Sexual interference
R. v. C.A.L.
A publication ban applies. The offender is not named.
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
The offender was convicted after trial of sexual interference with a child over a period of years; a sexual assault conviction was stayed under the Kienapple principle. The Crown sought three and a half to four years of imprisonment; the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day. Justice Muise imposed three years and six months, finding a conditional sentence was unavailable and would not be fit in any event.
In the judge's words
1C.A.L. subjected his victim to regular and repeated acts of sexual violence over four years. He did not plead guilty. He did not express remorse.
The record
- Convicted of
- Sexual interference (CC 151)
- Prior convictions
- 0 prior convictions1
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- 2 years less a day conditional sentence1
- Mandatory minimum
- Found unconstitutional or not applied under a binding ruling1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: Peter Craig, Q.C.
Defence: Raymond Jacquard
Sources
- R. v. C.A.L., 2021 NSSC 365 Court decision, CanLII, November 18, 2021
[19] The Crown recommends the following sentence: - 3.5 to 4 years’ imprisonment;
[21] The Defence recommends 2 years’ less a day imprisonment to be served in the community under a conditional sentence order (“CSO”).
[6] … The 1 year minimum penalty has been declared unconstitutional by our Court of Appeal in R. v. Hood, 2018 NSCA 18.
[54] The mitigating circumstances in the case at hand include the following: … 1. He has no criminal record.
[73] … C.A.L. subjected his victim to regular and repeated acts of sexual violence over four years. He did not plead guilty. He did not express remorse.
[91] So, I sentence you, C.A.L., to three years and six months’ imprisonment, consecutive to any sentence you may be serving.
- R. v. C.A.L., 2021 NSSC 365 Court decision, Courts of Nova Scotia