The CCA's decision to issue a second guideline judgment (the first guideline issued was in the case of R v. Jurisic) was the dual concerns of systematic excessive leniency and inconsistency in sentencing practice. This study examined cases for the 5-year period from November 11, 1996, to November 11, 2001. This involved a period of 2 1/2 years before "Henry" and 2 1/2 years after "Henry." In addition, this study examined all appeals to the CCA in the pre and post "Henry" periods in which the principal offense was armed robbery or robbery in company. There were 1,579 cases, with 695 cases before and 884 cases after "Henry." Findings show an increase in the overall proportion of offenders who received more severe penalties after "Henry," as evidenced by an increase in the proportion of offenders who received a sentence of full-time custody and by the greater proportion of offenders who received some other form of custody. There was a decrease in the proportion of offenders who received one-fifth or less of the statutory maximum penalty. Further, there was a decrease in Crown appeals from 36.1 percent before "Henry" to 23.8 percent post "Henry." Thus, the analysis suggests that the sentencing guideline issued by the CCA has been effective in reducing the systematic excessive leniency and inconsistency in sentencing practice regarding armed robbery and robbery in company. 4 tables and 47 notes