Toller v R

Toller was convicted of multiple counts of fraud and was sentenced to imprisonment before the imposition of COVID-19 restrictions. Toller applied for leave to appeal on the basis that the sentencing judge had not taken into account the impact of the restrictions on his sentence. The Court of Appeal held that the restrictions could not be considered as they were not in force at the time of sentencing. The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

The central issue before the Court was whether the effect of the pandemic restrictions, which were imposed after the sentencing, could be considered by the trial judge. Toller argued that the restrictions effectively increased the severity of his sentence due to the additional difficulties he faced in serving his sentence. The Court considered whether the restrictions could be considered as a change in circumstances under section 25A of the Sentencing Act. The Court held that the restrictions could not be considered as they were not in force at the time of sentencing. The Court also held that the restrictions did not constitute a change in circumstances as they did not alter the fundamental nature of the sentence.

The Court held that the restrictions could not be considered as they were not in force at the time of sentencing. The Court noted that the trial judge had considered the impact of the pandemic on Toller’s ability to commit the offences but had not considered the impact of the restrictions on the severity of the sentence. However, the Court held that the restrictions could not be considered as they were not in force at the time of sentencing and did not alter the fundamental nature of the sentence. The Court also held that the restrictions did not constitute a change in circumstances under section 25A of the Sentencing Act as they did not alter the fundamental nature of the sentence.

The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The Court held that the restrictions could not be considered as they were not in force at the time of sentencing and did not alter the fundamental nature of the sentence. The Court also held that the restrictions did not constitute a change in circumstances under section 25A of the Sentencing Act.