SW v R

The applicant, SW, appealed against his sentence following a guilty plea to a charge of having sexual intercourse with a child under the age of ten years. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal his sentence, arguing that there had been an error in the way the sentencing judge assessed the objective gravity of the offence, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Crown opposed the application, arguing that the applicant had not demonstrated any error in the sentencing process.

The court considered whether the applicant had demonstrated a Muldrock error, which would warrant an extension of time to appeal. The court found that there was no such error, as the sentencing judge had properly considered the objective gravity of the offence and the relevant factors. The court also considered the applicant's argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive, but found that the sentence was appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offence. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated insufficient prospects of success on appeal.

The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the applicant's application for an extension of time to appeal. The court held that the sentencing judge had properly considered the relevant factors in determining the sentence, and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any error in the sentencing process that would warrant an extension of time to appeal. The court held that the principle of finality must be upheld, and that the applicant's application for an extension of time to appeal was refused.