Em v R

The case of Em v R involved the appellant appealing against his convictions and sentences for multiple offences, including those related to the Logozzo and Kress incidents. The appellant contested the sentences for the Kress offences, arguing they were excessive, and claimed errors in the sentencing judge’s failure to find special circumstances, the degree of cumulation of sentences for the Logozzo offences, and parity with another individual’s sentence. The court was required to determine whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive, if the judge erred in not finding special circumstances, whether there was an error in the degree of cumulation of sentences, and if there was a disparity in sentencing compared to another individual.

The court examined the arguments regarding the excessiveness of the sentences and the judge’s failure to find special circumstances. It noted that the admissions made by the appellant were not obtained unfairly, as he was not obliged to speak to the police and the police were not responsible for his erroneous belief that his conversation with them could not be used against him. The court held that the admissions were reliable and it was not necessary to warn the jury that the admissions may not have been reliable. Regarding the cumulation of sentences, the court found no error in the degree of cumulation and dismissed the argument of parity with another individual’s sentence.

The court concluded that the sentences were not manifestly excessive, there was no error in failing to find special circumstances, and no error in the degree of cumulation of sentences. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.