Court of Appeal

Decision Information

R. v. Shacklock

Court Court of Appeal
Date 2000-10-25
Citation 2000 NSCA 120
Docket 163452, CAC 163451
Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Glube, Constance R. (Honourable Chief Justice) (CA); Bateman, Nancy J. (Honourable Justice) (CA); Roscoe, Elizabeth A. (Honourable Justice) (CA)
Document Type Library Sheet
Relations Decision - R. v. Shacklock - 2000 NSCA 120 - 2000-10-25 - Decision

Decision Content

CASE NO.                                                     VOL. NO.                                                       PAGE

 

GREGORY PETER SHACKLOCK            - and ‑            HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

 

Appellant                                                                                Respondent

 

- and -

 

BRIAN WAYNE MUNDLE                           - and -            HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

 

Appellant                                                                                Respondent

 

CA’s 163451 & 163452                               Halifax                                    ROSCOE, J.A.

 

                                         [Cite as: R. v. Shacklock, 2000 NSCA 120]

 

APPEAL HEARD:                           October 17, 2000

 

JUDGMENT DELIVERED:           October 25, 2000

 

SUBJECT:         Criminal Law - Sentence Appeal

 

SUMMARY:        The appellants pleaded guilty to possession of cannabis marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, after having been apprehended while tending 214 marijuana plants in a field in a rural area. The Supreme Court Judge imposed sentences of eighteen months incarceration to be followed by one year probation.

 

ISSUES:              Whether the sentencing judge erred in principle in failing to address s.718.2(e), whether the sentences were unfit.

 

RESULT:             Appeals dismissed. No error of principle. The sentences were not clearly excessive.

 

 

 

 

THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT’S JUDGMENT. QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE JUDGMENT, NOT FROM THIS COVER SHEET. THE FULL COURT JUDGMENT CONSISTS OF 7 PAGES.

 

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.