Focus On

SENTENCING - Sexual offences - Child pornography - Protection of the public

Tuesday, January 22, 2019 @ 8:28 AM  


Lexis Advance® Quicklaw®
Appeal by the Crown from the sentence imposed on the 50-year-old respondent following his guilty pleas to eight sexual and pornography related offences and his designation as a dangerous offender. The respondent had a history of sexual offending that spanned nearly three decades. The predicate offences involved the sexual abuse of the respondent’s two biological daughters over a period of three years that started in 2012 when they were 10 and 11-years-old. The respondent took photographs of the children while sexually abusing them. An assessment found the respondent was a pedophile at a high risk to reoffend but that a risk-management strategy could be put into place on the respondent’s reintegration into the community. The sentencing judge concluded that a lesser measure than an indeterminate sentence would adequately protect the public.

HELD: Appeal dismissed. The sentencing judge did not misinterpret sections 753(4) and 753(4.1) of the Criminal Code. He did not apply the wrong legal test when he imposed a determinate sentence. The sentencing judge was well aware of the questionable efficacy of further treatment. Even if the respondent’s condition was intractable, that did not compel an indeterminate sentence. Reference to management of the risk was not indicative of an error by the sentencing judge in the application of the statutory criteria. The sentencing judge did not err by misapprehending the evidence relating to whether there was a reasonable expectation that a lesser sentence would adequately protect the public. Sentence: eight years’ imprisonment; 10-year Long Term Supervision Order -- Criminal Code, ss. 151, 155(2), 163.1(2), 163.1(4), 271, 490.031.

R. v. S.P.C., [2018] S.J. No. 465, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, R.K. Ottenbreit, P.A. Whitmore and L.M. Schwann JJ.A., December 5, 2018. Digest No. TLD-January212019003