Manslaughter, Kidnapping
R. v. D.A.G.
A publication ban applies. The offender is not named.
- Below the Crown's ask
- On release at the time
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
A jury found the offender guilty of kidnapping and manslaughter after the victim was taken from an apartment over a drug debt, restrained, beaten and shot dead by a co-accused at a gravel pit near Cultus Lake. The Crown sought 10 to 12 years and the defence 6 years. Justice Dley imposed 8 years on each offence, concurrent, less 1,206 days of credit, finding the offender was the driving force behind the kidnapping but had a limited role in the death, with his unstable upbringing as a mitigating factor.
In the judge's words
1[68] In these circumstances, the Crown's upper range of 12 years is too high and the defence submission that 6 years is appropriate fails to recognize the gravity of these offences. [69] In these circumstances, the sentencing objectives of denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public must be paramount.
The record
- Convicted of
- Manslaughter (CC 236)
- Kidnapping (CC 279(1))
- Prior convictions
- Not recorded
- At the time of the offence
- On bail1
- Defence asked for
- 6 years in custody1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: M.R. Rygus, S.H. Quendack
Defence: S.R.A. Buck, K.C., V. Aldosky
Sources
- R. v. D.A.G., 2023 BCSC 1643 Court decision, CanLII, September 7, 2023
[63] In arguing that the appropriate sentence falls within a range of sentence of 10 to 12 years, the Crown refers to the following cases:
[64] In arguing that the appropriate sentence should be set at 6 years, the defence has included the following cases:
[53] The aggravating circumstances are as follows: … had just been released from custody on court-ordered conditions which included a requirement that he reside at Joshua House. He breached that condition almost immediately and proceeded to take steps associated with the drug-smuggling scheme.
[68] In these circumstances, the Crown's upper range of 12 years is too high and the defence submission that 6 years is appropriate fails to recognize the gravity of these offences. [69] In these circumstances, the sentencing objectives of denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public must be paramount.
[78] I conclude that the appropriate range for a global sentence for these offences would be in the range of 8 to 10 years. After considering the mitigating factors unique to Mr. … , a fit and just sentence is 8 years in prison on each offence, to be served concurrently. … The credit that Mr. … shall receive, then, is for 1,206 days that he has served.
- R. v. D.A.G., 2023 BCSC 1643 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia