Forcible confinement, Resisting or obstructing a peace officer
R. v. Eisener
- Below the Crown's ask
- On release at the time
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
Krishna Michael Eisener was found guilty after trial of unlawful confinement and pleaded guilty to resisting a peace officer, after he got into a stranger's car while fleeing arrest on a parole warrant and told the driver to drive. The Crown sought a 1080-day sentence and the defence 182 days. Judge Duffy imposed 12 months' custody for the unlawful confinement and 60 days concurrent for resisting arrest, less 224 days of remand credit, placing his moral blameworthiness at the mid to lower end because the offence was unplanned and involved no physical violence.
In the judge's words
1This was not a planned hijacking. There was no sophisticated undertaking by Mr. Eisener to effect his escape. This speaks to his moral blameworthiness, which I would characterize at the mid to lower end.
The record
- Convicted of
- Forcible confinement (CC 279(2))
- Resisting or obstructing a peace officer (CC 129(a))
- Prior convictions
- Not recorded
- At the time of the offence
- On parole1
- Defence asked for
- 182 days in custody1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: Hartwell Millett
Defence: Mark Holden
Sources
- R. v. Eisener, 2023 NSPC 42 Court decision, CanLII, July 19, 2023
[2] This was a contested sentencing hearing. The Crown asks the Court to impose a 1080-day sentence
[3] The Defence recommends a sentence of incarceration of 182 days
[4] There are no mandatory minimum penalties applicable, and both are legislatively available sentences.
[6] The circumstances of these offences involve an unusual car-jacking scenario. … In effect, Krishna Eisener demanded that … operate her vehicle as a getaway car.
[6] The circumstances of these offences involve an unusual car-jacking scenario. Mr. Eisener was nine days into a statutory release period at the Jamieson Community Correctional Centre, when a parole warrant was issued for his arrest on 15 February 2023. … It is statutorily aggravating that he committed these offences while on statutory release (s. 718.2(a)(vi)).
[21] … This was not a planned hijacking. There was no sophisticated undertaking by Mr. Eisener to effect his escape. This speaks to his moral blameworthiness, which I would characterize at the mid to lower end.
[39] In accordance with s. 719(3.3), the warrant of committal will be endorsed to record that the amount of time spent in custody is 149 days to date, the term of imprisonment that would have been imposed but for the remand credit is 365 days, the amount of time credited is 224 days, and the total sentence of the court is 141 days in custody.
- R. v. Eisener, 2023 NSPC 42 Court decision, Courts of Nova Scotia