Second degree murder, Indignity to human remains
R. v. R.C.R.
A publication ban applies. The offender is not named.
Sentence and the Crown's position
Both are life sentences, so the bars compare how long before parole can be considered.
What the law allows
The offender was convicted by a jury of second degree murder and indignity to human remains after shooting the victim and attacking him with a machete, then dismembering and dumping the body. The Crown sought parole ineligibility of 19 to 20 years and the defence 12 years. Justice Muise imposed the mandatory life sentence with no parole eligibility for 19 years, citing the brutality of the killing and the offender's record, which included an attempted murder, plus a concurrent 5-year sentence for the indignity offence.
In the judge's words
1These points, together with the other aggravating circumstances noted, even considering the mitigating circumstances, bring the case at hand well into the 15 to 20-year range and close to the 20 to 25-year range.
The record
- Convicted of
- Second degree murder (CC 231(7))
- Indignity to human remains (CC 182(b))
- Prior convictions
- Not recorded
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- Life, no parole for 12 years1
- Mandatory minimum
- Applied1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: William Ferguson and Chelsea Cottreau
Defence: Nicholaus Fitch and Scott Brownell
Sources
- R. v. R.C.R., 2023 NSSC 301 Court decision, CanLII, September 21, 2023
[8] The Crown recommends a period of parole ineligibility in the 19 to 20 year range
[9] The Defence submits 12 years’ parole ineligibility is appropriate
[94] As I noted at the outset, the mandatory sentence for murder is life imprisonment.
[89] These points, together with the other aggravating circumstances noted, even considering the mitigating circumstances, bring the case at hand well into the 15 to 20-year range and close to the 20 to 25-year range.
[95] Therefore, I sentence … to life imprisonment. … [96] He must serve 19 years of that sentence before being eligible to apply for parole. … [107] A 5-year sentence is consistent with that upheld in Calnen and that imposed in Johnson. Therefore, the maximum 5-year sentence is fit and appropriate for … and I impose it. Since, he has already been sentenced to life imprisonment, the sentence must be concurrent.
- R. v. R.C.R., 2023 NSSC 301 Court decision, Courts of Nova Scotia