The Crown appealed the 18-month sentence imposed on the respondent for a home invasion robbery, arguing the trial judge erred in granting 1.6-to-1 credit for time spent in a treatment facility and overemphasized rehabilitation.
The Court of Appeal agreed the trial judge erred in principle regarding the pre-sentence credit and that the sentence was outside the normal range for home invasion robbery.
However, based on fresh evidence of the respondent's exceptional and continued rehabilitation, the Court declined to interfere with the sentence, finding further incarceration would serve little useful purpose.
