R v Jason

The applicant, Jason, pleaded guilty to one count of possessing child exploitation material on 9 February 2021 and was sentenced to two years imprisonment on 17 February 2021. Jason was previously sentenced on one count of using a carriage service to make available child pornography material. The applicant was sentenced to two years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date of 8 August 2021. Jason appealed the sentence on the ground that imprisonment should be suspended after any time served instead of parole eligibility, submitting that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to the significant delay before the Parole Board in considering applications and in requiring the completion of courses, which may result in the applicant having to serve his full term of imprisonment. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the relevant sentencing principles, including the principle that a sentence should be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the offender. The court also considered the previous sentence imposed on Jason for a similar offence. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, noting that the delay before the Parole Board in considering applications and in requiring the completion of courses was not a factor that could be relied upon to interfere with the sentence. The court also noted that the sentence was within the maximum penalty for the offence, which was five years imprisonment.

The application for leave to appeal was refused. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate and that there were no other grounds for interference with the sentence. The court considered the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter and protect the community, as well as the need to promote the rehabilitation of the offender. The court held that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the offender, and that there were no grounds for interference with the sentence.

No orders were made. The application for leave to appeal was refused, and the sentence remains as imposed by the sentencing court.