Ontario criminal | Appeal
SENTENCE APPEAL
Parity principle does not require that all co-accused receive equal sentences
Accused appealed from his sentence of 12 months’ incarceration followed by 12 months’ probation imposed on conviction for possession of over three kilograms of marijuana for purpose of trafficking. Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed. Parity principle does not require that all co-accused receive equal sentences. It was not court’s function to minutely reassess relative roles and culpability of various offenders. Sentencing judge in this case expressly considered parity principle and recognized it would tend to drive quantum of sentence down. Sentencing judge also considered whether conditional sentence was appropriate for accused. Sentence was well within range and in absence of error of principle in sentencing judge’s analysis, there was no basis to interfere.
R. v. Lin (May. 4, 2015, Ont. C.A., R.G. Juriansz J.A., Paul Rouleau J.A., and C.W. Hourigan J.A., File No. CA C58717) 121 W.C.B. (2d) 216.
Parity principle does not require that all co-accused receive equal sentences
Accused appealed from his sentence of 12 months’ incarceration followed by 12 months’ probation imposed on conviction for possession of over three kilograms of marijuana for purpose of trafficking. Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed. Parity principle does not require that all co-accused receive equal sentences. It was not court’s function to minutely reassess relative roles and culpability of various offenders. Sentencing judge in this case expressly considered parity principle and recognized it would tend to drive quantum of sentence down. Sentencing judge also considered whether conditional sentence was appropriate for accused. Sentence was well within range and in absence of error of principle in sentencing judge’s analysis, there was no basis to interfere.
R. v. Lin (May. 4, 2015, Ont. C.A., R.G. Juriansz J.A., Paul Rouleau J.A., and C.W. Hourigan J.A., File No. CA C58717) 121 W.C.B. (2d) 216.
