The Crown appealed two conditional sentences imposed for possession of child pornography, arguing that each sentence was demonstrably unfit.
The appeal judge agreed that both sentencing judges overemphasized mitigating factors and failed to give sufficient weight to denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and the aggravating features identified in recent appellate guidance, including the size and nature of the collections and, in one case, the erroneous treatment of anime material as a mitigating factor.
The court held that custodial sentences should have been imposed in both cases.
However, because both respondents had already served substantial portions of their conditional sentences, the court concluded that incarcerating them was not in the interests of justice and dismissed the Crown's appeals.
