The appellant, convicted of human trafficking, appealed his sentence, arguing it was excessive and that he should have received additional credit for the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic during pre-sentence custody and post-sentencing incarceration.
The Court of Appeal upheld the sentencing judge's decision, finding no error in principle.
The sentencing judge had applied a 1.5 multiplier for pre-sentence custody and a nine-month "Duncan credit" for harsh conditions and assaults in custody, but declined additional credit for COVID-19, noting that such credit cannot render a sentence unfit.
The Court of Appeal found the sentence fit and the judge's discretion reasonable.
