Usher v R

The applicant, Usher, sought leave to appeal against his sentence for committing a serious indictable offence while breaking and entering a dwelling. The offence was classified as aggravated larceny. His co-offender received a significantly lesser sentence, prompting Usher to argue that his sentence was manifestly excessive and that there was a justifiable sense of grievance due to the disparity in sentencing between him and his co-offender. The court had to determine whether the disparity in sentences constituted a justifiable sense of grievance and whether Usher's sentence was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue was whether the disparity in sentences between Usher and his co-offender constituted a justifiable sense of grievance. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether Usher's sentence was manifestly excessive, considering the nature of the offence and the principles of sentencing. The court evaluated the circumstances of the offence, the roles of the co-offenders, and the reasons provided for the disparity in sentences. It also examined whether the sentence imposed on Usher was disproportionate when compared to the co-offender's sentence and the relevant sentencing principles.

The court concluded that while there was a notable disparity in the sentences imposed on Usher and his co-offender, it did not amount to a justifiable sense of grievance. The differences in their roles and contributions to the offence were acknowledged, and the reasons provided for the disparity were deemed sufficient. The court found that the sentence imposed on Usher, though harsher, was not manifestly excessive when considering the gravity of the offence and the sentencing objectives. The appeal was dismissed as the sentence was deemed appropriate and within the bounds of judicial discretion.

The court did not grant leave to appeal and upheld the original sentence. Consequently, Usher's application was dismissed, and he was required to serve the sentence as initially imposed.