Arson with disregard for human life
R. v. James-Davies
- Below the Crown's ask
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
Richard Elliot James-Davies pleaded guilty to arson with disregard for human life for recklessly setting a fire in his basement suite in a Surrey home while the family upstairs slept. The Crown sought two years less a day in prison; the defence sought a conditional sentence of the same length. Associate Chief Justice Holmes imposed 18 months of imprisonment, less 12 months of credit, followed by three years of probation, finding a custodial sentence was needed for denunciation and deterrence.
In the judge's words
1[50] In my view, Mr. James-Davies' sentence should, like Ms. Doran's, be served in custody. This is in part so that the sentence properly reflects the sentencing objective of denunciation and deterrence of the very serious offence.
The record
- Convicted of
- Arson with disregard for human life (CC 433)
- Prior convictions
- 1 prior conviction, 1 violent1
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- 2 years less a day conditional sentence1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: P. Bhatti
Defence: B. Movassaghi
Sources
- R. v. James-Davies, 2023 BCSC 2385 Court decision, CanLII, October 13, 2023
[26] The Crown seeks a sentence of imprisonment for 2 years less a day, followed by probation for two or three years, with strict conditions, including for psychiatric treatment and medication as prescribed.
[28] The defence seeks a conditional sentence of imprisonment for 2 years less a day, followed by probation for two or, alternatively, three years (reduced, as mentioned shortly, to reflect pre-sentencing custody), with, throughout, the conditions proposed by the Crown.
[30] The offence in s. 433(a), which is essentially arson with disregard for human life, is punishable by a very wide range of sentences. The maximum sentence is life imprisonment, and there is no minimum punishment.
[1] Richard James-Davies has pleaded guilty to arson by causing fire damage to property, knowing or being reckless of the fact that the property was inhabited or occupied, contrary to s. 433(a) of the Criminal Code.
[40] Mitigating as well is that Mr. James-Davies has no related criminal history. The Crown accepts that Mr. James-Davies' only previous conviction, which was for assault in 2017, should be viewed as dated at this point, and as of only limited relevance.
[50] In my view, Mr. James-Davies' sentence should, like Ms. Doran's, be served in custody. This is in part so that the sentence properly reflects the sentencing objective of denunciation and deterrence of the very serious offence.
[59] I sentence you to imprisonment for a period of 18 months. You have served eight months in pre-sentencing custody and you will have credit at one and a half times, for a total of 12 months. This means that the period remaining to be served is six months. [60] You will then be placed on probation for a period of three years.
- R. v. James-Davies, 2023 BCSC 2385 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia