R v Baker

The matter before the court was an appeal by the Crown against the sentences imposed on the respondent, Baker, who was convicted on two counts of soliciting to murder. The victims in this case were children. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal, which was required to consider whether the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate. The Crown argued that the sentences did not appropriately reflect the seriousness of the offences, particularly given the vulnerability of the victims.

The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly inadequate. The Crown submitted that the sentences were too lenient given the nature of the offences. Each count of soliciting to murder was assessed to be of mid-range seriousness, and the starting point for each offence was nine years’ imprisonment. The court needed to consider whether this starting point was appropriately applied and whether the sentences reflected the gravity of the crimes committed against the child victims.

In its reasoning, the court noted the high threshold required to successfully appeal a sentence on the basis of manifest inadequacy. However, it found that the primary judge had failed to sufficiently take into account the seriousness of the offences. The court held that the sentences imposed did not reflect the appropriate starting point of nine years for each offence, and therefore were manifestly inadequate. The court quashed the sentences and ordered a re-sentencing hearing.