2 total
Sentence for getaway driver in two robberies reduced from 18 to 12 months due to disparity.
The appellant, who acted as the getaway driver in two robberies, appealed his sentence of 18 months' incarceration.
He argued for a conditional sentence or a shorter reformatory term, citing his youth, lack of criminal record, and the lesser sentences of his accomplices.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's refusal to impose a conditional sentence but found the 18-month term failed to adequately reflect the disparity between the appellant's role and that of his accomplices, as well as his mitigating factors.
The appeal was allowed in part, and the sentence was reduced to 12 months' incarceration.
Conviction appeal and sentence appeal both failed.
The appellant challenged sexual assault convictions and sought leave to appeal sentence following a jury trial.
He argued the trial judge erred in the charge to the jury, that the verdicts were unreasonable given internal inconsistencies and admitted untruths in the complainant's prior statements, and that the sentencing judge accepted unduly aggravating facts.
The court held the impugned jury instructions were adequate and appropriate, including the instruction drawn almost verbatim from authority concerning youthful complainants.
It further held there was evidence on which a properly instructed jury acting reasonably could convict and found no error in the sentencing judge's factual findings or in the sentences imposed.
