R v Safi

In the case of R v Safi, the applicant appealed against the sentence he received following his guilty plea to two charges of trafficking in a dangerous drug, as well as related indictable and summary offences. The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of ten years imprisonment for the first trafficking offence, and seven years imprisonment, to be served concurrently, for the second trafficking offence. The applicant was convicted but not further punished for the additional indictable and summary offences. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, that the sentencing judge acted on the wrong principle by not considering his remorse, and that the sentence should be reviewed because the sentencing judge failed to state in open court that the guilty plea was taken into account in determining the sentence.

The court considered the applicant's arguments and found that the sentencing judge did not act on the wrong principle by failing to consider the applicant's remorse. The sentencing judge referred to the psychiatric expert report and expressed opinions that the applicant was an excellent candidate for further chemical dependency rehabilitation and that he had good to excellent insight into the nature and severity of the chemical dependency issues he had faced. The sentencing judge also understood the importance and value of recurrent efforts that chemical dependency rehabilitation and that the applicant was highly motivated to maintain his current level of sobriety as a necessary step towards lifelong sobriety. The court found that it was not necessary for the sentencing judge to quote the particular passage upon which the applicant relied.

The court also considered the argument that the sentencing judge failed to state in open court that the guilty plea was taken into account in determining the sentence. However, the court found that it appeared the sentencing judge had taken the plea into account, and therefore, the sentence did not need to be reviewed on this basis.

The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The court found that the sentencing judge did not act on the wrong principle or fail to state in open court that the guilty plea was taken into account in determining the sentence, and therefore, the sentence was not manifestly excessive.