R v C

The appellant in this case, who was previously convicted and sentenced for armed robbery, is challenging the sentence imposed on him, claiming it to be manifestly excessive considering circumstances that arose after the sentence was handed down. The court was required to decide whether the appellant's post-sentence actions, specifically providing information about a fellow inmate's crimes, could be considered as fresh evidence to reconsider the sentence. The court had to examine if such evidence could demonstrate an error by the sentencing judge that would warrant a reduction in the sentence. The court examined the legal framework and past precedents that govern the admissibility of fresh evidence in sentencing appeals. It found that while fresh evidence is admissible to shed new light on facts that were material at the time of sentencing, it cannot be used to demonstrate appealable error based solely on events occurring after the sentence was passed. The court concluded that the appellant's assistance to the police post-sentencing did not meet the criteria for fresh evidence that could alter the original sentence, and therefore dismissed the appeal. The reasoning was based on the principle that such post-sentence actions do not constitute appealable error unless they reveal unforeseen circumstances that significantly impact the material facts considered at the time of sentencing.