COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
|
|
- Russell Ramsey
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Date: Docket: CR (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Stuart Cited as: 2018 MBQB 54 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, ) Counsel: ) ) for the Crown - and - ) PETER V. EDGETT ) J. ERIC HACHINSKI ) KENDRA LEE STUART, ) for the Accused ) BRUCE F. BONNEY Accused. ) MANDEEP S. BHANGU ) ) JUDGMENT DELIVERED: ) April 5, 2018 GRAMMOND J. Reasons for Sentence INTRODUCTION [1] I have found Kendra Stuart guilty of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and impaired driving causing death. The issue now before me is the appropriate sentence to be imposed. The following are my reasons for decision relative to sentence.
2 Page: 2 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCE [2] The circumstances of the offences were set out in my reasons for decision relative to the convictions of Ms. Stuart, found at 2017 MBQB 149, and which I will summarize as follows. [3] Ms. Stuart was driving at the time of a single vehicle accident in which her passenger Mr. James Hayes was killed. There were normal driving conditions, in that the road was dry, there was no precipitation and visibility was good, though it was nighttime. Traffic was light on an undivided, two lane highway. While the collision took place on a straightaway, the road was narrow and winding with steep ditches on either side. Ms. Stuart failed to straighten out the vehicle after coming out of a curve, such that the vehicle entered the ditch and then vaulted into the air. [4] The collision was extremely violent, such that the vehicle travelled for approximately 58 metres from its initial vaulting point to its final resting place between two trees. There was no evidence either at the scene or within the vehicle s event data recorder that Ms. Stuart at any point took her foot off the gas pedal or attempted to apply the brakes. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENDER [5] Ms. Stuart was 19 years old at the time of the offences and is now 23 years old. She has two siblings, and though her parents divorced ten years ago, she appears to have had a loving and supportive upbringing, with no major concerns. Ms. Stuart resides with her boyfriend, and has no children. Since this offence, she has maintained
3 Page: 3 employment at multiple locations, and has been described in the pre-sentence report as a hard worker. [6] The individuals interviewed in preparation of the pre-sentence report and those who provided reference letters expressed surprise at Ms. Stuart s actions giving rise to these offences. She appears to have been a generally well-behaved teenager. SENTENCING PRINCIPLES [7] The sentencing objectives to which I must have regard in this matter are set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (the Code ), and include: a) denunciation of unlawful conduct; b) deterrence of the offender and others; c) assistance in the rehabilitation of offenders; and d) an acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community. [8] In addition, s. 718 provides the fundamental principle that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. In deciding what a fit and proper sentence is, the Court must take into account the circumstances of the offence and of the offender, both of which I have already described in this case. Certainly, what a fit and proper sentence is depends very much on the particular circumstances of each case.
4 Page: 4 [9] The leading case on sentencing in a case involving impaired driving causing death in Manitoba is R. v. Ruizfuentes, 2010 MBCA 90, 258 Man.R. (2d) 220, wherein the Court stated: 33 In cases of impaired driving causing death, the paramount objectives of sentencing are denunciation and deterrence. The punishment must express society's condemnation of the accused's ways and serve to dissuade others from engaging in similar conduct. In such cases, an accused is punished more severely, not because he or she deserves it, but because the court decides to send a message to others who may be inclined to engage in similar criminal activity (see Vancouver (City) v. Ward, 2010 SCC 27, at para. 29). [10] In R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at paragraph 73, the Court stated that the objectives of deterrence and denunciation are particularly relevant to offences that might be committed by ordinarily law-abiding people, such as impaired driving, as these individuals will be sensitive to harsh sentences. [11] Pursuant to the decision in Ruizfuentes, the applicable sentencing range for first offenders convicted of impaired driving causing death is two to five years incarceration and a driving prohibition of three to ten years. The law is clear that sentencing ranges are guidelines, and are useful in promoting consistency and parity for the imposition of similar penalties for similar offences of a similar nature involving similar offenders. Having said that, a sentencing range is not conclusive of the appropriate sentence in a given case. In this case, there is no reason that the range should not apply, nor was a sentence outside the range requested. [12] To determine where within the sentencing range Ms. Stuart should be, I must determine which objectives deserve the greatest weight given the circumstances of the case, and I must consider any relevant mitigating or aggravating factors, which would
5 Page: 5 decrease or increase the sentence. I must then take a last look at the prospective sentence to ensure that it respects the overarching principle of sentencing, which is proportionality. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES CROWN [13] The Crown requested a custodial sentence of five years, followed by a driving prohibition of seven-and-a-half years, and a DNA order. [14] The Crown pointed to the very significant impact upon the Hayes family due to the death of James, their son, brother and uncle. In addition, at the time of his death, James Hayes was about to become a father, and hence will never meet his daughter. DEFENCE [15] The defence requested a custodial sentence in a federal penitentiary of two years. [16] The defence noted that Ms. Stuart has not taken steps to regain her driving privileges. As referenced in the pre-sentence report, she feels that she does not deserve those privileges. Instead, she moved to a location within the city where she could get around without a licence. THE APPROPRIATE SENTENCE IN THIS CASE [17] The relevant mitigating factors in this case are: 1) Ms. Stuart has no previous criminal record; 2) Ms. Stuart s driving record consists of only one conviction, for speeding, which occurred in March 2013;
6 Page: 6 3) Ms. Stuart has stable and positive supports from her family and friends; 4) Ms. Stuart is steadily employed, and is a hard worker; 5) Ms. Stuart is a youthful offender. The Court in Ruizfuentes confirmed, at paragraph 24, that youth can be a mitigating factor. This approach was furthered commented upon in R. v. Hansell, 2015 MBQB 109 (CanLII), wherein the Court stated at paragraph 18: Courts understand that young adults sometimes behave foolishly, and some commit criminal acts. While they must not escape unpunished, their immaturity and lack of experience diminishes their level of responsibility and moral blameworthiness for the crimes they commit as compared to mature adults. This should be reflected in the sentence imposed. 6) Ms. Stuart is genuinely remorseful for her actions and the death of her friend James Hayes; and 7) Ms. Stuart was found to be at a very low risk to reoffend by Probation Services. [18] The relevant aggravating factors in this case are: 1) On the date of the offence, Ms. Stuart drank to the point of impairment and then drove a motor vehicle with two passengers; 2) Ms. Stuart drove at between 29 and 47 km/h over the speed limit of 70 km/h; 3) Many aspects of Ms. Stuart s manner of driving were otherwise dangerous, the details of which are set out at paragraph 63 of my reasons for decision on conviction;
7 Page: 7 4) At the time, Ms. Stuart had yet to complete the three-year period under which she was prohibited from driving with any alcohol in her blood, pursuant to the graduated licensing program. I acknowledge that this prohibition was set to expire approximately two weeks after the offences; 5) Ms. Stuart advised police shortly after the collision that she swerved to avoid hitting an animal crossing the road and lost control of the vehicle. At trial, I concluded that this version of the facts was not supported by any physical evidence, and amounted to speculation, at best; and 6) Ms. Stuart has, at all material times, been subject to a bail order with an abstention clause relative to alcohol and a requirement that she keep the peace and be of good behaviour. Despite these terms, as disclosed in the pre-sentence report, she has consumed alcohol, albeit in conservative amounts at family get-togethers, and has smoked marijuana very infrequently, whatever that means. These actions constitute breaches of her bail conditions. [19] I note that there is no Gladue component before the Court. [20] I am mindful of the following additional principles derived from the case law to which counsel directed me, and which in my view are of relevance in this case. [21] As directed by the Court in Ruizfuentes at paragraph 38, to assess the extent of moral culpability, due regard must be given to the intentional risk-taking of the offender, the consequential harm caused by the offender, and the normative character of the offender s conduct.
8 Page: 8 [22] In this case, Ms. Stuart clearly intentionally took a risk by driving while impaired, and the consequential harm that she caused was severe. On the basis of the presentence report, and her lack of a criminal record, this behaviour deviated from her standard or normative behaviour as a productive member of society. I recognize one previous conviction for speeding on her driving record, which is a regulatory offence for which moral culpability is less than for a criminal offence as noted in Ruizfuentes. Pursuant to this analysis, Ms. Stuart s moral culpability is at the middle to higher end of the range. [23] In R. v. Gejdos, 2017 ABCA 227, the Court confirmed that the gravity of the offence and the moral culpability of the offender are determined primarily at the time the offence is committed. The sentencing judge must determine the gravity of the particular offence committed by the accused against the global gravity of that type of offence. The gravity of the offence is not displaced by whether the offender has been rehabilitated or is remorseful. The gravity of the offence is unchanged by relevant mitigating or aggravating factors. In this case, the circumstances of the offence were grave. Ms. Stuart drove dangerously while impaired, in driving conditions which did not contribute to the single vehicle collision. The extreme violence of the collision was attributable to her actions alone. [24] I have already referenced the Hansell case, wherein the offender was also 19 years of age at the time of the offences, and was convicted of the same two offences. He was sentenced to 26 months in custody. There are, however, significant differences as between the circumstances in Hansell and this case. One major difference is that
9 Page: 9 Mr. Hansell entered pleas of guilty to both charges. Certainly, Ms. Stuart was well within her rights to plead not guilty and proceed to trial, and while doing so is certainly not an aggravating factor, she may not reap the benefit of a guilty plea as a mitigating factor. [25] In addition, in Hansell, the driving of the offender was not erratic, and he was not speeding, but he was texting at the time of the collision. In addition, there were no outward signs of impairment. [26] I also note that Hansell was decided six months before Lacasse, to which I have already referred. Accordingly, the Court in Hansell did not have the benefit of the guidance of that decision wherein the Court stated at paragraph 79 that: Although an offender s youth is often an important mitigating factor to consider, it should be noted that it is young people who are affected the most by motor vehicle accidents that result from impaired driving. In light of the importance that must be attributed to the objectives of deterrence and denunciation in such cases as well as the dire consequences of the accident in the instant case, for which the respondent is entirely responsible, the trial judge was right to reduce the weight attached to his youth as a mitigating factor. [27] For these reasons, I do not accept that the decision in Hansell is directly applicable to this case. [28] The law is clear that given the offences before me, the sentencing objectives that must be given the greatest weight are deterrence and denunciation. In addition, there are significant aggravating factors that apply, the substance of which outweigh the mitigating factors that I have identified. The mitigating factor that carries the most weight is Ms. Stuart s age at the time of the offences, though I have attributed reduced weight to that factor in accordance with the direction in Lacasse. In coming to my decision, I have considered the principle of proportionality, and I am satisfied that the sentences that I am about to impose comply with that principle, relative to the case law
10 Page: 10 before me. This includes R. v. Coutu, 2016 MBQB 5, where exceptional circumstances were present that do not exist here, and where there was neither erratic driving nor signs of impairment at the scene. [29] I note that both counsel suggested that the sentences in this matter should be concurrent, and I agree, given that the offences arise out of the same incident. [30] Before imposing sentence, I wish to say to the Hayes family the following. I doubt that anything I say today can lessen your sorrow and pain, and obviously nothing can be done to bring James back. I truly hope, though, that the end of this Court proceeding will bring you a form of closure, to at least some part of what you have experienced, and that you will be able to find some measure of peace in which to move forward in your lives. [31] To Ms. Stuart I wish to say the following. You have a long life ahead of you, and I know that you can make the most of it. You said at the sentencing hearing that you will do something with your life in honour of Mr. Hayes, and I have no doubt that you can and will do it. Do not lose sight of that. CONCLUSION [32] Taking into account the applicable aggravating and mitigating factors in this case and all of the relevant facts and law that I have already referenced, I have concluded that a fit and proper sentence is: 1) with respect to count 2, impaired driving cause death, a period of incarceration of four years;
11 Page: 11 2) with respect to count 1, dangerous driving cause death, a period of incarceration of four years, concurrent; 3) there will be a driving prohibition for a period of seven-and-a-half years; and 4) I am not ordering that a DNA sample be provided pursuant to s (3) of the Criminal Code. Given the nature of the offence, the circumstances of its commission and the low risk of reoffence, I am not satisfied that the impact upon Ms. Stuart s privacy and security is in the best interests of the administration of justice. Grammond J.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA
Citation: R v Yare, 2018 MBCA 114 Date: 20181031 Docket: AR18-30-09033 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Mr. Justice William J. Burnett Madam Justice Janice L. lemaistre Madam Justice Karen I.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA
Citation: R v Gladue, 2018 MBCA 89 Date: 20180910 Docket: AR18-30-09021 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Madam Justice Holly C. Beard Madam Justice Diana M. Cameron Madam Justice Jennifer A. Pfuetzner
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20171121 Docket: YO 16-01-35006 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Green Cited as: 2017 MBQB 181 COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: ) APPEARANCES: ) HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) Cindy Sholdice
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. George, 2016 NSCA 88. Steven William George
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. George, 2016 NSCA 88 Date: 20161209 Docket: CAC 449452 Registry: Halifax Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Steven William George Appellant Respondent Judge:
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Landry, 2018 NSPC 8. v. Elvin Scott Landry SENTENCING DECISION
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Landry, 2018 NSPC 8 Date: 2018-03-20 Docket: 8091424, 8120921, 8126987, 8171986, 8171987, 8196786 Registry: Pictou Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Elvin
More informationTHE QUEEN JOHN MICHAEL COCKER. Counsel: K Stone for the Crown I M Antunovic for the Accused
NOT RECOMMENDED IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CRI-2004-085-1865 WELLINGTON REGISTRY THE QUEEN JOHN MICHAEL COCKER Counsel: K Stone for the Crown I M Antunovic for the Accused Sentencing: 15 October
More informationCitation: R. v. Finck, 2017 NSPC 73. Matthew Finck. Restriction on Publication: Pursuant to s of the Criminal Code DECISION ON SENTENCE
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Finck, 2017 NSPC 73 Date: 20171129 Docket: 8074143/8074144 Registry: Amherst Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Matthew Finck Restriction on Publication:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R v. Copan, 2019 NSSC 111. Christopher William Copan LIBRARY HEADING
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R v. Copan, 2019 NSSC 111 Date: 20190325 Docket: SYD 473843 Registry: Sydney Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Christopher William Copan LIBRARY HEADING Judge: The
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Date: 20180824 Docket: CR 14-01-34014 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Devloo and Ong Cited as: 2018 MBQB 140 COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) Counsel: ) - and
More informationUnfit through drink or drugs (drive/ attempt to drive) (Revised 2017)
Unfit through drink or drugs (drive/ attempt to drive) (Revised 2017) Road Traffic Act 1988, s.4(1) Effective from: 24 April 2017 Triable only summarily: Maximum: Unlimited fine and/or 6 months Offence
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
Summary conviction appeal from a Judicial Justice of the Peace and Provincial Court Judge Date: 20181031 Docket: CR 17-01-36275 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Grant Cited as: 2018 MBQB 171 COURT OF
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Smith, 2017 NSSC 122. v. Tyrico Thomas Smith
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Smith, 2017 NSSC 122 Date: 20170509 Docket: Cr. No. 449182 Registry: Halifax Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Tyrico Thomas Smith Judge: Heard: Sentencing
More informationSexual Offences Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE
Sexual Offences Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Contents Applicability of guideline 7 Rape and assault offences 9 Rape 9 Sexual Offences Act 2003 (section 1) Assault by penetration 13 Sexual
More informationThe Code. for Crown Prosecutors
The Code for Crown Prosecutors January 2013 Introduction 1.1 The Code for Crown Prosecutors (the Code) is issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences
More informationDEFINITIVE GUIDELINE. Sexual Offences Definitive Guideline
DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Sexual Offences Definitive Guideline Contents Applicability of guideline 7 Rape and assault offences 9 Rape Sexual Offences Act 2003 (section 1) 9 Assault by penetration Sexual Offences
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN. -and- RAYMOND ALFRED CANTELO. Before: The Honourable Justice Gordon L.
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: R. v. Cantelo, 2013 PESC 1 Date: 20130130 Docket: S1-GC-931 Registry: Charlottetown HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN -and- RAYMOND ALFRED CANTELO Before: The Honourable
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF MANITOBA
On review from a decision of Provincial Court Judge, July 24, 2018 Date: 20190204 Docket: CR 18-15-00824 (Thompson Centre) Indexed as: R. v. Kelly-White Cited as: 2019 MBQB 22 COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF
More informationIntroduction to Sentencing and Corrections
Introduction to Sentencing and Corrections Traditional Objectives of Sentencing retribution, segregation, rehabilitation, and deterrence. Political Perspectives on Sentencing Left Left Wing Wing focus
More information- and - SENTENCE MATERIALS OF THE CROWN APPELLANT
APPEAL NUMBER: 98-17728 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF ALBERTA BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, - and - APPELLANT CHRISTOPHER SHONDERS GOODSTONEY, RESPONDENT Appeal from the Sentence by THE HONOURABLE JUDGE
More informationBreach Offences Guideline Consultation 61. Annex C: ANNEX C. Draft guidelines. Breach of a Community Order Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Schedule 8)
Breach Offences Guideline Consultation 61 Annex C: Draft guidelines Breach of a Community Order Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Schedule 8) 62 Breach Offences Guideline Consultation Breach of Community Order
More informationBreach Offences Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE
Breach Offences Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Contents Applicability of guideline 2 Breach of a community order 3 Breach of a suspended sentence order 7 Breach of post-sentence supervision
More informationDangerous Dog. Offences Definitive Guideline
Dangerous Dog DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Offences Definitive Guideline Revised - Contents Applicability of Guidelines 2 Dog dangerously out of control in any place where death is caused Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
More informationPage: 1 SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Citation: R. v. Moase 2012 PESC 36 Date: Docket: S1-GC-965 Registry: Charlottetown
Page: 1 SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: R. v. Moase 2012 PESC 36 Date: 20121204 Docket: S1-GC-965 Registry: Charlottetown Her Majesty the Queen -against- Clarence Arnold Moase Appearances:
More informationIntimidatory Offences Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE
Intimidatory Offences Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Contents Applicability of guideline 4 Harassment (putting people in fear of violence) 5 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (section 4)
More informationEFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 2011
CRIMINAL JUSTICE BRANCH, MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL CROWN COUNSEL POLICY MANUAL ARCS/ORCS FILE NUMBER: 57200-00 SUBJECT: EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 2011 POLICY CODE: IMP 1 CROSS-REFERENCE: Impaired Driving
More informationISSUES. Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association December 1, Fall Seminar, 1998: Bail Hearings and Sentencing. Prepared by: Andrew Mason
SENTENCING ISSUES Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association December 1, 1998 Fall Seminar, 1998: Bail Hearings and Sentencing Prepared by: Andrew Mason Also available to members at the SCDLA Web site:
More informationSENTENCING SUBMISSIONS
) SENTENCING SUBMISSIONS ) I \ '. ) SENTENCING SUBMISSIONS "Sentencing is, in respect of most offenders, the only significant decision the criminal justice system is called upon to make" R. v. Gardiner
More informationGuidebook for Sentence Appeals
Guidebook for Sentence Appeals STEP 1: Reasons to Appeal 1.1 Before you start This online guide explains how to appeal a sentence (imposed for a conviction for an indictable offence) on your own. Before
More informationSentencing and the Correctional System. Chapter 11
Sentencing and the Correctional System Chapter 11 1 Once a person has been found guilty of committing a crime, the judge imposes a sentence, or punishment. Generally, the goals of sentencing are to punish
More informationAnnex C: Draft guideline
Bladed Articles and Offensive Weapons Guideline Consultation 43 Annex C: Draft guideline POSSESSION Bladed Articles and Offensive Weapons Possession Possession of an offensive weapon in a public place
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION. Her Majesty the Queen. against. Corey Blair Clarke
Citation: R v Clarke Date:20050216 2005 PCSCTD 10 Docket:S 1 GC 384 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Her Majesty the Queen against Corey Blair
More informationSentencing Options. Introduction to Sentencing and Corrections Traditional Objectives of Sentencing
Introduction to Sentencing and Corrections Traditional Objectives of Sentencing retribution, segregation, rehabilitation, and deterrence (general & specific) Political Perspectives on Sentencing Left Wing
More informationCriminal Law Guidebook - Chapter 12: Sentencing and Punishment
The following is a suggested solution to the problem on page 313. It represents an answer of an above average standard. The ILAC approach to problem-solving as set out in the How to Answer Questions section
More informationBladed Articles and Offensive Weapons
Bladed Articles and Offensive Weapons DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Definitive Guideline Contents Applicability of guideline 2 Bladed Articles and Offensive Weapons 3 Possession Bladed Articles and Offensive Weapons
More informationMANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES: HANDCUFFING THE PRISONER OR THE JUDGE?
MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES: HANDCUFFING THE PRISONER OR THE JUDGE?.THE CANADIAN EXPERIENCE SO FAR American Judges Association, Annual Educational Conference October 7, 2014 Las Vegas, Nevada Judge Catherine
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, AD 2014 (Criminal Jurisdiction) INDICTMENT NO C82/05
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, AD 2014 (Criminal Jurisdiction) Central District INDICTMENT NO C82/05 THE QUEEN and JAMIE DAWSON BEFORE: Hon. Chief Justice Kenneth Benjamin July 28 & August 12, 2014. Appearances:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN. - against - FRANCES GEORGINA LAMOUREUX. BEFORE: The Honourable Justice Wayne D.
SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: R. v. Lamoureux 2011 PESC 03 Date: 20110225 Docket: S1-GC-799 Registry: Charlottetown HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - against - FRANCES GEORGINA LAMOUREUX BEFORE:
More informationPROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN STACEY REID BLACKMORE
Date: 19991207 Docket: AD-0832 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION BETWEEN: AND: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN STACEY REID BLACKMORE APPELLANT RESPONDENT
More informationQ1) Do you agree or disagree with the Council s approach to the distinction between a principle and a purpose of sentencing?
Name Scottish Hazards Publication consent Publish response with name Q1) Do you agree or disagree with the Council s approach to the distinction between a principle and a purpose of sentencing? Agree We
More informationConditional Sentences in Manitoba: A Prisoner in Your Own Home
Conditional Sentences in Manitoba: A Prisoner in Your Own Home JEFFREY J. GINDIN * I. INTRODUCTION P rior to September of 1996, when a judge sentenced an accused to a jail sentence, he or she was immediately
More informationCase Name: R. v. Khosa. Between Regina, and Harmohinder Singh Khosa. [2014] B.C.J. No BCSC CarswellBC W.C.B.
Page 1 Case Name: R. v. Khosa Between Regina, and Harmohinder Singh Khosa [2014] B.C.J. No. 215 2014 BCSC 194 2014 CarswellBC 305 111 W.C.B. (2d) 876 Docket: 59889-2 Registry: Chilliwack British Columbia
More informationPART H - SPECIFIC OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS. Introductory Commentary
5H1.1 PART H - SPECIFIC OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS Introductory Commentary The following policy statements address the relevance of certain offender characteristics to the determination of whether a sentence
More informationEnvironmental Offences Definitive Guideline
Environmental Offences Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Contents Applicability of guideline 2 Guideline for offenders that are organisations 3 Unauthorised or harmful deposit, treatment or disposal
More information2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. Govt. Works
Page 1 2010 CarswellOnt 8109 R. v. Allen Her Majesty the Queen against Andre Allen Ontario Court of Justice M. Then J.P. Heard: October 19, 2010 Judgment: October 19, 2010 Docket: None given. Thomson Reuters
More informationSchool non attendance (Revised 2017)
School non attendance (Revised 2017) Education Act 1996, s.444(1) (parent fails to secure regular attendance at school of registered pupil); s.444(1a) (Parent knowingly fails to secure regular attendance
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Hanlon, 2016 NSPC 32. v. Christopher Rae Hanlon
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Hanlon, 2016 NSPC 32 Date: 20160315 Docket: 2872044, 2872045, 2901871, 2901867, 2901868, 2932043, 2932044, 2932081 and 2932082 Registry: Halifax Between:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY CRI THE QUEEN ROBERT JOHN BROWN SENTENCING NOTES OF ANDREWS J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY CRI 2005-020-003954 THE QUEEN v ROBERT JOHN BROWN Hearing: 30 July 2008 Appearances: C R Walker for the Crown D H Quilliam for the Prisoner Judgment: 30
More informationAnnex C: Draft guidelines
Intimidatory Offences and Domestic abuse guidelines Consultation 53 Annex C: Draft guidelines Overarching Principles: Domestic Abuse Applicability of the Guideline In accordance with section 120 of the
More informationFINAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT: FAILING TO SURRENDER TO BAIL
FINAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT: FAILING TO SURRENDER TO BAIL 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This document fulfils the Council s statutory duty to produce a resource assessment which considers the likely effect of its guidelines
More informationTHE CROWN JUNIOR SAMI. NOTES OF JUDGE FWM McELREA ON SENTENCING
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND THE CROWN v JUNIOR SAMI Hearing: 14 October 2005 Appearances: S McColgan for the Crown J Edgar for the Defendant NOTES OF JUDGE FWM McELREA ON SENTENCING [1] The defendant,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI [2013] NZHC 2357 THE QUEEN FABIAN JESSIE MIKA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI-2013-009-001924 [2013] NZHC 2357 THE QUEEN v Hearing: 10 September 2013 FABIAN JESSIE MIKA Appearances: P J Shamy and MAJ Elliott for Crown J
More informationSentencing Act Examinable excerpts of PART 1 PRELIMINARY. 1 Purposes
Examinable excerpts of Sentencing Act 1991 as at 10 April 2018 1 Purposes PART 1 PRELIMINARY The purposes of this Act are (a) to promote consistency of approach in the sentencing of offenders; (b) to have
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. MacLean, 2015 NSPC 70. v. Nathan Fred Grant MacLean SENTENCING DECISION
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. MacLean, 2015 NSPC 70 Date: 2015-10-15 Docket: 2825618 Registry: Pictou Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Nathan Fred Grant MacLean SENTENCING DECISION Restriction
More informationAssault Definitive Guideline
Assault Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Contents For reference Assault only. Definitive Guideline 1 Applicability of guideline 2 Causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily
More informationTHE QUEEN. and AKEEM SEBASTIAN
BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS (CRIMINAL JURISDICTION) CRIMINAL CASE NO 21 of 2007 THE QUEEN and AKEEM SEBASTIAN Appearances: Mr. Terrance Williams, Director of Public Prosecutions and Ms. Tiffany Scatliffe, Crown
More information"SOME THOUGHTS ON GUILTY PLEAS AND SENTENCING"
"SOME THOUGHTS ON GUILTY PLEAS AND SENTENCING" ( ( )',~- These materials were prepared by Patrick Reis, of Saskatchewan Legal Aid Commission (Regina Rural Office) Regina, Saskatchewan for thesaskatchewan
More informationThat being registered under the Medical Act 1983 (as amended):
PUBLIC RECORD Dates: 09/11/2017 10/11/2017 Medical Practitioner s name: Dr Andrew MACKENZIE GMC reference number: 6134691 Primary medical qualification: Type of case New - Conviction / Caution MB ChB 2006
More informationInformation Sharing Protocol
Information Sharing Protocol Young Persons with Status under the Youth Criminal Justice Act LEARNING SOLICITOR GENERAL Message from the Ministers The Information Sharing Protocol provides a provincial
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR Citation: R. v. Martin, 2018 NLCA 12 Date: February 22, 2018 Docket: 201701H0055 BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN APPELLANT AND: SKYE MARTIN RESPONDENT
More informationCOURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF MANITOBA
On review from a committal to stand trial on a charge of second degree murder by a preliminary inquiry judge dated September 13, 2017. Date: 20180302 Docket: CR 17-01-36388 (Winnipeg Centre) Indexed as:
More informationMAGISTRATES COURT SENTENCING GUIDELINES. SENTENCING COUNCIL UPDATE 7 March 2012
MAGISTRATES COURT SENTENCING GUIDELINES SENTENCING COUNCIL UPDATE 7 March 2012 This update from the Sentencing Council provides new material following publication of the definitive guideline for allocation,
More informationSubject: Offences Committed Against Peace Officers Date: October 2015
Manitoba Department of Justice Prosecutions Policy Directive Guideline No. 2:PRO:1 Subject: Offences Committed Against Peace Officers Date: October 2015 POLICY STATEMENT: Peace officers are on the front
More informationFrancis Burt Law Education Programme
CONTEMPORARY ISSUE CENTERING ON JUSTICE, JUDICIAL PROCESS AND LEGAL POWER: MANDATORY SENTENCING STUDENT PRE-VISIT RESOURCE In your Politics and Law course you are expected to study one contemporary issue.
More informationSentencing remarks of Mr Justice Kerr. The Queen v Aaron Jenkins and Emma Butterworth. Preston Crown Court. 3 March 2016
Sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Kerr The Queen v Aaron Jenkins and Emma Butterworth Preston Crown Court 3 March 2016 1. You may both remain seated for the moment. I will deal first with your case, Mr
More information4. What is private law? 3. What are laws? 1. Review all terms in chapters: 1, 2, 4, 5,6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, What is the purpose of Law?
