R v B, TB; R v J-M, Am

The appellants, two youths, appealed against their sentences of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years, imposed after they murdered an 87-year-old woman during a home invasion. The primary ground of appeal for both was that the non-parole period was manifestly excessive. The appellant B also contended that he did not receive appropriate credit for his cooperation with the authorities.

The court was required to determine whether the non-parole period of 20 years was manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the offence and the youth of the offenders. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the appellant B was entitled to a further reduction in his sentence for his cooperation with the police, and if so, whether the sentencing judge had erred in not providing adequate credit.

The court found no error in the sentencing judge's approach. It noted that while both appellants were young, the victim was elderly and defenceless, and despite the crime not being premeditated in the sense of being planned, there had been opportunities for the appellants to withdraw. The court considered a non-parole period of 20 years to be expected given the nature and magnitude of the offence. Regarding B's cooperation, the court acknowledged the usual practice of granting sentence reductions for such assistance, which serves to encourage cooperation and acknowledge contrition. However, it found that B's offer to give evidence did not manifest genuine contrition, as his statements to the police contained serious lies aimed at minimising his own role. Furthermore, the court determined that B's statements were not a factor in the co-appellant J-M's decision to plead guilty. The sentencing judge's remarks were interpreted as explaining to B why, despite the general principle of giving credit for cooperation, he would not receive further credit beyond that already accounted for in the 20-year non-parole period, which was the same as J-M's.

Consequently, the court concluded that the sentencing judge had taken all relevant matters into account for each defendant and had not erred in making no distinction between them. Both appeals were dismissed.