Manslaughter, Indignity to human remains
R. v. T.A.L.
A publication ban applies. The offender is not named.
- On release at the time
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter and to offering indignity to a dead human body for killing his pregnant partner and concealing her body, a death that went unproven for 19 years. Crown and defence made a joint submission of eight years for manslaughter and three and a half years consecutive for the indignity offence. Justice Brown accepted the joint submission, citing the benefits of a guilty plea and an agreed sentence, and deducted three years and six days of pre-sentence custody from the second count.
In the judge's words
1As the Supreme Court of Canada has said in R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, there are real benefits that are provided to society and to those who are affected by these sorts of crimes when a guilty plea is entered and when there is an agreed sentence that is fixed. It provides not only efficiency with respect to the judicial system, it provides closure for everyone who is involved, and it provides a result that may not have been achieved if this matter went to trial.
The record
- Convicted of
- Manslaughter (CC 236)
- Indignity to human remains (CC 182(b))
- Prior convictions
- Not recorded
- At the time of the offence
- On probation1
- Defence asked for
- 11 years and 6 months in custody1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: N. Wiberg
Defence: T.D. Anderson, A. Lagemaat
Sources
- R. v. T.A.L., 2021 BCSC 1910 Court decision, CanLII, September 7, 2021
[5] … So I am satisfied that it is appropriate in the circumstance that I accept the joint submission with respect to sentence. … [14] CNSL N. WIBERG: Three years and six days, that that three years and six days be removed from the 11-and-a-half years.
[5] … So I am satisfied that it is appropriate in the circumstance that I accept the joint submission with respect to sentence. … [14] CNSL N. WIBERG: Three years and six days, that that three years and six days be removed from the 11-and-a-half years.
[2] There are a number of aggravating factors which the Crown and defence have alluded to. The first is that … and … were in a trust relationship and that she was pregnant; the second is that … was on probation at the time
[5] As the Supreme Court of Canada has said in R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, there are real benefits that are provided to society and to those who are affected by these sorts of crimes when a guilty plea is entered and when there is an agreed sentence that is fixed. It provides not only efficiency with respect to the judicial system, it provides closure for everyone who is involved, and it provides a result that may not have been achieved if this matter went to trial.
[18] With respect to Count 1, that is the manslaughter count, I am sentencing … to eight years. With respect to Count 2, that is improperly or indecently interfering with or offering indignity to a dead human body, I am sentencing him to three-and-a-half years. The time served, which is three years and six days, will be deducted from three-and-a-half years … [10] THE COURT: Yes, they are consecutive.
- Criminal Code, s. 236 Record, Justice Laws Website
- R. v. T.A.L., 2021 BCSC 1910 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia