Second degree murder
R. v. Sandhu
- Below the Crown's ask
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
Inderjit Singh Sandhu pleaded guilty to second degree murder after he killed his estranged wife with a hatchet in 2022. The Crown sought parole ineligibility in the range of 15 to 17 years, and the defence proposed 12 years. Justice Dley imposed life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 13 years, citing elements of planning and finding that a degree of dangerousness had not been addressed.
In the judge's words
1The facts are similar to Wu (12 years), other than the clear indication that the offender had good prospects for rehabilitation. That clarity for rehabilitation is not apparent here. There is a degree of dangerousness that has not been addressed to the extent that there can be the kind of confidence shown for rehabilitation as was the case in Wu.
The record
- Convicted of
- Second degree murder (CC 231(7))
- Prior convictions
- 0 prior convictions1
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- Life, no parole for 12 years1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: R. Macgowan, S. Whyte
Defence: J. Heller, S. Grewal
Sources
- R. v. Sandhu, 2024 BCSC 1388 Court decision, CanLII, July 4, 2024
[2] The issue at this sentencing hearing is the length of time Mr. Sandhu must serve in prison before he is eligible for parole. The Crown argues that a range of 15 to 17 years is appropriate, while the defence counters at 12 years.
[2] The issue at this sentencing hearing is the length of time Mr. Sandhu must serve in prison before he is eligible for parole. The Crown argues that a range of 15 to 17 years is appropriate, while the defence counters at 12 years.
[1] Mr. Sandhu has pled guilty to second degree murder.
[42] The mitigating circumstances are as follows: … 1) Mr. Sandhu has no criminal history. However, I must take into account the prior history of domestic abuse.
[62] The facts are similar to Wu (12 years), other than the clear indication that the offender had good prospects for rehabilitation. That clarity for rehabilitation is not apparent here. There is a degree of dangerousness that has not been addressed to the extent that there can be the kind of confidence shown for rehabilitation as was the case in Wu.
[70] I have considered the principles of sentencing and all of the factors set out in Bennight. I sentence Mr. Sandhu to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole until he has served 13 years in prison.
- R. v. Sandhu, 2024 BCSC 1388 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia