A sentencing judge who fails to give adequate reasons addressing a 'crossroads' rehabilitation case commits error, but the error may not result in resentencing where the proviso applies because no lesser sentence was warranted in law. The case illustrates the tension between the obligation to give adequate reasons on subjective matters and the application of the proviso where the sentence is at the bottom of the permissible range given the offender's extensive criminal history. A mere introductory reference to a guilty plea in remarks on sentence may be sufficient to demonstrate the plea was taken into account where it immediately follows the Crown's concession of a utilitarian discount.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.