Sexual assault
R. v. R.M.C.
A publication ban applies. The offender is not named.
- Below the Crown's ask
Sentence and the Crown's position
Crown asked32 months in custody1
Judge imposed30 months in prison1
60 days less custody than the Crown asked
What the law allows
Maximum10 years
Crown asked32 months in custody
Judge imposed30 months in custody
Defence askedSuspended sentence
The offender was convicted after trial of sexually assaulting an intoxicated woman at his home in Langley after a night out. The Crown sought 32 to 40 months in prison; the defence sought a three-year suspended sentence, arguing his cardiac and other medical conditions made incarceration unusually dangerous. Justice Armstrong found the evidence did not show clearly that prison would put his health at serious risk and imposed 30 months in prison.
In the judge's words
1Considering all of the factors presented and a comparison with the other cases, I find that a proportionate sentence for this offence is 30 months' incarceration.
The record
- Convicted of
- Sexual assault (CC 271)
- Prior convictions
- 0 prior convictions1
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- Suspended sentence1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: J.C. Henry
Defence: B. Coleman, Q.C.
Sources
- R. v. R.M.C., 2022 BCSC 1185 Court decision, CanLII, April 20, 2022
[42] In this case, the Crown seeks a sentence of 32 to 40 months in prison.
He sought a three‑year suspended sentence with conditions.
He was successful in completing his nine months' probation and abided by all of those conditions, and has no other criminal record.
[173] Considering all of the factors presented and a comparison with the other cases, I find that a proportionate sentence for this offence is 30 months' incarceration.
[173] Considering all of the factors presented and a comparison with the other cases, I find that a proportionate sentence for this offence is 30 months' incarceration. I sentence you to 30 months in prison.
- Criminal Code, s. 271 Record, Justice Laws Website
- R. v. R.M.C., 2022 BCSC 1185 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia