R v Styles

The applicant, Styles, was convicted of two counts of armed robbery, two counts of armed robbery in company, and one count of attempted break and enter. He was sentenced to six years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after 21 months. Following his release, Styles absconded and remained at large. During this time, he made genuine efforts to rehabilitate himself, including obtaining employment. However, he sustained a back injury in the course of his work, which left him in a wheelchair. Styles now sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the court should take into account the applicant's efforts to rehabilitate himself during the period he was at large.

The court examined the factors relevant to the imposition of sentence, including the nature and circumstances of the offences, the need for deterrence, and the applicant's personal circumstances. It noted that the offences were serious and involved violence, but also considered the applicant's efforts to rehabilitate himself and the injury he sustained. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it took into account the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence. The court also noted that the applicant's efforts to rehabilitate himself during the period he was at large were a relevant consideration, but did not outweigh the seriousness of the offences. The court further held that the injury sustained by the applicant did not justify a reduction in sentence, as it was not a mitigating factor in the circumstances of the case.

In light of the above, the court refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the sentence was unjust or inappropriate. The court further held that the applicant's efforts to rehabilitate himself during the period he was at large, while commendable, did not outweigh the seriousness of the offences. The court also held that the injury sustained by the applicant did not justify a reduction in sentence, as it was not a mitigating factor in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.