R v Tabe

The applicant, in this case, was convicted of possession of a dangerous drug, methylamphetamine, with circumstances of aggravation, and was sentenced to two years imprisonment. The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal against the sentence on the basis that new evidence established that a tape-recorded interview had been tampered with. The applicant also sought an appeal against the sentence on the basis that new evidence had been found which allegedly tainted the evidence relied on by the sentencing judge. Additionally, the applicant argued that the sentence should be varied on the basis that there was a disparity between the sentence and that of a co-offender.

The court had to determine whether an extension of time to appeal against the sentence should be granted. The court also had to determine whether the original allegedly tainted evidence had been relied on by the learned sentencing judge, and whether the sentence should be interfered with on that basis. The court also had to determine whether there was discrimination between co-offenders and whether the sentence should be varied on that basis.

The court found that the applicant's application for an extension of time to appeal against the sentence was refused. The court found that the applicant had not established that there was a real prospect that the appeal would be successful. The court also found that the original allegedly tainted evidence had not been relied on by the learned sentencing judge, and therefore the sentence should not be interfered with on that basis. The court found that there was no discrimination between co-offenders, and that the applicant's more serious criminal history and older age were properly taken into account by the sentencing judge. Therefore, the sentence should not be varied on that basis.