R. v. A.J.

Summary

The court reduced A.J.’s sentence from ten to four years. The sentencing judge relied on an ambiguous statement and did not account for the absence of further child-related offending after 2017. He also failed to address the jump from A.J.’s prior sentences or explain imposing twice the Crown’s proposed maximum. Rehabilitation remained relevant to long-term public protection.

Outcome

Leave to appeal sentence granted and appeal allowed. The Court replaced the ten-year sentence with four years’ imprisonment, less 479 days’ credit; all other sentencing terms remained. The Court found the ongoing-danger assessment flawed, the jump principle unaddressed, and the original sentence demonstrably unfit.

Why this case matters

A sentencing court must ground future-risk findings in evidence and address the jump principle before imposing a dramatic increase over prior sentences.

Paragraph references

Intervention standard: para. 12. Errors and demonstrable unfitness: paras. 13, 20. Flawed ongoing-danger finding and its effect on rehabilitation: paras. 14-17. Jump principle and failure to justify the dramatic increase: paras. 18-19. Fresh sentencing analysis and four-year sentence: paras. 20-22. Credit calculation: footnote 3.