges of indecent assault but not to sexual intercourse. The court concluded that there was a reasonable basis for differentiating between the charges of indecent assault and those of sexual intercourse, and that the verdicts were neither unreasonable nor inconsistent.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed by the court, as the explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory and the proposed appeal had no merit. The verdicts were found to be reasonable and not inconsistent, as the evidence supported the charges of indecent assault but not sexual intercourse. The court upheld the conviction, finding no grounds for an appeal.