R v Freeman

The applicant, Freeman, was convicted on his pleas of guilty to offences of fraud as an employee, stealing as a servant, using a carriage service to access child pornography material and possessing child exploitation material. He was sentenced to an effective sentence of imprisonment of four years, to be suspended after serving 16 months, for an operational period of four years. Freeman appealed against the sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive, and applied for leave to adduce further evidence that was available at the time of sentencing but not tendered for forensic reasons. The appeal was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances and whether there was a miscarriage of justice by the evidence not being available at the sentencing or not being considered on the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The Court considered the principles of sentencing and the evidence that was available at the time of sentencing. The Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it took into account the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The Court also found that there was no miscarriage of justice by the evidence not being available at the sentencing or not being considered on the application for leave to appeal against sentence, as the evidence did not have the capacity to affect the outcome of the appeal.

The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal against sentence and refused the application for leave to adduce further evidence. The Court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and that the evidence did not have the capacity to affect the outcome of the appeal. The Court further held that there was no miscarriage of justice by the evidence not being available at the sentencing or not being considered on the application for leave to appeal against sentence, as the evidence did not have the capacity to affect the outcome of the appeal. The Court concluded that the appeal against sentence should be dismissed and the application for leave to adduce further evidence should be refused. The Court did not make any orders as to costs.