R v Sadik

The Crown appealed against the sentences imposed on the respondents in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The primary ground for the appeal concerned the structure of the sentences, with the Crown arguing they were manifestly inadequate.

The Court was required to determine whether the sentences imposed were so disproportionate to the seriousness of the crimes as to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, and whether intervention was necessary to establish and maintain adequate standards of punishment. Specifically, the Court considered whether the sentencing judge erred in concluding that bail conditions amounted to quasi-custody, justifying a back-dating of the sentence, and whether the sentences were too low given the quantity of cocaine involved and the respondents' roles.

The Court acknowledged the breadth of a sentencing judge's discretion but found that the sentences imposed were out of step with comparable cases and were plainly manifestly inadequate. The Court noted that the respondents were involved in attempting to possess a large quantity of cocaine worth millions of dollars, and despite findings of reduced moral culpability and favourable personal circumstances, the sentences were so disproportionately low as to constitute an error of principle. The Court also questioned the sentencing judge's favourable inferences drawn in the absence of evidence, particularly regarding the respondents' knowledge of the gravity of their task and the contents of the packages.

Permission to appeal was granted, and the appeal was allowed. The Court set aside the original sentences and proceeded to re-sentence the respondents.