R. v. Gilgeours
The trial judge's increase of the custodial sentence was unjustified because it overemphasized two post-conviction factors (failure to attend sentencing and interim arrest) and failed to apply the parity principle; the appropriate sentence for production of marijuana is 12 months plus pre-trial custody, aligning...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C42982
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Lennox Gilgeours
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 26 August 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal of Sentence (leave to Appeal Granted)
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part; sentence on production of marijuana varied
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Parity, Pre Sentence Report, Post Conviction Conduct, Sentence Variation
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Lennox Gilgeours
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal of Sentence (leave to Appeal Granted)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge improperly increased sentence based on the appellant's failure to attend sentencing and an interim arrest on another drug charge
- 2 Whether the parity principle between co-accused was adequately applied
- 3 Whether the sentence imposed was disproportionately higher than that sought by the Crown
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge's increase of the custodial sentence was unjustified because it overemphasized two post-conviction factors (failure to attend sentencing and interim arrest) and failed to apply the parity principle; the appropriate sentence for production of marijuana is 12 months plus pre-trial custody, aligning with the Crown's original position.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part; sentence on production of marijuana varied
Orders
- Leave to appeal sentence granted
- Sentence on the production of marijuana varied to 12 months custody plus pre-trial custody
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Gilgeours Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2005-08-26 Docket numbers C42982 Judges Blair, Robert Ashley; Lang, Susan Elizabeth; Kozak, Lawrence Cyril Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20050826 DOCKET: C42982 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – LENNOX GILGEOURS (Appellant) BEFORE: BLAIR, LANG JJ.A. and KOZAK J. (ad hoc) COUNSEL: Mara Greene for the appellant Anya Weiler for the respondent HEARD: August 23, 2005 APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] In our view the trial overreacted to two post-conviction circumstances, namely, the fact that the appellant did not attend for his sentence hearing and that he was in the interim arrested on another drug possession charge (for which he was separately convicted and sentenced). The unfavourable aspects of the pre-sentence report focused primarily on these factors. Respectfully, these factors did not justify more than doubling the custodial sentence previously sought by the Crown (12 months plus pre-trial custody). By imposing the sentence he did, the trial judge failed adequately to apply the parity principle respecting the sentencing of co-accused for similar crimes in similar circumstances. Nothing in the appellant’s antecedents justified a three-fold differential. [2] Leave to appeal sentence is therefore granted and the sentence on the charge of production of marijuana is varied to one of twelve months plus pre-trial custody. The sentence otherwise remains the same.