R v Cone

The applicant in R v Cone appealed against his sentence, which was imposed following his guilty plea to four indictable offences and four summary offences. The appellant's extensive criminal history, coupled with the fact that he was on parole for an earlier offence at the time of the first group of offences and on bail for the first group of offences when the second group was committed, played a significant role in the sentencing decision. The primary issue before the court was whether the learned sentencing judge adequately considered the appellant's plea of guilty, his prospects of rehabilitation, and the overall severity of the sentences imposed.

The court held that the sentences were manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the appellant's plea of guilty and the potential for rehabilitation. The sentencing judge did not place sufficient weight on the plea of guilty, which is a significant mitigating factor. Furthermore, the court found that the appellant had real prospects of rehabilitation, which should have been taken into account when determining the appropriate length of the sentences. The court concluded that the sentences imposed did not reflect a balanced approach to the appellant's culpability, history, and prospects for rehabilitation.

As a result of the appeal, the court granted leave to appeal against the sentence and allowed the appeal in part. The sentences for supplying a dangerous drug and possessing a dangerous drug with aggravation on certain dates were reduced from four and a half years to three and a half years each, while the sentence for possessing a dangerous drug with aggravation on another date was reduced from fifteen months to nine months. The remaining sentences were upheld, and the eligibility date for parole was fixed at 11 September 2010.