R v B

In the case of R v B, the applicant appealed against his sentence on the grounds of manifest excessiveness. The applicant had been convicted of unlawful possession of a motor vehicle. The Crown had accepted that the applicant had provided substantial assistance to the police in the investigation of the offence and had given undertakings as to future assistance. The primary judge, however, did not reduce the sentence on this basis alone. Instead, the primary judge imposed a sentence of 18 months imprisonment, to be suspended after nine months. The applicant sought to appeal on the basis that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The legal issue for the court was whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly excessive. The applicant submitted that the primary judge failed to take into account the substantial assistance provided by the applicant to the police and the undertakings given to provide future assistance. The applicant also submitted that the evidence showed that he was not expecting to gain any benefit from possessing the vehicle and had no intention to help dispose of the vehicle.

The court found that the primary judge had not adequately considered the mitigating factor of the applicant's substantial assistance to the police. The court found that this was a significant factor in determining the appropriate sentence. The court also found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, given the applicant's limited involvement in the offence and the absence of any personal gain. The court found that the sentence should be reduced to reflect the mitigating factors and the circumstances of the offence. The court granted the application for leave to appeal and allowed the appeal. The sentence was set aside to the extent of deleting the order for suspension after nine months and ordering that the sentence be suspended after the applicant had served four months imprisonment.