The Court of Appeal has refused an application to extend the time for a man to appeal his sentence for false imprisonment, finding that the proposed appeal had no realistic prospect of success.
The application concerned a seven-year prison term, with the final two years suspended on conditions, imposed for false imprisonment. A concurrent sentence of three and a half years was imposed on the other counts to which the applicant had pleaded guilty. The court considered only whether to allow a late appeal; it did not hear or decide the proposed sentence appeal.
The offences arose from an incident at the applicant’s home on 2 December 2020 during a domestic argument in the presence of a painter working there. The judgment says the applicant threatened his wife with a knife and stabbed her. After the painter intervened, the injured party ran back into the house. The applicant followed, put his foot in the door and prevented her from going further inside while wielding the knife. The painter’s statement said the front door was locked and that he saw the applicant through a window. These circumstances formed the basis of the false imprisonment count.
The applicant argued that the sentencing judge wrongly treated the false imprisonment as the primary offence and as aggravated by the assault. He said the false imprisonment lasted only moments and that the assault causing serious harm was the primary offence. He challenged a nine-year headline sentence nominated for the false imprisonment count.
To explain the delay, the applicant said in an affidavit that he had handed a notice of appeal to the Governor of Wheatfield Prison within 14 days of sentencing, believing that was sufficient. He later learned there was no record of it being lodged with the prison or received by the court. He was sentenced on 1 July 2022; his affidavit was dated 8 July 2023 and the extension application was filed on 6 November 2023.
The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the later delay was unexplained and that the proposed grounds were generic and insufficiently supported by the evidence. The Court of Appeal said the applicant’s account of his original intention to appeal was part of the circumstances, but the key issue was whether he had shown reasonable grounds with a real prospect of success.
The court said the sentencing judge was entitled to view the false imprisonment in the context of the assault. It considered the injured party had been restrained inside while the painter, who had tried to help, was locked outside, increasing the applicant’s culpability. The court was not persuaded that a substantial ground of appeal with a realistic prospect of success had been shown, and concluded that justice did not require more time. It refused the application to extend time.