Sexual interference
R. v. P.W.R.
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 interference with a child under 16 over about two years between 2011 and 2013; a sexual assault conviction was conditionally stayed. The Crown suggested a range of 18 months to five years; the defence sought a two-year-less-a-day conditional sentence. Justice Kirchner rejected a conditional sentence, finding denunciation and deterrence required incarceration, and imposed two years less a day in custody followed by three years of probation, citing Gladue factors, eight years of sobriety and no criminal record.
In the judge's words
1[148] For the reasons I have given, I sentence you to a term of incarceration of two years less one day, plus three years of probation. It is my view that, in light of the authorities that I have reviewed in some detail here, and particularly the L.S.N. case, that it would not be appropriate, even with your extraordinary circumstances, to order a shorter period of incarceration.
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: T.A. Livingston
Defence: C. McLaughlin
Sources
- R. v. P.W.R., 2023 BCSC 2474 Court decision, CanLII, October 4, 2023
[97] The Crown has not asked for a specific sentence, citing the relatively exceptional nature of this case, but suggests it should be within a range from 18 months at the low end to five years at the high end.
[98] … She argues that an appropriate sentence is two years less a day to be served in community under the strict terms, followed by three years of probation.
[18] … He also has no criminal record and has been assessed as a low risk to reoffend.
[148] For the reasons I have given, I sentence you to a term of incarceration of two years less one day, plus three years of probation. It is my view that, in light of the authorities that I have reviewed in some detail here, and particularly the L.S.N. case, that it would not be appropriate, even with your extraordinary circumstances, to order a shorter period of incarceration.
[148] For the reasons I have given, I sentence you to a term of incarceration of two years less one day, plus three years of probation.
- R. v. P.W.R., 2023 BCSC 2474 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia