Focus On

SENTENCING - Criminal Code offences - Breach of probation

Wednesday, June 19, 2019 @ 9:49 AM  


Lexis Advance® Quicklaw®
Appeal by 29-year-old Goddard from six conditions of his probation order. The appellant was sentenced following his guilty plea to breaching a condition of his probation order that prohibited him from possessing a cell phone capable of accessing the Internet. The appellant had several convictions for sexually offending against vulnerable individuals, including minors. The probation order contained 23 conditions. Conditions 17 and 18 allowed for searches of the appellant’s home and electronic devices with his consent. If he withheld consent, the appellant was required to report daily to his probation officer. Condition 12 prohibited the appellant from wearing any clothing that falsely represented him as an employee of a business. Condition 21 provided for electronic supervision.

HELD: Appeal allowed in part. Conditions 17 and 18 could be seen as coercing the giving of consent and called into question the validity of any waiver of the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches. Conditions 17 and 18 were struck in their entirety. Condition 12 was overbroad and vague and was amended to more narrowly target the type of manipulative behaviour that motivated its imposition. The sentencing judge did not err in imposing Condition 21. The required nexus between the appellant and the protection of the community was present — Sentence: one day’s imprisonment; time served; three years’ probation — Criminal Code, s. 733.1(1).

R. v. Goddard, [2019] B.C.J. No. 817, British Columbia Court of Appeal, R.J. Bauman C.J.B.C., M.V. Newbury and G.J. Fitch JJ.A., May 10, 2019. Digest No. TLD-June172019007