A sentencing judge is entitled to sentence on the basis of an agreed statement of facts and to disregard the offender's evidence insofar as it is inconsistent with those agreed facts, even where the Crown does not cross-examine the offender on the inconsistencies. A sentencing court is not bound to accept the evidence of an offender simply because the Crown does not test it in cross-examination. However, there was a difference of opinion within the court on the extent to which fairness requires acceptance of unchallenged evidence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 31 later cases that cite this judgment.
9 of the 31 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.