R. v. H.V.

The possibility that an accused prosecuted by way of summary conviction for luring may be subject to a mandatory 6 months’ imprisonment while another offender prosecuted by indictment for luring may receive a lesser sentence is inconsistent in light of the principles of parity in sentences and the individualization of sentences; given the absence of reviewable error, there is no reason for the Court of Appeal to intervene in the Superior Court’s declaration of invalidity of the mandatory minimum sentence under s. 172.1(2)(b) Cr. C.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Read the full text:

R. v. H.V.