Sexual interference, Invitation to sexual touching
R. v. W.C.C.
A publication ban applies. The offender is not named.
- Below the Crown's ask
Sentence and the Crown's position
Crown asked4 years in custody1
Judge imposed3 years imprisonment in a federal institution1
1 year less custody than the Crown asked
What the law allows
Maximum14 years
Crown asked4 years in custody
Judge imposed3 years in custody
Defence asked3 years in custody
Minimum1 year
A jury found the offender guilty of sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching involving a child of about 6, on two occasions in 2007; a sexual assault conviction was conditionally stayed. The Crown sought 4 to 6 years and the defence 3 to 4 years. Justice Keith imposed 3 years in a federal institution, finding that Gladue factors provided a uniquely compelling reason for a sentence below the 4 to 6 year range, and declined the s. 161 prohibition order.
In the judge's words
1[53] In my view, the Gladue factors loom very large. The particular circumstances in this case provide a uniquely compelling reason for a reduced sentence.
The record
- Convicted of
- Sexual interference (CC 151)
- Invitation to sexual touching (CC 152)
- Prior convictions
- Not recorded
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- 3 years in custody1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: Tiffany Thorne and Will Mathers
Defence: Drew Rogers and Mark Holden
Sources
- R. v. W.C.C., 2023 NSSC 85 Court decision, CanLII, March 6, 2023
The Crown seeks 4 – 6 years.
The Defence argues that 3 – 4 years is appropriate in the circumstances.
[53] In my view, the Gladue factors loom very large. The particular circumstances in this case provide a uniquely compelling reason for a reduced sentence.
[54] As indicated above, the normal range in these circumstances would be 4 – 6 years. Having regard to the Gladue principles and given the unique circumstances of this case, it is my emphatic opinion that 3 years imprisonment in a Federal institution is a fit and proper sentence.
- R. v. W.C.C., 2023 NSSC 85 Court decision, Courts of Nova Scotia