Sexual assault of a person under 16
R. v. T.C.S.T.
A publication ban applies. The offender is not named.
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
The offender pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault of a girl aged 12 to 13, committed in Richmond in 2015 and 2016. The Crown and defence jointly proposed three years' imprisonment. Justice Ker accepted the joint submission and imposed three years, finding it balanced the aggravating factors with the early guilty plea, remorse, lack of a record and a low assessed risk to reoffend; she also exempted the offender from sex offender registration under s. 7 of the Charter.
In the judge's words
1[107] Third, in my view, the recommended sentence appropriately balances the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case, and reasonably seeks to ensure that the sentence imposed honours the overarching principle of sentencing; that the sentence is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of the responsibility of the offender. [108] Fourth, the proposed sentence properly reflects the principles of sentencing applicable to these offences, with primary emphasis on deterrence and denunciation, as mandated by the jurisprudence and ss. 718.01 and 718.04 of the Code.
The record
- Convicted of
- Sexual assault of a person under 16 (CC 271 U16)
- Prior convictions
- 0 prior convictions1
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- 3 years in custody1
- Mandatory minimum
- Found unconstitutional or not applied under a binding ruling1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: K. Hennessy
Defence: R.C.C. Peck, K.C., M. Gismondi, L. Chu
Sources
- R. v. T.C.S.T., 2023 BCSC 1656 Court decision, CanLII, August 2, 2023
[6] At this sentencing hearing, the Crown and defence presented a joint submission on sentence. That is, they both recommended the same sentence be imposed. In the circumstances of this case, counsel jointly submit that a sentence of three years' imprisonment is appropriate
[6] At this sentencing hearing, the Crown and defence presented a joint submission on sentence. That is, they both recommended the same sentence be imposed. In the circumstances of this case, counsel jointly submit that a sentence of three years' imprisonment is appropriate
[5] T.C.S.T. faces a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment and no mandatory minimum penalty, as the mandatory minimum in s. 271(a) of the Code was found by Justice Beames to be inconsistent with s. 12 of the Charter and not justified under s. 1 of the Charter in R. v. E.R.D.R., 2016 BCSC 1759
[22] T.C.S.T. is 68 years old. He is a dual citizen of Canada and Hong Kong. He has no criminal record in Canada or abroad.
[107] Third, in my view, the recommended sentence appropriately balances the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case, and reasonably seeks to ensure that the sentence imposed honours the overarching principle of sentencing; that the sentence is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of the responsibility of the offender. [108] Fourth, the proposed sentence properly reflects the principles of sentencing applicable to these offences, with primary emphasis on deterrence and denunciation, as mandated by the jurisprudence and ss. 718.01 and 718.04 of the Code.
[137] For the offence of sexual assault in Count 3, I sentence you to three years' imprisonment.
- R. v. T.C.S.T., 2023 BCSC 1656 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia