Making child sexual abuse material, Possessing child sexual abuse material, Sexual assault
R. v. R.P.P.
A publication ban applies. The offender is not named.
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
The offender was convicted after trial of sexual assault, possessing child pornography and making child pornography involving a vulnerable boy he repeatedly sexually assaulted over about six years, beginning when the boy was 12 or 13, while in a position of trust. The Crown sought a global sentence of ten years after adjusting for totality; the defence sought five to six years. Justice Donegan imposed a total sentence of ten years' imprisonment, less 27 days of credit, finding that denunciation and deterrence were the primary sentencing objectives.
In the judge's words
1[120] Denunciation and deterrence are the primary sentencing objectives here. The legislation requires it and the circumstances demand it.
The record
- Convicted of
- Making child sexual abuse material (CC 163.1(2))
- Possessing child sexual abuse material (CC 163.1(4))
- Sexual assault (CC 271)
- Prior convictions
- 0 prior convictions1
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- 5 years in custody1
- Mandatory minimum
- Found unconstitutional or not applied under a binding ruling1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: P. O'Neil
Defence: M. La Flamme
Sources
- R. v. R.P.P., 2023 BCSC 1818 Court decision, CanLII, July 6, 2023
[3] The Crown takes the position that a global sentence of 13 years' imprisonment, reduced to ten years through the application of the totality principle, is a fit and proportionate sentence for these offences.
[3] … The defence contends that a fit global sentence, adjusted for totality, is five to six years' imprisonment.
[46] Count 3, making child pornography, had a one‑year MMS in July 2011. However, I struck it down as unconstitutional in R. v. K.M., 2022 BCSC 360.
[27] … He has no prior criminal record.
[120] Denunciation and deterrence are the primary sentencing objectives here. The legislation requires it and the circumstances demand it.
[127] So, sir, I sentence you to eight years' imprisonment on Count 1, to run consecutively to a two‑year sentence of imprisonment on Count 3. The sentence on Count 2 of one year imprisonment will remain, but again bearing in mind the totality principle, this sentence will run concurrently to the other sentences. Your total sentence is, therefore, ten years' imprisonment. … [140] THE COURT: Thank you. Now, Mr. …, since you have been in pre-sentence custody for 18 days now, I give you enhanced credit for that time at a rate of one to one and a half days, in the amount of 27 days.
- R. v. R.P.P., 2023 BCSC 1818 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia