R v DBF (No 3)

The appellant, DBF, was convicted after separate trials for serious sexual offences against his two older daughters and subsequently pleaded guilty to similar charges involving his youngest daughter. He appealed against his convictions for the offences against the older daughters but subsequently sought an extension of time to appeal his conviction on the indictment concerning the youngest daughter, made over 12 months after the conviction. DBF claimed he pleaded guilty to avoid subjecting the youngest daughter to the ordeal of cross-examination and argued that he was wrongly convicted due to incorrect locations in the indictment, lack of medical evidence, and potential involvement of others in the abuse. The court had to determine whether there was a sufficient explanation for the delay in the appeal application and whether the proposed appeal had any prospects of success or if any miscarriage of justice occurred.

The court examined the reasons for the delay in DBF's application for an extension of time to appeal. It found that DBF's explanation did not sufficiently justify the delay. The court further assessed whether the proposed appeal had any prospects of success. It concluded that DBF's contentions did not provide a strong basis for overturning the conviction. Regarding the appeal against sentence, the court considered whether the sentences were manifestly excessive. Given the variety of forms of sexual abuse over 13 years and the youngest daughter's serious physical and intellectual disabilities, the court found that the sentences appropriately reflected the gravity of the offences and the overall criminality of DBF's conduct.

The court ruled that the application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction was refused. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was also refused. The reasoning was based on the insufficient justification for the delay in the appeal application, the lack of strong prospects of success for the proposed appeal, and the appropriateness of the sentences given the circumstances of the case.