The appellant sought leave to appeal the termination of his conditional sentence order, which directed him to serve the remaining eight and a half months in custody due to a second breach.
The appellant argued the sentencing judge overemphasized the presumption of termination and failed to consider proportionality and restraint.
The Court of Appeal found no error, affirming that the sentencing judge properly considered all circumstances, including the deliberate nature of the breach and the appellant's repeated non-compliance.
The Court concluded that the resulting sentence was not disproportionate or in violation of the jump principle, considering the original "crime spree" offences and the global sentence served.
Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.
