Sexual interference
R. v. C.G.D.
A publication ban applies. The offender is not named.
- Below the Crown's ask
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
The offender was convicted after trial of sexual interference for touching a child on three occasions in 2016 and 2017; a duplicative sexual assault count was conditionally stayed. The Crown sought four years' imprisonment and the defence 18 to 24 months. Justice Milman imposed three and a half years' imprisonment, finding that a lengthy custodial term was needed because a previous sentence for similar offences had not deterred the offender.
In the judge's words
1To reduce the risk to other young girls, I find that it is necessary to remove C.G.D. from society for a lengthy period of time. The previous sentence of three years and nine months was evidently insufficient to deter him from re-offending in a similar context.
The record
- Convicted of
- Sexual interference (CC 151)
- Prior convictions
- Not recorded
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- 18 months in custody1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: T.A. Livingston
Defence: J. Jensen
Sources
- R. v. C.G.D., 2021 BCSC 2400 Court decision, CanLII, December 3, 2021
[25] The Crown urges me to impose a custodial sentence of four years.
[29] … A more fitting result, it is argued, would see C.G.D. sentenced to a period of 18-24 months, which would be more than double the high end of that range.
[41] … To reduce the risk to other young girls, I find that it is necessary to remove C.G.D. from society for a lengthy period of time. The previous sentence of three years and nine months was evidently insufficient to deter him from re-offending in a similar context.
[45] I am sentencing C.G.D. to a period of three-and-a-half years' imprisonment.
- R. v. C.G.D., 2021 BCSC 2400 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia