R v Leask

The defendant, Leask, appealed against the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal, which upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence. Leask was found guilty of five counts of contravening section 474.25A(1) of the Criminal Code and four counts of contravening section 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code. The Crown appealed the sentence on the basis that it was manifestly inadequate. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal was manifestly inadequate and whether there was an error of fact or law in the Court of Appeal's decision.

The court held that the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal was manifestly inadequate and that there was an error of fact in the Court of Appeal's decision. The court found that the Court of Appeal had not taken into account the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence. The court held that the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal did not reflect the gravity of the offences and that it was insufficient to achieve the purposes of sentencing. The court found that the Court of Appeal had erred in failing to consider the need for general deterrence and in not adequately considering the seriousness of the offences.

The court allowed the Crown's appeal and set aside the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal. The matter was remitted to the Court of Appeal for re-sentencing. The court held that the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal was manifestly inadequate and that there was an error of fact in the Court of Appeal's decision. The court found that the Court of Appeal had not adequately considered the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence. The court held that the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal did not reflect the gravity of the offences and that it was insufficient to achieve the purposes of sentencing.