Sexual interference, Sexual exploitation of a young person, Sexual assault
R. v. S.H.B.
A publication ban applies. The offender is not named.
Sentence and the Crown's position
Crown asked7 years in custody1
Judge imposedSeven and one-half years' imprisonment (sexual interference and sexual exploitation, concurrent), with 3 years concurrent for sexual assault1
What the law allows
Maximum14 years
Crown asked7 years in custody
Judge imposed7 years and 6 months in custody
Defence asked5 years in custody
Minimum1 year
A jury convicted the offender of sexual interference, sexual exploitation and sexual assault of the complainant over a period beginning when she was 11 and ending two months after she turned 18; a count of invitation to sexual touching was conditionally stayed. The Crown sought seven to eight years' imprisonment and the defence five years. Justice Gropper imposed seven and one-half years' imprisonment, finding the offences of the highest moral blameworthiness and declining to reduce the sentence for potential immigration consequences.
In the judge's words
1S.H.B.'s offences were of the highest moral blameworthiness.
The record
- Convicted of
- Sexual interference (CC 151)
- Sexual exploitation of a young person (CC 153)
- Sexual assault (CC 271)
- Prior convictions
- 0 prior convictions1
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- 5 years in custody1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: R.B. Richardson
Defence: B. Lynskey
Sources
- https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2022/2022bcsc441/2022bcsc441.html Court decision
[20] The Crown submits that a seven‑ to eight‑year jail sentence is appropriate for Counts 1 and 3, to be served concurrently.
[22] The defence asserts that a sentence of five years in jail is appropriate.
[12] S.H.B. is 55 years old. He has no criminal record.
[71] S.H.B.'s offences were of the highest moral blameworthiness.
[90] I find that a sentence of seven and one‑half years' imprisonment on Counts 1 and 3 to be served concurrently is the appropriate sentence.
- R. v. S.H.B., 2022 BCSC 441 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia