R v CAP (No 2)

The appeal in R v CAP (No 2) concerns the applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction and sentence. The applicant was convicted of 14 charges, including nine counts of rape and four counts of carnal knowledge against the order of nature. The applicant was initially charged in 2006 and pleaded guilty to all charges in 2008. The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal against conviction and sentence in 2008, which was subsequently abandoned except for one count related to carnal knowledge of an animal. The appeal against conviction for this count was successful, and the conviction was set aside. The current application seeks an extension of time to appeal against conviction for the remaining 13 charges. The application was refused on 2 October 2014, and the applicant was ordered to file and serve any affidavit in support of the application for extension of time to appeal against conviction by 23 October 2014.

The legal issues in this case revolve around whether there is an adequate explanation for the delay in seeking an extension of time to appeal against conviction, and whether the material filed is sufficient to justify the granting of an extension of time. The applicant had previously sought an extension of time to appeal against conviction and sentence in 2008. The delay in seeking an extension of time is nearly six years. The court must consider whether the applicant has provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay and whether the merits of the proposed appeal are sufficient to warrant an extension of time. The court also considers whether the material filed is sufficient enough to justify the granting of an extension of time.

The court found that there was no adequate explanation for the delay in seeking an extension of time to appeal against conviction. The applicant had assistance in filing the first application in 2008, and the court considered the delay to be unreasonable. The court also found that the material filed was not sufficient enough to justify the granting of an extension of time. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that there was a reasonable prospect of success on the proposed appeal. The application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction was refused.

The court refused the application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction. The applicant is not granted leave to appeal against conviction.