Sexual interference
R. v. C.R.B.
A publication ban applies. The offender is not named.
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
The offender was convicted by a jury of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching and sexual assault involving a 15-year-old complainant in Surrey in June 2019; the latter two counts were conditionally stayed. The Crown sought three or four years in custody and the defence a conditional sentence of two years less a day with probation. Justice McDonald imposed three years' imprisonment, finding a conditional sentence would not meet the requirements of deterrence and denunciation.
In the judge's words
1However, upon considering all of the relevant factors, I have decided that a CSO is not a fit and proper sentence in all of the circumstances because it does not meet the requirements of deterrence, both general and specific, and denunciation in relation to sexual interference contrary to s. 151 of the Code.
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
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: C. Cromlish
Defence: B. Movassaghi
Sources
- R. v. C.R.B., 2023 BCSC 134 Court decision, CanLII, January 13, 2023
[43] The position of the Crown on sentence is that … should be sentenced to three or four years in custody for the offence of sexual interference contrary to s. 151 of the Code.
[50] Defence counsel opposes the Crown's position of a three to four year sentence of incarceration. Defence counsel submits that a conditional sentence order (CSO) for two years less a day with a three-year probationary order is the appropriate sentence, especially given that … is a youthful first-time offender.
[31] Again, … has no criminal record, and he is a first-time offender.
[81] However, upon considering all of the relevant factors, I have decided that a CSO is not a fit and proper sentence in all of the circumstances because it does not meet the requirements of deterrence, both general and specific, and denunciation in relation to sexual interference contrary to s. 151 of the Code.
[88] On the charge of sexual interference of … contrary to s. 151 of the Code, which is Count 1 of the Indictment, I impose a custodial sentence of three years.
- R. v. C.R.B., 2023 BCSC 134 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia