Sexual interference
R. v. W.F.
A publication ban applies. The offender is not named.
- Below the Crown's ask
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
W.F. was found guilty after trial of sexual interference for repeatedly sexually abusing a child between 2012 and 2018, beginning when she was eight or nine years old; W.F. had 1999 convictions for sexual offences against children. The Crown sought the then-maximum of ten years; current defence counsel did not propose a sentence. Justice Bodurtha imposed eight years' imprisonment, less 1,305 days of credit for remand time, citing a very high risk of reoffending, a lack of remorse and the need to separate W.F. from society.
In the judge's words
1This behaviour is dangerous and demonstrates that the treatment/therapy that W.F. was provided in the past was not effective and shows the need for separating W.F. from society. Primary consideration must be given to denunciation and deterrence for sexual crimes committed against children; too many young, innocent victims have already been impacted by W.F.’s actions.
The record
- Convicted of
- Sexual interference (CC 151)
- Prior convictions
- Not recorded
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: William Mathers, Tiffany Thorne
Defence: Patrick Eagan
Sources
- R. v. W.F., 2023 NSSC 282 Court decision, CanLII, July 7, 2023
[7] It is the Crown’s position that a ten-year sentence (the maximum) is the only fit and appropriate sentence in this case to appropriately address the common-law principles of denunciation and deterrence (both specific and general) and to comport with the principles of proportionality and parity.
[99] … This behaviour is dangerous and demonstrates that the treatment/therapy that W.F. was provided in the past was not effective and shows the need for separating W.F. from society. Primary consideration must be given to denunciation and deterrence for sexual crimes committed against children; too many young, innocent victims have already been impacted by W.F.’s actions.
[102] Based on the relevant authorities, the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case and the common law principles of sentencing, a global sentence of eight years’ (which is 2,922 days) imprisonment should be imposed. … With 1.5:1 enhanced credit, that would be 1,305 days on remand. I agree with applying the enhanced credit under section 719(3) of the Criminal Code. [106] W.F. will be imprisoned on a go-forward basis for four years and 156 days.
- R. v. W.F., 2023 NSSC 282 Court decision, Courts of Nova Scotia