A sentence of wholly concurrent Intensive Correction Orders for child pornography offences involving hundreds of images (including many at the highest CETS levels), committed over 12 months by an offender with prior sexual offences against children, is manifestly inadequate. General deterrence is the primary sentencing consideration for such offences and must be reflected in the sentence actually imposed, not merely acknowledged in the sentencing remarks. The residual discretion in Crown appeals may be exercised to decline to intervene where there is unexplained delay and prejudice to the respondent's rehabilitation, but the majority held that where the inadequacy is so great as to undermine public confidence in the administration of criminal justice, the discretion should not be exercised. The question of whether the residual discretion should be exercised in such circumstances was closely contested (2-1).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.