Reckless discharge of a firearm, Possession of a weapon contrary to a prohibition order
R. v. Bradley
- Below the Crown's ask
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
Scott Bradley was convicted after trial of reckless discharge of a firearm and possessing a firearm while prohibited, after he fired a .22-calibre rifle several times while grossly intoxicated and struck his friend twice. The Crown sought a global sentence of seven years and the defence three to five years. Justice Church imposed four and a half years, finding that a sentence lower than the Crown's proposal would denounce and deter, as the shooting did not involve a prohibited or restricted weapon, a residential area, or other criminal activity.
In the judge's words
1[71] Having said that, I agree with the defence submission that in the circumstances of this offence and this offender, a sentence lower than that proposed by the Crown would sufficiently denounce Mr. Bradley's conduct and deter him and others from committing these types of offences.
The record
- Convicted of
- Reckless discharge of a firearm (CC 244.2)
- Possession of a weapon contrary to a prohibition order (CC 117.01(1))
- Prior convictions
- 4 prior convictions1
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- 3 years in custody1
- Mandatory minimum
- Found unconstitutional or not applied under a binding ruling1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: S.K. Mann
Defence: A.H. Zipp
Sources
- R. v. Bradley, 2024 BCSC 1320 Court decision, CanLII, April 19, 2024
[23] The Crown is seeking the imposition of a global sentence of seven years' imprisonment.
[48] Defence counsel on behalf of Mr. Bradley submitted that a fit sentence in this case is a global disposition of three to five years' imprisonment.
[24] The Crown admitted some difficulty in formulating a sentencing position in the matter, given the circumstances, particularly since the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Hills, 2023 SCC 2, which struck down the mandatory minimum sentence for s. 244.2(3)(b), and the recent legislative changes which abolished the mandatory minimum sentence for this offence.
[1] THE COURT: On Indictment 36079, Scott Bradley was charged with one count of discharge of a firearm with intent to wound, maim, or disfigure
[17] Mr. Bradley has a short, dated, and largely unrelated criminal history, although it does appear to be closely linked to his struggle with addiction. He has convictions for driving while impaired, possession of a controlled substance, and obstruction of a peace officer from 1996, and a conviction for possession for the purposes of trafficking from 2002.
[71] Having said that, I agree with the defence submission that in the circumstances of this offence and this offender, a sentence lower than that proposed by the Crown would sufficiently denounce Mr. Bradley's conduct and deter him and others from committing these types of offences.
[77] In all of the circumstances, and taking into account the applicable purposes of sentencing, I have concluded that a fit and proportional sentence in this case is a global sentence of four and a half years' imprisonment.
- R. v. Bradley, 2024 BCSC 1320 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia