R v Cooper

The applicant, who was convicted of attempted arson, seeks leave to appeal against her four-year imprisonment sentence, claiming it is manifestly excessive. The applicant was in severe financial distress at the time of the offence, having not drawn a wage from her newsagency business for some time and facing default on bank loans and recovery action on her home. On 30 July 2018, she set a fire in the newsagency premises, resulting in significant damage and a substantial loss to the building owners and the business itself. The applicant denied any involvement in the fire and was convicted after a trial. The sole ground for the appeal is that the sentence is manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue the court had to determine was whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive. The court considered the financial distress the applicant was experiencing, the nature of the offence, and the lack of evidence of remorse. The applicant argued that the sentence was beyond the permissible exercise of the sentencing judge's discretion, but the court found no misapplication of principle in the exercise of the sentencing discretion. The court also noted that the sentence was for attempted arson rather than arson, which was a relevant distinction in assessing the severity of the sentence.

The court held that the applicant had not identified any misapplication of principle in the exercise of the sentencing discretion such that one could conclude that the sentence imposed was unreasonable or plainly unjust. The court was unable to conclude that the four-year sentence imposed on the applicant was beyond the permissible exercise of the sentencing judge's discretion. The court agreed with the order proposed by Bond JA, which was to dismiss the application.

ORDER:
Application dismissed.