R v Makevits

The case of R v Makevits involved the Crown appealing against the sentence imposed on the respondent, who had pleaded guilty to charges including wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and threatening to kill. The respondent was sentenced to four years and three months with a non-parole period of two years by the lower court. The Crown argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and that the trial judge had erred in principle by not sufficiently weighing matters of general deterrence, personal deterrence, and punishment. They also contended that the judge had placed undue emphasis on the respondent's age and prospects of rehabilitation. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly inadequate and constituted an error of principle. The court needed to determine whether the trial judge had appropriately balanced the various sentencing considerations and whether the resultant sentence was sufficiently severe to meet the purposes of punishment and deterrence.

The court found that the sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate and amounted to an error of principle. The non-parole period of less than fifty per cent of the head sentence was considered too low, whereas a non-parole period of fifty per cent of the head sentence would have been appropriate. The court concluded that this would appropriately consider the respondent's age and prospects of future rehabilitation while still ensuring adequate punishment and deterrence. The court also noted that the trial judge had not sufficiently weighed the principles of general deterrence, personal deterrence, and punishment. The difference between the sentence imposed and that which ought to have been imposed was significant enough to constitute an error of principle warranting interference by the higher court. Therefore, the Crown's application for leave to appeal against the sentence was granted, and the appeal was allowed. The respondent was re-sentenced to six years and eight months with a non-parole period of three years and four months. The court stressed the importance of the respondent continuing with anger management programs in prison to enhance his rehabilitation and eventual reintegration into the community.