Pleasance v R

The applicant, Pleasance, was convicted of an offence related to the supply of a prohibited drug and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Pleasance sought leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence. The application for leave to appeal was filed after the expiry of the 28-day statutory period. The applicant sought an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal. The High Court was asked to determine whether an extension of time should be granted, and if the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The legal issues included whether the sentencing judge unduly interfered in the proceedings, whether the sentencing judge ought to have admitted a letter from the applicant’s mother, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The High Court held that the application for an extension of time should be refused. The Court found that the sentencing judge did not unduly interfere in the sentencing proceedings. The sentencing judge was within their discretion to decide whether to admit the letter from the applicant’s mother. The Court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Court found that the sentencing judge appropriately considered the relevant sentencing principles and did not make any errors in assessing the objective seriousness of the offence. The Court held that the sentence was within the range of sentences that a properly directed sentencing judge could have imposed.

The application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal was refused.