Sexual interference

R. v. B.M.M.

A publication ban applies. The offender is not named.

  • Below the Crown's ask

Sentence and the Crown's position

Crown asked2 years and 6 months in custody1
Judge imposedTwo years in a federal penitentiary, then 3 years probation1
6 months less custody than the Crown asked

What the law allows

Maximum14 years
Crown asked2 years and 6 months in custody
Judge imposed2 years in custody
Minimum1 year struck down
For sexual interference (CC 151), the Criminal Code currently allows up to 14 years when the Crown proceeds by indictment, with a mandatory minimum of 1 year that courts have struck down as unconstitutional. The sentence imposed is 14% of the maximum. Read the section.

The offender pleaded guilty to one count of sexual interference with a 12-year-old in Pictou County in 2019, when he was 20. The Crown sought a sentence in the range of 2.5 to 3 years in a penitentiary; the defence sought a non-custodial sentence. Judge Atwood imposed two years in a federal penitentiary followed by three years of probation, citing the offender's young age and guilty plea and placing the sentence at the lower end of a two-to-three-year range.

In the judge's words

In my view, a fit sentence would ordinarily be a two-year term of penitentiary custody, followed by a three-year term of probation. A two-year term is substantially lesser than the sentences in Wood and Storey, which is proper given that the frequency of abuse and degree of physical interference in this case is lesser than in those cases.

1

The record

Convicted of
Prior convictions
Not recorded
At the time of the offence
Not stated1
Mandatory minimum
Found unconstitutional or not applied under a binding ruling1
Appeal
Not yet checked
Counsel
Crown: Patrick Young
Defence: Jonathan T Hughes

Sources

  1. R. v. B.M.M., 2022 NSPC 38 Court decision, CanLII, November 9, 2022[3] The prosecution seeks a sentence in the range of 2.5-3 years in a penitentiary;[6] The one-year mandatory-minimum penalty was found unconstitutional in R v Hood, 2018 NSCA 18, aff’g 2016 NSPC 78.[36] In my view, a fit sentence would ordinarily be a two-year term of penitentiary custody, followed by a three-year term of probation. A two-year term is substantially lesser than the sentences in Wood and Storey, which is proper given that the frequency of abuse and degree of physical interference in this case is lesser than in those cases.[43] Accordingly, the following is the final sentence for case 8375168: … • A term of two-years’ imprisonment in a federal penitentiary; … • A three-year term of probation with conditions set out in a checklist which I have provided to the clerk of the court and reviewed with counsel;
  2. R. v. B.M.M., 2022 NSPC 38 Court decision, Courts of Nova Scotia

publicly
Sentence Watch is part of Publicly: sites built from government and court records, with every fact linked to its source. Publicly is not affiliated with any government. Visits are counted with Google Analytics, which sets cookies.