Date: 20000516
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL
[Cite as: R. v. Barkhouse, 2000 NSCA 65]
Roscoe, Chipman and Bateman, JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Appellant
- and -
RODNEY CARL BARKHOUSE
Respondent
_____________________________________________________________________
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
_____________________________________________________________________
Counsel: James A. Gumpert, Q.C. for the appellant
Leonard J. MacKay for the respondent
Appeal Heard: May 16, 2000
Judgment Delivered: May 16, 2000
THE COURT: Leave to appeal is granted but appeal is dismissed per oral reasons for judgment of Chipman, J.A.; Roscoe and Bateman, JJ.A. concurring.
Chipman, J.A.: (Orally)
[1] This is an application for leave and, if granted, an appeal from conditional sentences of imprisonment totalling 18 months imposed in Provincial Court following the respondent's convictions for break and enter into a shed and possession of stolen goods.
[2] On sentencing appeals we are required by decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and of this court, e.g., R. v. Shropshire (1995), 102 C.C.C. (3d) 193 and R. v. Cormier (1974), 9 N.S.R. (2d) 687, to accord deference to the decision of the trial judge. Mere disagreement with the sentence imposed does not entitle us to interfere. We may only do so where there has been an error in the application of the principles of sentencing or where the sentence is clearly excessive or inadequate, or to put it another way, as stated by the courts: "unreasonable" or "demonstrably unfit".
[3] Having heard the submissions of counsel, we are not satisfied that the trial judge made an error that warrants interference on appeal.
[4] Leave to appeal is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
Chipman, J.A.
Concurred in:
Roscoe, J.A.
Bateman, J.A.