The appellant, Landi Hanna, appealed a 4-year sentence for two counts of robbery (one causing wounds) and one count of failure to comply with an undertaking.
The appellant argued the sentencing judge erred by not respecting the "jump" principle and by imposing a disproportionate sentence that relegated rehabilitation to a secondary role.
The Court of Appeal found no reversible error, affirming that the sentencing judge correctly identified denunciation and deterrence as paramount objectives for robbery, properly considered aggravating factors including the appellant's criminal record and re-offending while on release, and appropriately applied the "jump" principle given the appellant's pattern of committing serious robberies shortly after being granted bail.
The court also found that the sentencing judge reasonably concluded the appellant's rehabilitative potential was low due to his repeated criminal history and lack of serious engagement in addressing his drug addiction.
Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.
