Fernando v Balchin

Fernando has appealed against his conviction and sentence following his conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The appeal was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The appeal was limited to the sentence imposed by the primary judge. The appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, in addition to the sentence already imposed by the court. The appellant argued that the primary judge had erred in taking into account the extra-curial punishment when determining the appropriate sentence. The appellant also argued that the primary judge had erred in not giving sufficient weight to the mitigating factors, and in not adequately explaining the reasons for the sentence imposed.

The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the primary judge erred in taking into account the extra-curial punishment when determining the sentence. The Court held that the primary judge should not have taken into account the extra-curial punishment as it was not a matter that should be considered when determining the appropriate sentence. The Court also held that the primary judge did not give sufficient weight to the mitigating factors and did not adequately explain the reasons for the sentence imposed. The Court held that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and that the appeal should be allowed. The Court remitted the matter to the primary judge for re-sentencing.

The Court held that in determining an appropriate sentence, the Court must consider all material facts, including any extra-curial punishment. The Court held that the primary judge should have given greater weight to the mitigating factors and adequately explained the reasons for the sentence imposed. The Court held that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and that the appeal should be allowed. The Court did not make any orders as to the appropriate sentence.