A departure from the common sentencing practice of fixing parole eligibility after one-third of the total term does not establish a prima facie case of manifest excess. Where defence counsel submits that credit for guilty pleas should be reflected in a reduced head sentence rather than early parole eligibility, and the sentencing judge accepts that submission, the resulting parole eligibility date beyond the midpoint of the sentence does not constitute procedural error or manifest excess. There is no requirement for a sentencing judge to specifically explain why a sentence exceeds the statutory minimum.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.