The Court of Appeal has refused an application by Ray Finlay to extend the time for appealing the severity of a 14-year aggregate sentence imposed in the Central Criminal Court in November 2016.
The sentence related to three rape counts, each involving a different complainant. Finlay had pleaded guilty to those counts, four counts of sexual assault and one count of section 4 rape. The court’s judgment said the offending took place over more than 13 years, from July 1989 to August 2002.
Finlay’s affidavit said he had received legal advice about appealing within 28 days but did not act on it after receiving the lengthy sentence. He said he had not felt capable of dealing with the matter at the time and had wanted to put the proceedings behind him. He later regretted not appealing within the deadline and considered the sentence excessive.
The court considered the application under the principle that an extension in a criminal case should be guided by what justice requires. It noted that the sentence was imposed on 11 November 2016, while the application to extend time was dated 22 March 2018. The notice of appeal and supporting affidavit were dated 26 January 2018. The court described the application as about 17 months after sentence, or roughly 16 months out of time.
The court said the delay, the interests of the three complainants and the public interest in finality and closure weighed against reopening the sentence proceedings. It accepted that different considerations would arise if an appeal against conviction were proposed, but this application concerned sentence only.
On the proposed appeal’s merits, the court said no specific error by the sentencing judge had been identified. The application relied on the general assertion that the sentence was excessive and a contention that it was not proportionate. The court said the information before it did not suggest a sentence so far outside what could be expected that this would support extending time.
The Court of Appeal concluded that no real basis had been shown for exercising its jurisdiction in Finlay’s favour and refused the application. It did not decide the merits of a sentence appeal; it refused permission to bring one out of time.