This judgment has been anonymised to protect personal information in compliance with the law.
Loading PDF...
This document is 566.2 KB. Do you want to load it?
Cited documents 5
Act
3|
Citizenship and Immigration
·
Education
·
Environment, Climate and Wildlife
·
Health and Food Safety
·
Human Rights
·
International Law
·
Labour and Employment
·
Public administration
|
|
Human Rights
|
Judgment
2|
Reported
The appellants' pre-trial detention must be weighed contextually, not mechanically doubled, when assessing sentence proportionality.
* Sentencing – consideration of pre-trial detention – no mechanical 'doubling' rule; weight to be given assessed case-by-case.* Minimum sentences – substantial and compelling circumstances – overall proportionality to crime is decisive.* Robbery with aggravating circumstances – planning, use of firearms, assault, theft of firearm and victims’ trauma as aggravating factors.* Unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition – seriousness amplified by quantity and previous convictions.* Sentencing procedure – duty to consider personal mitigation but no interference where court properly considered relevant factors.
|
|
Magistrate’s failure to consider applicant’s pre‑trial detention created reasonable prospects of success on appeal against sentence.
Criminal procedure – petition against refusal of leave to appeal – appeal to SCA by special leave – test is reasonable prospect of success; Sentencing – prescribed minimum sentences – pre‑sentencing detention as one factor in proportionality assessment; misdirection by failing to consider time in custody warrants leave to appeal against sentence.
|