The step principle is about restraint, not retribution

Very helpful case for defence counsel in R v Davidson, 2025 BCCA 111.

It is commonly thought that the "step" principle in sentencing means that recidivists must receive higher sentences for subsequent offences. In other words, each subsequent sentence must "step up" from the last.

For a unanimous court, Justice DeWitt-Van Oosten corrects this view at paras 47-49: "It is within the discretion of a sentencing judge to apply increasingly stringent sentences for repeat offences. The step-up principle is meant to constrain that escalation. The principle does not direct or oblige a court to impose an increase for each repeat offence. Rather, it works to keep any increases that may be imposed moderate so as to avoid undermining the offender’s rehabilitation." She allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence because the sentencing judge improperly thought that the step principle required higher sentences for subsequent offences.

H/T to Lisa Kerr for bringing this case to my attention!