Job v R

Job applied for leave to appeal against his sentence for offences of obtaining a benefit by deception and corruptly receiving a benefit. The court was required to determine whether the sentencing judge adequately considered the discount for pleas of guilty and assistance to authorities, whether sufficient weight was given to the applicant's mental illness, and whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account the applicant's undertaking to make restitution. The court found that the sentencing judge did not adequately consider the discount for pleas of guilty and assistance to authorities, and that the weight given to the applicant's mental illness was insufficient. The court also found that the sentencing judge failed to take into account the applicant's undertaking to make restitution. The application for leave to appeal was granted, and the matter was remitted to the sentencing judge for re-sentencing.

The applicant argued that the sentencing judge failed to give adequate weight to the discount for pleas of guilty and assistance to authorities, which amounted to a reduction of 37.5%. The court found that the sentencing judge did not adequately consider the discount, and that the weight given to it was insufficient. The court found that the sentencing judge's failure to adequately consider the discount was a significant error, and that it amounted to a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court also found that the sentencing judge did not adequately consider the applicant's mental illness, and that the weight given to it was insufficient. The court found that the sentencing judge's failure to adequately consider the applicant's mental illness was a significant error, and that it amounted to a substantial miscarriage of justice. Finally, the court found that the sentencing judge failed to take into account the applicant's undertaking to make restitution, which was a significant factor in the applicant's favour. The court found that the sentencing judge's failure to take into account the applicant's undertaking to make restitution was a significant error, and that it amounted to a substantial miscarriage of justice.