R v Rule

The case of R v Rule involved a defendant convicted of two armed robberies committed within a short period. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant. The Crown had negotiated a concession with the defence that the sentences for both robberies should run concurrently. However, the sentencing judge did not understand the nature of this concession, leading to a sentence that was not in line with the agreed terms. The defendant subsequently appealed, arguing that the sentencing process had been unfair.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge's misunderstanding of the Crown's concession constituted a procedural error that warranted an appeal. The court needed to determine whether the failure to correctly apply the agreed terms of the concession resulted in a denial of procedural fairness. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the Crown's concession was valid and should be upheld, despite the sentencing judge's error.

The court found that the Crown's concession for wholly concurrent sentences was in accordance with proper sentencing principles and should have been followed. The sentencing judge's misunderstanding of this concession, without any indication that it should not be acted upon, led to a denial of procedural fairness. The court concluded that the defendant's appeal should be allowed on the grounds that the sentencing process was unfair due to the judge's misinterpretation of the Crown's concession. As a result, the case was remitted to the sentencing court for reconsideration in light of the proper understanding of the concession.