The Tribune

By FARRAH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

fjohnson@tribunemedia.net

THE COURT of Appeal yesterday affirmed the three-year sentence of a man who was convicted of being in possession of a quantity of illegal ammunition.

Thaddeus Cambridge was charged with possession of 38 live rounds of 7.62 ammunition with intent to supply, after police found the contraband when they searched an Adelaide Village home on February 23, 2020.

When he appeared before the courts three days later, he pleaded guilty to the offence and was sentenced to three years imprisonment. He recently applied for an extension of time within which to appeal his sentence after arguing that the sentence handed down to him was “unduly severe”.

However, yesterday, Justices Sir Michael Barnett, Milton Evans and Carolita Bethell refused his application and affirmed his sentence after ruling that his intended appeal was “woefully out of time”.

In their judgement, delivered by Sir Michael, the panel said the length of and reasons for the delay, in addition to the prospects of success and the prejudice, if any, to the intended respondent, were the key factors they took into consideration when reviewing an extension of time application.

They also noted that in Cambridge’s case, his application was delayed by six months due to the “lack of facilities and the intended appellant not being sure when he could file his appeal”.

“The intended appeal is woefully out of time and the reasons provided are inadequate. The statutory time limit of seven days imposed by section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is meant to be followed and not simply disregarded,” Sir Michael stated.

“Regarding the prospects of success, the intended appellant submits that his sentence is unduly severe and also that the magistrate erred by taking into account something extraneous, namely, that in the course of sentencing him for possession of ammunition with intent to supply the magistrate said, ‘There is an (assault weapon) lurking somewhere.’ A sentence is unduly severe ‘if it falls outside the realm of sentences which would be reasonable in like circumstances.’ Having regard to sentences imposed in like circumstances, in addition to the aggravating factors and mitigating factors in the case of the intended appellant, the court is not of the view that the sentence imposed was unduly severe”.

Sir Michael also said they denied Cambridge’s application because they felt his intended appeal had “no prospects of success”.

“Three years is not too high for a person in possession of ammunition with intent to supply. The person supplying others with a firearm or ammunition must be punished. Not much leniency can be shown to persons who possess firearms and ammunition with the intent to supply them to others. In our view, the intended appeal has no prospects of success, and we would refuse the application for an extension of time; and affirm the sentence of the magistrate.”