R v Rowe

The applicant, R v Rowe, sought an extension of time and permission to appeal against sentences imposed by the Supreme Court. The grounds for appeal included claims that the applicant was sentenced on an incorrect factual basis due to his lawyers' failures to adduce evidence, challenge prosecution evidence, or make submissions on its implications. Further grounds alleged that the head sentence and non-parole period were manifestly excessive, particularly concerning the principle of totality in relation to prior sentences.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to appeal and permission to appeal on the stated grounds. Specifically, the court had to determine if the alleged failures of legal representation constituted a sufficient basis for interfering with the sentencing, and whether the sentences imposed were demonstrably excessive, particularly in light of the cumulative effect of previous sentences. The court also considered the applicant's own evidence regarding the factual circumstances of the offences and his communications with his legal representatives.

Blue J reasoned that the grounds alleging sentencing on an incorrect factual basis due to legal representation default warranted referral to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The judge also granted an extension of time and permission to appeal against the non-parole period fixed by the District Court Judge and the Supreme Court Judge, finding it to be manifestly excessive. However, the application for an extension of time and permission to appeal against the head sentence imposed by the Supreme Court Judge, and the non-parole period on other grounds, were referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal for determination.