appeal against sentence — attempt to possess substance having been unlawfully imported and a border controlled drug offence contrary to ss 307.6(1), 11.1(1) and 11.2A(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code — offence relates to 684.8 grams of pure cocaine — original sentence imposed 5 years’ and 10 months imprisonment with a 3 year and 4 month non-parole period — nature and circumstances — s 16A(2)(a) — offending objectively serious — offender had not profited from enterprise only because it was unsuccessful and offender had been financially motivated in his offending — offending was objectively serious — guilty plea — s 16A(2)(g) — timing of the plea was very late — discount of 10% was appropriate for utilitarian value of plea and factors taken into account by sentencing judge in reach that discount — hardship to the offender — sentencing judge took into account as mitigating factor that offender’s mental health would make time in custody more onerous — offender’s evidence in these proceedings raises some doubt as to whether allowance on sentence for this factor was entirely necessary given offender has functioned well in custody — extension of time — offender brought appeal over two years later — overall period of deal is of some significance having regard to public interest in avoidance of delay and principle of finality — explanation was provided for delay although here remains considerable gap between the mistaken advice to withdraw notice of intention to appeal and lodging of application for leave to bring this appeal — extension of time sought should be refused for first and primarily lack of merits of proposed appeal given lack of prospects of obtaining lesser sentence if offender was resentenced notwithstanding finding of Xiao error and secondly delay is very lengthy and explanation for delay does not wholly account for period of delay — application for extension of time to seek leave to appeal against sentence refused
