R v Lowe

In the case of R v Lowe, the appellant was convicted of aggravated burglary and criminal damage. The respondent appealed the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, arguing that the sentence was excessive and that the judge failed to observe procedural fairness by failing to give adequate notice of the aggravating factors considered. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge was required to give notice of the aggravating factors they intended to consider in sentencing, particularly where those factors were not included in the ‘undisputed facts’ agreed upon by the parties. The court also needed to determine whether the appellant should be sentenced as a vigilante, and whether premeditation could be considered an aggravating factor in an aggravated burglary offence.

The court found that the sentencing judge had not given the appellant adequate notice of the aggravating factors they intended to consider. The court held that where aggravating factors are not contained within the ‘undisputed facts’ agreed between the parties, the sentencing judge has an obligation to give notice of these factors to the parties. The court also found that the appellant should not be sentenced as a vigilante, and that premeditation could be considered an aggravating factor in an aggravated burglary offence. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the sentencing judge for re-sentencing.

The court ordered that the case be remitted to the sentencing judge for re-sentencing, with directions that the judge give notice of any aggravating factors they intend to consider, and that they not sentence the appellant as a vigilante. The court also directed that the judge consider premeditation as an aggravating factor in the appellant's sentencing.