A sentence of 8 months' imprisonment by way of intensive corrections order for burglary of a former employer's home, committed by an offender with a significant criminal history but strong rehabilitation prospects, was held not to be manifestly inadequate. Even where a sentence may be remarkably lenient, Crown appeals should not circumscribe unduly the sentencing discretion, and there must always be a place for mercy where a judge forms the view that leniency might lead to reform. Where approximately three years have elapsed since the offence and the respondent has substantially complied with the sentence and demonstrated rehabilitation, the Court may decline to intervene in the exercise of its residual discretion.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.