Morton v R

In the case of Morton v R, the appellant sought to appeal against his sentence for being involved in the supply of a prohibited drug, cocaine. The Court of Criminal Appeal was tasked with determining whether there was an error in the assessment of the discount for the plea of guilty, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the delay in his plea of guilty was due to the Crown's conduct, and that he should receive the benefit of a discount for his plea. The Court examined the principles to be applied when assessing the utilitarian value of a plea of guilty and whether the appellant was bound by concessions made by counsel in sentence proceedings.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the appellant's submission was based on an incorrect understanding of the principles outlined in R v Thomson; R v Houlton. The Court held that the appellant was not entitled to a discount of 25% for his plea of guilty as there was no utilitarian value in his delay in pleading guilty. The Court found that the appellant withheld his plea of guilty in order to achieve a favourable outcome from the Crown in respect of some other charge, and that this circumstance did not provide a basis for asserting that the plea was made at the first reasonable opportunity. The Court also noted that the appellant was not prepared to plead guilty until the Crown determined that the escape could be dealt with on a Form 1.

The Court held that the principles for determining the discount for a plea of guilty were often overlooked, and that the rationale for a discount as high as 25% did not exist in this case. The Court found that the appellant was not entitled to any particular discount even if the plea of guilty was at the first reasonable opportunity. The Court held that the Crown's representative had conceded that which was not true, and that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of a discount for his plea of guilty.

In conclusion, the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal against sentence. The Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that there was no error in the assessment of the discount for the plea of guilty. The Court held that the appellant was not entitled to a discount for his plea of guilty as there was no utilitarian value in his delay in pleading guilty.