R v Riera

The applicant was found guilty by a jury of two counts of indecent treatment of a child under the age of 16 on 30 October 2009. The applicant now sought an extension of time in which to appeal against his conviction. The application was made following a significant delay, which the applicant sought to explain by citing serious depression, a change in counsel, and a delay in receiving the transcript and summing up from the hearing. The court was required to decide whether, if the extension of time was refused, there was a compelling demonstration of a serious injustice which could be corrected only on appeal. The applicant also argued that the primary judge erred in allowing preliminary complaint evidence to go before the jury at trial, in allowing a support person to be present at the trial, and in imposing a single sentence for both counts.

The court considered the application for an extension of time, noting the significant delay in making the application. The court found that the applicant's explanations for the delay were not sufficient to warrant an extension of time. The court also considered the applicant's arguments regarding the primary judge's errors at trial. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that there was a compelling demonstration of a serious injustice which could be corrected only on appeal. The court concluded that the application for an extension of time should be refused. The applicant's arguments regarding the primary judge's errors at trial were found to be without merit.

The court's reasoning was based on the significant delay in making the application for an extension of time, which the applicant had not sufficiently explained. The court also found that the applicant's arguments regarding the primary judge's errors at trial were not persuasive. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that there was a compelling demonstration of a serious injustice which could be corrected only on appeal. The court therefore refused the application for an extension of time.

The final order of the court was that the application for an extension of time was refused. The applicant's appeal against his conviction was therefore not permitted. The court did not consider it necessary to address the applicant's arguments regarding the primary judge's errors at trial, as the application for an extension of time had been refused.