The appellant appealed his sentence of 18 months' imprisonment for possession of child pornography and a concurrent 6-month sentence for breach of probation.
He argued the trial judge misapprehended a joint submission, improperly punished him for past lenient sentences, and sought to introduce a psychiatric report as fresh evidence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no joint submission existed regarding the sentence range, the trial judge properly applied the jump principle for repeat offenders, and the proposed fresh evidence failed the Palmer test for admissibility.
