R v CAP

The applicant was convicted of one count of carnal knowledge of an animal, which involved manipulating a male animal to penetrate the complainant. The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal against his conviction and sentence. The case before the court involved examining the legal definition of carnal knowledge at the time of the offence, which stipulated that the offence could only be committed by a male person. The respondent conceded that the conviction could not stand given this definition.

The primary legal issue was whether the conviction for carnal knowledge of an animal could be upheld under the existing statutory definition, which required the offender to be male. Given that the applicant was female, the court had to determine if the conviction was valid. The court examined the statutory language and the respondent’s concession that the conviction was invalid due to the applicant's gender. The court's task was to decide whether the conviction should be quashed and the sentence set aside, and whether to grant the extension of time for the appeal.

The court accepted the respondent's concession that the conviction for carnal knowledge of an animal could not stand because the statutory definition required the offender to be male, and the applicant was female. The court quashed the conviction and set aside the sentence imposed on count 5. The court allowed the application to extend the time for appeal against the conviction but dismissed the application to extend the time for appeal against the sentence. The conviction on count 5 was quashed, and the sentence was set aside. The court dismissed the application to extend the time to appeal against the sentence.