A sentencing judge's ambiguous remark during submissions about the objective seriousness of an offence does not give rise to a legitimate expectation or obligation to warn if the judge ultimately assesses seriousness differently. Remarks made before both parties have addressed the court are inherently tentative. The interplay between related offences (here, a preceding violent assault and subsequent kidnapping) may properly be considered in assessing the objective seriousness of the later offence without constituting impermissible double counting.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.