Sexual interference, Invitation to sexual touching, Failure to attend court
R. v. S.P.W.
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 pleaded guilty to sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching of a child, committed between 2016 and 2018, and to failing to attend court. The Crown sought five years and the defence 36 to 42 months. Judge Tax imposed 56 months in a federal penitentiary, less 823 days of remand credit, applying the Supreme Court of Canada's guidance in Friesen; the sexual assault count was conditionally stayed.
In the judge's words
1Having considered the relevant purposes and principles of sentencing, taking into account all of the relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances and having considered the directions provided by the Supreme Court of Canada Friesen, in dealing with the determination of a just and appropriate sentence in a case which involved sexual offences where a young child was the victim, I find that the just and appropriate length of sentence is to order SPW to serve a sentence of imprisonment of 56 months in a federal penitentiary.
The record
- Convicted of
- Sexual interference (CC 151)
- Invitation to sexual touching (CC 152)
- Failure to attend court (CC 145(2))
- Prior convictions
- Not recorded
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- 36 months in custody1
- Mandatory minimum
- Found unconstitutional or not applied under a binding ruling1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: Terri Lipton
Defence: Eugene Tan
Sources
- R. v. S.P.W., 2021 NSPC 24 Court decision, CanLII, April 27, 2021
[8] It is the position of the Crown that, given the serious nature or gravity of the sexual offences and … high degree of responsibility or moral blameworthiness for those offences … the just and appropriate sentence for these offences should be a period of five (5) years of imprisonment.
[78] … he recommends a sentence of 36 to 42 months.
[15] Both Counsel have noted that the statutory minimum sentences in relation to the offences before the Court have been struck, as acknowledged by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in R. v. Hood, 2018 NSCA 18. In those circumstances, the Court is not bound by any mandatory minimum penalty
[85] Having considered the relevant purposes and principles of sentencing, taking into account all of the relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances and having considered the directions provided by the Supreme Court of Canada Friesen, in dealing with the determination of a just and appropriate sentence in a case which involved sexual offences where a young child was the victim, I find that the just and appropriate length of sentence is to order SPW to serve a sentence of imprisonment of 56 months in a federal penitentiary.
[86] The 56-month sentence of imprisonment is being imposed for the offence contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code with a 56-month sentence for the section 152 Criminal Code offence to be served concurrently with the other offence. … [88] … I find that the total enhanced credit would result in an additional 278 days of remand credit for a grand total of 823 days of remand credit.
- R. v. S.P.W., 2021 NSPC 24 Court decision, Courts of Nova Scotia