Diana M. Lumba

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing the trial judge failed to give proper weight to the parity principle, treated a prior sentence as a floor, and failed to adequately consider his rehabilitative potential.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge drew valid distinctions between the appellant and his co-accused, did not treat the prior sentence as a floor, and appropriately prioritized general and specific deterrence over rehabilitative potential.

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder following a stabbing during an altercation.

He appealed the conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in summarizing the pathologist's evidence regarding the deceased's mobility after being stabbed, and in instructing the jury on self-defence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge's summary of the pathologist's evidence left an inaccurate impression and constituted reversible error.

The Court also found the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury that a person defending themselves cannot be expected to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of necessary defensive action.

A new trial was ordered.