A jury question during deliberations does not, without more, provide a sufficient foundation for an appellate court to speculate about the jury's reasoning or to limit the sentencing judge's fact-finding role. The role of a sentencing judge as described in Harris is to be exercised with the common sense and fairness referred to in R v D, and these authorities are reconcilable.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.