The appellant appealed a sentence imposed following guilty pleas to three counts of break and enter with intent, misleading police, and failing to attend court.
The sentencing judge imposed consecutive four‑month sentences on the break and enter counts, resulting in a global custodial sentence of 13½ months.
On appeal, the appellant argued the sentence was excessive and offended the principles of parity and totality, particularly compared to a co‑accused who received a significantly shorter sentence.
The appeal court held that while the use of consecutive sentences did not amount to an error in principle or a demonstrably unfit sentence, the sentencing judge relied on incorrect information about the co‑accused’s sentence.
To correct the resulting disparity, the court allowed the appeal and reduced the total sentence.
