R v Morrow

In the case of R v Morrow, the appellant was convicted of three counts of armed robbery and one count of common assault. She was sentenced to five years imprisonment on each of the robbery offences, to be served concurrently, and suspended after 10 months. The appellant was on probation at the time of the offence and had brandished a blood-filled syringe at shop attendants during the commission of the robberies. The amount stolen was relatively insignificant, and the appellant was under the influence of drugs at the time of the offending. The appellant had made progress in her drug rehabilitation and was diagnosed with a major mental illness two days after her sentence. The appellant appealed against the severity of her sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues in this appeal centred on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, and whether the sentencing judge would have imposed a sentence requiring supervision upon the appellant's release from prison if the evidence of her major mental illness had been before the court. The Court was required to consider the principles of sentencing and the principles of judicial review in relation to the sentence imposed.

The Court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account the appellant's age, background, and the fact that she was on probation at the time of the offence. The Court also found that the sentencing judge would have imposed a sentence requiring supervision upon the appellant's release from prison if the evidence of her major mental illness had been before the court. The Court exercised its discretion to receive new evidence and substitute a more appropriate sentence. The Court substituted a sentence of four years imprisonment, suspended after nine months, with an operational period of four years on count 4, and nine months imprisonment, followed by probation for three years on counts 1 and 2.