Criminal harassment, Uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm, Breach of a release order
R. v. Miller
- Below the Crown's ask
- On release at the time
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
Derek Douglas Miller was found guilty after trial of criminally harassing a young woman over four years, criminally harassing a police officer, uttering a threat to another officer, and breaching a no-contact bail condition. The Crown sought two years less a day on the main harassment count plus a consecutive 90 days for the breach; Mr. Miller, representing himself, sought a conditional discharge. Justice Brundrett imposed an effective eight months on the main count, satisfied by credit for pre-sentence custody, plus 30 days consecutive for the breach and three years of probation, finding that his mental illness contributed to the offences and attenuated his moral blameworthiness.
In the judge's words
1However, I find the moral blameworthiness of the offender, which the circumstances of the offences suggest is elevated, is attenuated by the particular circumstances of the offender. I assess that while the Crown's suggested range of sentence may well be appropriate in other circumstances, Mr. Miller's mental health condition operates as a significant mitigating factor and elevates the focus on rehabilitation and treatment to the extent possible.
The record
- Convicted of
- Criminal harassment (CC 264, 2 counts)
- Uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm (CC 264.1(1)(a))
- Breach of a release order (CC 145(5))
- Prior convictions
- 4 prior convictions, 3 violent1
- At the time of the offence
- On bail1
- Defence asked for
- Discharge1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: P.M. Fullerton
Sources
- R. v. Miller, 2022 BCSC 2020 Court decision, CanLII, October 21, 2022
[57] The Crown seeks a sentence of two years less a day on Count 1, a sentence of 90 to 120 days concurrent on Counts 3 and 5, and a consecutive sentence of 90 days on Count 7.
[59] Mr. Miller submitted that the Court should impose a conditional discharge with court‑ordered conditions to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, have no contact with M.R., and not possess firearms, in a manner that would allow him to move away from the City of Vancouver.
[1] Mr. Miller is before the Court for sentencing. Following a trial, Mr. Miller was found guilty of the following offences:
d) Now, on Count 7, the breach of the release order, that sentence will operate consecutively to reflect that it was committed at a different time while Mr. Miller was on judicial interim release.
[53] Mr. Miller's record comprises four convictions, including producing a Schedule II substance in 2004, assault in 2008, and two counts of assault causing bodily harm in 2009 and 2012.
[89] … However, I find the moral blameworthiness of the offender, which the circumstances of the offences suggest is elevated, is attenuated by the particular circumstances of the offender. I assess that while the Crown's suggested range of sentence may well be appropriate in other circumstances, Mr. Miller's mental health condition operates as a significant mitigating factor and elevates the focus on rehabilitation and treatment to the extent possible.
a) On Count 1, criminal harassment of M.R., the sentence will be one day in jail, with credit for eight months less a day time served, to reflect 156 actual days of time served. The total effective sentence in the absence of credit for presentence custody is eight months.…On Count 7, the breach of the release order, the sentence is 30 days' imprisonment consecutive to the sentences on other counts.…[109] In addition, following your release from custody, you will be bound by a probation order for three years
- Criminal Code, s. 264 Record, Justice Laws Website
- R. v. Miller, 2022 BCSC 2020 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia