Cao v The Queen; McGregor-Macdonald v The Queen

The applicants in this case, Cao and McGregor-Macdonald, were convicted of reckless wounding in company and were subsequently sentenced by a judge. They appealed against their sentences on the grounds that the sentencing judge had made errors in his remarks. Specifically, they argued that the judge had erroneously referred to an incorrect offence at the conclusion of his sentencing remarks, and that he had improperly taken into account the potential for more serious charges during his ex tempore reasons.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicants had been sentenced for a more serious offence than they were charged with, and whether the sentencing judge had erred in considering injuries that might have exposed the applicants to a more serious offence. The applicants argued that the errors in the sentencing remarks had prejudiced their cases and led to a harsher sentence than they would have otherwise received.

The court found that while the sentencing judge had made an error in referring to an incorrect offence, this had not resulted in the applicants being sentenced for a more serious offence than they were charged with. The court also found that the judge had not improperly taken into account the potential for more serious charges, as he had based his sentencing decision on the facts of the case and the specific offence of reckless wounding in company. The court concluded that the applicants had not been prejudiced by the errors in the sentencing remarks and that the sentences imposed were appropriate.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeals against sentence brought by Cao and McGregor-Macdonald. The sentences imposed by the trial judge were upheld.