The appellant appealed a six‑month custodial sentence imposed after guilty pleas to assault and possession of marihuana.
The sentencing judge had imposed the maximum available sentence for the assault, believing the Crown had proceeded by indictment rather than summarily, and inferred continuing fear by the victim from the absence of a victim impact statement.
The Summary Conviction Appeal Court held that drawing adverse inferences from the absence of a victim impact statement was improper and that the sentencing court failed to properly consider mitigating factors including the offender’s youth, lack of criminal record, and guilty plea.
Because the Crown had proceeded summarily, the maximum six‑month sentence without discount for mitigating factors rendered the sentence demonstrably unfit.
The appeal was allowed and the sentence for assault was reduced.
