R v Cunningham

This matter concerned an appeal by a convicted individual against a sentencing decision made by a judge. The appeal focused on the judge's refusal to grant a remand under section 19B of the relevant legislation, which allows for the adjournment of proceedings and the granting of bail. The appellant sought to adduce fresh evidence on appeal, comprising an affidavit from the appellant's mother detailing the significant care needs of the appellant's profoundly disabled daughter, A.

The central legal issues before the appellate court were whether the judge erred in refusing the section 19B remand and whether the fresh evidence sought to be adduced by the appellant was admissible on appeal. The court was also required to consider the nature and extent of its own powers to grant a remand following a successful appeal and the setting aside of a lower court's sentence, particularly in light of the wording of section 19B.

The court reasoned that the fresh evidence, detailing the appellant's daughter's profound disabilities and the substantial burden of her care, was admissible as it served to explain facts already before the sentencing judge and put them in a new light, consistent with the principles established in *R v Smith*. While acknowledging the serious case for a section 19B remand, the court found it unnecessary to definitively determine if the original judge erred in refusing it. Instead, the court concluded that the combined effect of the original material and the fresh evidence justified granting a long remand, akin to that provided by section 19B. The court was satisfied that, irrespective of whether section 19B itself empowered such an order on appeal, it possessed the common law power to grant a long remand following the successful appeal.