According to the ruling in R v Anthony Cook, when can a judge depart from a joint submission for sentencing?

In the case of R v Anthony Cook, a judge can depart from a joint submission for sentencing when it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. This principle acknowledges that the integrity of the judicial process must be preserved, and sometimes a joint submission, while agreed upon by both the prosecution and defense, may not align with public expectations of justice or fairness.

When evaluating a joint submission, the judge must consider the context of the crime, the accused’s circumstances, and the implications of the proposed sentence. If the joint submission results in a sentence that appears manifestly unreasonable or fails to reflect the seriousness of the offense, the judge is justified in rejecting it to uphold the administration of justice. This is particularly relevant in cases that might evoke public concern or outrage if perceived as overly lenient.

The focus on the administration of justice as a guiding principle allows for judicial flexibility while ensuring that the ultimate goal of sentencing— to maintain public confidence in the justice system— is achieved.