Jeanette Gevikoglu

The appellant sought leave to appeal sentence after pleading guilty to robbery, kidnapping, sexual assault and arson committed while a youth, following transfer of the charges to adult court under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court reviewed arguments that the sentence was harsh and excessive, that mitigating factors and rehabilitation were undervalued, and that consecutive sentences and pre-sentence custody credit were wrongly imposed.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge carefully considered the offence circumstances, the offender's circumstances, and the applicable sentencing principles.

Although the sentence was at the high end for a youthful offender, it remained within range and was not manifestly unfit.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The young person appealed his conviction and sentence for administering a stupefying drug to and sexually assaulting his cousin.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in rejecting his father's alibi evidence.

The Court of Appeal held the trial judge properly concluded the alibi was incomplete as it left a window of opportunity for the offence.

The Court also upheld the sentence of 90 days' custody followed by probation, finding it appropriate under the Youth Criminal Justice Act given the breach of trust and violent nature of the offence.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to consider inconsistencies between the complainant's evidence and statements she allegedly made to former friends regarding her sexual activity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge adequately addressed the inconsistencies and accepted the complainant's explanations.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentence was deemed appropriate.