R v Volkov

The matter before the Court of Appeal was an application by the respondent, Volkov, seeking an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal against his sentence. Volkov had pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs and was sentenced to nine years imprisonment, with no recommendation as to parole. The Court of Appeal previously refused an application for leave to appeal against sentence on the merits of the proposed appeal, and the High Court dismissed an application for an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal. Volkov sought an extension of time to file a further application for leave to appeal against his sentence.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether it had jurisdiction to hear the proposed second application for leave to appeal against sentence. The Court of Appeal considered whether the proposed grounds of appeal were such that they could have been advanced at the original hearing, or whether they amounted to re-agitation in a different way of arguments which were advanced at that hearing. The Court also considered whether there was a cogent reason why the interests of justice would be served by granting an extension of time to pursue such grounds of appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that the proposed grounds of appeal merely raised arguments which either could have been advanced at the original hearing but were not, or which amounted merely to re-agitation in a different way of arguments which were advanced at that hearing. The Court found that Volkov had advanced no cogent reason why the interests of justice would be served by granting an extension of time to pursue such grounds of appeal. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal refused the application for an extension of time for filing an application for leave to appeal against sentence.

The Court granted leave to tender the sentencing remarks in R v Phillips, a copy of the Crown’s written submissions before the sentencing judge and the transcript of oral argument on 25 February 2022. Save in the respects mentioned in the previous order, the application for leave to adduce further evidence was dismissed. The application for an extension of time for filing an application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.