A sentencing judge commits appealable error by treating the sentence imposed or the sentencing range put forward by the Crown in another specific case as the starting point for determining sentence. Sentences are not precedents; comparable sentences can only provide a general guide or impression as to the appropriate range. A jury's acquittal on a more serious charge does not necessarily require the sentencing judge to reject the Crown's expert evidence on the factual issue underlying that charge, where the jury could have reached its verdict on other grounds.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.