Where a sentencing court's exercise of discretion is vitiated by Muldrock error (treating subjective factors as relevant to the assessment of objective seriousness), the court is not required to assess whether and to what degree the error influenced the outcome; the error requires the sentencing discretion to be re-exercised afresh.
Where a Muldrock error vitiates a previous CCA sentencing decision, the re-sentencing court must exercise the sentencing discretion independently without being guided by the original sentence. An offender who has served a lengthy period of incarceration and can demonstrate rehabilitation as a reality (rather than a mere prospect) is entitled to have that demonstrated rehabilitation given significant weight on re-sentencing. Delay in obtaining sentence review through no fault of the offender is also a relevant factor.
No headnote yet — we'll generate the full structured AI headnote for you.
Generate the headnoteFree trial · no card required
Legal principles extracted from this case
Cases considered by Des Rosiers v R
Cases that have considered Des Rosiers v R
Referred to (2)
Judicial Consideration (Chronological)