Delay as a mitigating factor in sentencing has two limbs: unfairness and rehabilitation. Both aspects of rehabilitation — remorse and reformation — must be demonstrated for full weight; mere abstinence from further offending attracts less than full weight. Offenders relying on delay are expected to adduce evidence supporting their claim unless the Crown concedes or the judge indicates willingness to act on Bar table submissions. Sentencing judges should ideally explain the extent to which delay has informed the sentencing discretion, particularly where the rehabilitation limb is not fully enlivened.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 68 later cases that cite this judgment.
9 of the 68 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.