I think this sentence is too low. I think 10-15, which the Crown was asking for, would be appropriate.
On the double-credit issue, the law is going to change according to statements coming from the Conservatives.
As to double credit as it should be, I think the proper balance is you look at the Crown's obligation to get the matter on to trial as quickly as proper justice permits, gives full and timely disclosure, and look at if the defence has been an impediment to that.
If the defence is making motions that appear to be more tilted to getting their guilty client out quicker (assessed after the trial), they might not get double credit.
If the matter went to trial relatively quickly, the Crown pushed forward promptly and properly, and the defense did not put up blocks that seemed purely procedural, I don't have much issue with double credit.
The problem in this thread is people already don't like the sentence handed down (which I agree with), and then look at the double credit and then really get mad.
Don't blame the double credit in all cases. Blame the overall sentence. In this case its a little of both... this took longer than it should have, but I don't know whose responsibility that was.
|