Some judges were abusing the discretion granted to them prior to minimum sentences being imposed for some offences.  A couple of years ago, there were quotes published here in the G&M from a judge who refused to abide by the joint sentencing recommendation of the Crown and defence counsel.

He said, in effect, that slavish adherence to the principle of stare decisis (being guided by what other judges had sentenced in previous cases) inevitably led to an inexorable dilution and downward trend in sentences imposed.  He said that sentencing judges needed to give more weight to the range of sentences specified by Parliament.  I agree.

If, for example, the range of sentences specified by Parliament is "up to" 10 years in prison but the actual range being imposed by judges is between suspended and 2 years, then the expressed intention and will of Parliament is being thwarted by the judiciary and that is plain, flat out wrong.