The appellant appealed his 15-year sentence for robbery, aggravated assault, and firearms offences, arguing unjustifiable disparity with his co-accused's 11-year sentence and that his firearms sentences should have been concurrent.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the disparity fully justified by the appellant's extensive criminal record, age, and parole status at the time of the offences.
The court also held that the sentencing judge was entitled to impose consecutive sentences for the firearms offences to reflect the invasion of different legally protected interests.
