Sexual interference
R. v. R.A.J.
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, who had prior convictions from 2003 for sexual offences against young persons, was convicted after trial of sexual interference with a 15-year-old in his care in November 2018; a sexual assault count on the same facts was conditionally stayed. The Crown sought four to five years in jail and the defence 12 to 18 months. Justice Jenkins imposed two years less a day, finding the offender's grooming of the complainant most aggravating but placing the sentence at the low end of the range because it was a single incident.
In the judge's words
1After consideration of all the evidence, the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code, and the decision in Friesen and those that have followed it, I conclude that a fit sentence of incarceration in this case is for two years less one day, that sentence being at the low end of the appropriate range reflecting a single incident, and that the sexual touching was not of as serious a nature as in the other authorities.
The record
- Convicted of
- Sexual interference (CC 151)
- Prior convictions
- 2 prior convictions, 2 violent1
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- 12 months in custody1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: S.H. Quendack
Defence: P.W. Janzen
Sources
- R. v. R.A.J., 2021 BCSC 2422 Court decision, CanLII, October 1, 2021
[24] The Crown submits that a range of jail sentence of three to six years is appropriate, considering the findings in the Friesen decision and that a fit sentence in this case would be between four to five years.
[28] … submits an appropriate sentence should include a term of incarceration of between 12 to 18 months.
[14] Regarding aggravating factors, Mr. … was convicted in 2003 of inviting a young person to sexual touching under s. 152 and sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code, which resulted in an 18‑month conditional sentence order and probation of three years on each charge.
[43] After consideration of all the evidence, the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code, and the decision in Friesen and those that have followed it, I conclude that a fit sentence of incarceration in this case is for two years less one day, that sentence being at the low end of the appropriate range reflecting a single incident, and that the sexual touching was not of as serious a nature as in the other authorities.
[43] After consideration of all the evidence, the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code, and the decision in Friesen and those that have followed it, I conclude that a fit sentence of incarceration in this case is for two years less one day, that sentence being at the low end of the appropriate range reflecting a single incident, and that the sexual touching was not of as serious a nature as in the other authorities.
- R. v. R.A.J., 2021 BCSC 2422 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia