R v Hunt

In the matter of R v Hunt, the applicant appealed against his sentence for trafficking methylamphetamine, indictable drug offences, and an accessory after the fact offence, as well as unlawful possession of a motor vehicle. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the applicant's sentence was disproportionate compared to his co-offenders, Baradel and Rae, and whether the sentence warranted interference.

The court first considered whether the applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance in relation to his sentence. It examined the relevant criminal history, age, duration of trafficking, and specific offences of each offender. The court found that while the applicant and Baradel trafficked at a similar level, the applicant was older, trafficked for a longer period, and had a more extensive criminal history. Additionally, the applicant was sentenced on multiple offences, including motor vehicle offences and being an accessory after the fact, whereas Baradel was sentenced only on drug offences. Regarding Rae, the court found that his significant co-operation with police and rehabilitation warranted a lesser sentence. The court concluded that, considering all the circumstances, the applicant's sentence did not give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against his sentence. The court found that the sentence was appropriate given the applicant's criminal history, the nature of his offences, and the comparison to his co-offenders. The court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, affirming the original sentence.

ORDERS:
1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.
2. Appeal dismissed.