R v Volkov

The applicant, Volkov, was convicted of trafficking dangerous drugs and sentenced to nine years imprisonment with no recommendation as to parole. Volkov appealed against his sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive. The court considered whether the sentencing judge erred in adopting a starting point that the trafficking would have attracted a head sentence over ten years, and whether Volkov was bound by counsel's concession at first instance that the sentence actually imposed was appropriate.

The court held that the concession made by Volkov’s counsel at the sentencing hearing did not have the effect of displacing or qualifying the applicable law, nor did it expand or confine the judge’s discretionary power. While the concession might have some bearing on the exercise of the court’s discretion, it did not prevent the court from considering whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court also found that the sentencing judge did not err in adopting a starting point that the circumstances of Volkov’s drug trafficking would have attracted a head sentence of over ten years. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.

The court refused Volkov’s application for leave to appeal against his sentence. The sentence was considered appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.