Cowling v R

In the case of Cowling v R, the appellant was convicted of several counts of sexual intercourse without consent and indecent assault. The appeal was against the sentence imposed by the lower court. The appellant had pleaded guilty to the charges, and the Crown conceded certain grounds of appeal. The central issue before the court was to determine whether the inferences available from the statement of agreed facts could be drawn in light of the offender's breach of trust and the concessions made by the Crown. The court was required to assess the relevance of the breach of trust in the sentencing process.

The court considered the concessions made by the Crown and the agreed statement of facts. It concluded that the inferences available from the agreed statement of facts were indeed relevant to the sentencing process, particularly in light of the breach of trust by the offender. The court accepted the Crown's concessions and found that the breach of trust was a significant factor that needed to be considered when determining the appropriate sentence. The court ultimately resentenced the offender, taking into account the agreed statement of facts and the breach of trust.

Consequently, the court resentenced the appellant, acknowledging the Crown's concessions and the relevance of the breach of trust. The sentence imposed by the lower court was deemed inappropriate in light of the circumstances. The court's decision reflected a balanced approach, considering the agreed statement of facts, the breach of trust, and the concessions made by the Crown. The appellant's appeal against the sentence was, therefore, allowed, and the court imposed a new sentence that better reflected the nature and circumstances of the offences committed.