1. Review all terms in chapters: 1, 2, 4, 5,6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14 2. What is the purpose of Law? Laws reflect the values and beliefs of a society. A rule enforced by government 3. What are laws? 1)Set
More informationDrug Offences Definitive Guideline
Drug Offences Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Contents For reference Drug Offences only. Definitive Guideline 1 Applicability of guideline 2 Fraudulent evasion of a prohibition by bringing into
More informationJustice Green s decision is a sophisticated engagement with some of the issues raised last class about the moral justification of punishment.
PHL271 Handout 9: Sentencing and Restorative Justice We re going to deepen our understanding of the problems surrounding legal punishment by closely examining a recent sentencing decision handed down in
More informationLegal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No 4 and Saving Provisions) Order 2012
Page 1 2012 (Commencement No 4 and Saving Provisions) Order 2012 (SI 2012/2906) 2012 No 2906 (C 114) CRIMINAL LAW, ENGLAND AND WALES DEFENCE Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement
More informationAppellant. JOHN DAVID WRIGHT Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA831/2013 [2014] NZCA 119 BETWEEN AND THE QUEEN Appellant JOHN DAVID WRIGHT Respondent Hearing: 12 March 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Wild, Goddard and Clifford
More informationKARL MURRAY BROWN Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Ellen France, MacKenzie and Mallon JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA686/2013 [2014] NZCA 93 BETWEEN AND KARL MURRAY BROWN Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 18 February 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Ellen France, MacKenzie
More informationJUSTICES CLERKS SOCIETY SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE (CHIEF MAGISTRATE)
Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) JUSTICES CLERKS SOCIETY SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE (CHIEF MAGISTRATE) Youth Court Jurisdiction The Modern Approach July 2015 This is the joint advice of the Justices'
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC CHANTELL PENE NGATIKAI Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI 2014-004-000413 [2014] NZHC 3294 BETWEEN AND CHANTELL PENE NGATIKAI Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 16 December 2014 Appearances:
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Harrison, Goddard and Andrews JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
DRAFT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA761/2013 [2014] NZCA 375 BETWEEN AND BENJAMIN VAINU Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 29 July 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Harrison, Goddard and Andrews
More informationPublic Order Offences Guidelines Consultation CONSULTATION
Public Order Offences Guidelines Consultation CONSULTATION May 2018 Public Order Offences Consultation Published on 9 May 2018 The consultation will end on 8 August 2018 A consultation produced by the
More informationS G C. Dangerous Offenders. Sentencing Guidelines Council. Guide for Sentencers and Practitioners
S G C Sentencing Guidelines Council Dangerous Offenders Guide for Sentencers and Practitioners CONTENTS PART ONE Introduction 5 PART TWO PART THREE Criteria for imposing sentences under the dangerous
More informationRobbery Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE
Robbery Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Contents Applicability of guideline 2 Robbery street and less sophisticated commercial 3 Theft Act 1968 (section 8(1)) Robbery professionally planned commercial
More informationThe Criminal Justice System: From Charges to Sentencing
The Criminal Justice System: From Charges to Sentencing The Key Principles The aim the system is to protect and to regulate society, to punish offenders and to offer rehabilitation; The Government, through
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA. Citation: R. v. MacNeil, 2017 NSPC 57 DECISION ON SENTENCE. The Honourable Judge Amy Sakalauskas
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. MacNeil, 2017 NSPC 57 Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Liam Alexander MacNeil Date: October 12, 2017 Registry: Sydney DECISION ON SENTENCE Judge: Place
More informationPleading guilty. The Law in Victoria. The Court Process. Your guide to. Sentencing. in a criminal matter. defence lawyers
Pleading guilty in a criminal matter Your guide to The Law in Victoria The Court Process Sentencing Written by Shaun Pascoe and Kristina Kothrakis defence lawyers Index 3 3 4 5 5 6 6 7 8 8 Pleading Guilty
More informationDangerous Dog Offences Consultation CONSULTATION
Dangerous Dog Offences Consultation CONSULTATION March 2015 INTRODUCTION Dangerous Dog Offences Guideline Consultation Published on 17 March 2015 This consultation will end on 9 June 2015 A consultation
More informationFinal Stage Resource Assessment: Summary offences in the Magistrates Court Sentencing Guidelines (MCSG)
Final Stage Resource Assessment: Summary offences in the Magistrates Court Sentencing Guidelines (MCSG) 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This document fulfils the Council s statutory duty to produce a resource assessment
More informationCitation: R v Dalkeith-Mackie, 2018 MBCA 118 Date: Docket: AR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA
Citation: R v Dalkeith-Mackie, 2018 MBCA 118 Date: 20181108 Docket: AR17-30-08939 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Mr. Justice Michel A. Monnin Madam Justice Holly C. Beard Madam Justice Janice
More informationCOMMONWEALTH : : : No. CR : OPINION AND ORDER. fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, a felony of the third degree.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH : : vs. : No. CR-1968-2016 : KYIEM BRADSHAW, : Motion for Reconsideration Defendant : of Sentence OPINION AND ORDER Defendant
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Spencer, 2015 NSCA 108. Debra Jane Spencer. v. Her Majesty The Queen
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Spencer, 2015 NSCA 108 Date: 20151202 Docket: CAC 444045 Registry: Halifax Between: Judge: Motion Heard: Debra Jane Spencer v. Her Majesty The Queen MacDonald,
More informationThe infant appeared to be well taken care of, but it was obvious that some sort of violent episode had taken place in the premises. A statement was ta
Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador Grand Bank Between and file numbers 0805A-0076 & 0805A-0095 Her Majesty the Queen Christopher Tobin Decision on sentence On February 24, 2005, at approximately
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Roser [2004] QCA 318 PARTIES: R v ROSER, Matthew Scott (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 265 of 2004 DC No 1432 of 2004 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: DELIVERED
More informationHighway Traffic Act Code de la route
Highway Traffic Act Code de la route ONTARIO REGULATION 339/94 DEMERIT POINT SYSTEM Consolidation Period: From January 1, 2016 to the e-laws currency date. Last amendment: O. Reg. 403/15. This Regulation
More informationGuideline Judgments Case Compendium - Update 2: June 2006 CASE NAME AND REFERENCE
SUBJECT CASE NAME AND REFERENCE (A) GENERIC SENTENCING PRINCIPLES Sentence length Dangerousness R v Lang and others [2005] EWCA Crim 2864 R v S and others [2005] EWCA Crim 3616 The CPS v South East Surrey
More informationCHAPTER TWO: YOUTH JUSTICE
CHAPTER TWO: YOUTH JUSTICE TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER TWO: YOUTH JUSTICE... 1 I. INTRODUCTION... 1 A. LSLAP AND YOUTH JUSTICE... 1 B. HISTORY OF LEGISLATIVE CHANGES... 1 II. GOVERNING LEGISLATION AND RESOURCES...
More informationCivil Law is known as Private Law. Regulates disputes between individuals; between parties; and between individuals and parties.
Civil Disputes Civil Law is known as Private Law. Regulates disputes between individuals; between parties; and between individuals and parties. The main purpose of Civil Law is to compensate victims. Civil
More informationAN ACT RELATING TO DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR OR DRUGS; INCREASING THE PENALTY FOR HOMICIDE BY
AN ACT RELATING TO DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR OR DRUGS; INCREASING THE PENALTY FOR HOMICIDE BY VEHICLE WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR OR DRUGS; INCREASING PENALTIES
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. Fish J. (Binnie J. concurring)
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Angelillo, 2006 SCC 55 DATE: 20061208 DOCKET: 30681 BETWEEN: Her Majesty The Queen Appellant and Gennaro Angelillo Respondent OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION: Reasons
More informationLEVEL 6 - UNIT 18 CRIMINAL LITIGATION SUGGESTED ANSWERS JANUARY 2015
LEVEL 6 - UNIT 18 CRIMINAL LITIGATION SUGGESTED ANSWERS JANUARY 2015 Note to Candidates and Tutors: The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide students and tutors with guidance as to the key points
More informationResetting the Bar. Sentencing the Mentally Disordered Accused. Janessa Mason March 18, 2016 Submitted as Major Paper in CLT
Resetting the Bar Sentencing the Mentally Disordered Accused Janessa Mason janessam@uvic.ca March 18, 2016 Submitted as Major Paper in CLT This is a Draft Paper. It is made available to Community CLE registrants.
More informationNOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Hatt, 2017 NSCA 36. Her Majesty the Queen
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Hatt, 2017 NSCA 36 Date: 20170509 Docket: CAC 457828 Registry: Halifax Between: Richard Edward Hatt v. Her Majesty the Queen Appellant Respondent Judge: Appeal
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. MITCHELL CRAIG LITZ Appellant No. 516 WDA 2016 Appeal from the
More informationOn or about November 14, 2004, at or near Saint-Joseph-de-Madawaska, New Brunswick, did break and enter a place, to wit, the business owned by
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF NEW BRUNSWICK TRIAL DIVISION JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMUNDSTON Citation: 2006NBQB036 E/CI/13/05 Date: 20060120 B E T W E E N: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - and - JESSY BERNIER
More informationv No Chippewa Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED February 15, 2018 V No. 336352 Chippewa Circuit Court KEVIN PATRICK TITUS, LC
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CRI [2017] NZDC THE QUEEN TULUA DANIEL TANOAI (AKA) ARETA MARK TANOAI
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CRI-2017-004-004019 [2017] NZDC 20334 THE QUEEN v TULUA DANIEL TANOAI (AKA) ARETA MARK TANOAI Hearing: 8 September 2017 Appearances: A Linterman for the Crown M Pecotic
More informationNATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE OF AUSTRALIA. Current issues in Sentencing
NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE OF AUSTRALIA Current issues in Sentencing Sentencing Indigenous Australians- Judicial challenges and possible solutions 6 February 2016 CHALLENGES FOR THE JUDICIARY Stephen Norrish
More information