R v Versac

The applicant, who had previously pleaded guilty to one count of possessing a dangerous drug, was convicted by a jury on one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, one count of dangerous driving, and five other counts related to drug offending. He was sentenced in March 2011 to a head sentence of ten years and six months imprisonment. The applicant's appeal against his convictions was dismissed, and he has now applied for an extension of time to appeal against his sentence. The primary judge did not declare as pre-sentence custody the 20 months the applicant had already spent in custody.

The central issue before the court was whether good reason had been demonstrated to account for the delay in filing the sentence appeal. The applicant contended that the primary judge made erroneous factual findings and imposed a manifestly excessive sentence. The court needed to weigh the strength of the proposed appeal against the interests of justice in granting an extension of time.

The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated good reason for the delay in filing his appeal against sentence. The applicant's assertions of error in the primary judge's factual findings were not compelling enough to warrant an extension of time. Additionally, the court did not consider the sentence to be manifestly excessive. Given these factors, the court concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to grant the extension. Consequently, the application was refused.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the refusal of the application for an extension of time to appeal against sentence.