R v Speeding

The appeal was brought by the Crown against the sentences imposed on the respondent, who had been convicted of six robberies committed over six months, all while armed with a knife. The sentencing judge had handed down sentences that were deemed insufficiently severe by the Crown, which sought a higher penalty. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal.

The court had to determine whether the sentencing judge had erred in assessing the seriousness of the crimes, particularly in failing to adequately consider the cumulative effect of the multiple offences, the fact that two of these were committed while the respondent was on bail, and the significant impact on the victims. The appeal also challenged the proportionality between the objective gravity of the offences and the subjective factors considered by the sentencing judge.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the sentencing judge had not sufficiently accounted for the cumulative effect of the multiple offences and the fact that two of these were committed while on bail. The court also noted that the impact on the victims was not given enough weight. Consequently, the sentences were deemed to lack reasonable proportionality. As a result, the court increased the sentences imposed on the respondent. The appeal was allowed, and the sentences were varied accordingly.