R v Simard

The applicant was convicted of sexual offences and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He appealed against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and that the learned sentencing judge should have re-opened his sentence upon learning that he may be deported as a result of the length of his sentence. The applicant sought leave to appeal against his sentence and the refusal to re-open it.

The legal issues before the court were whether the learned sentencing judge should have re-opened the applicant’s sentence and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the learned sentencing judge should have re-opened the applicant’s sentence upon learning that he may be deported as a result of the length of his sentence. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that the learned sentencing judge did not err in failing to re-open the applicant’s sentence.

The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that the learned sentencing judge did not err in failing to re-open the applicant’s sentence. The court found that the sentence imposed was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offences committed and that there was no basis to conclude that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court also held that the learned sentencing judge did not err in failing to re-open the applicant’s sentence upon learning that he may be deported as a result of the length of his sentence. The court found that there was no basis to conclude that the learned sentencing judge should have re-opened the applicant’s sentence and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.

The application for leave to appeal against sentence and the appeal against the refusal to re-open it were dismissed.