Sexual interference
R. v. G.R.D.
A publication ban applies. The offender is not named.
- Below the Crown's ask
Sentence and the Crown's position
Crown asked3 years in custody1
Judge imposedTwo years in custody1
1 year less custody than the Crown asked
What the law allows
Maximum14 years
Crown asked3 years in custody
Judge imposed2 years in custody
Defence asked8 months conditional sentence
Minimum1 year struck down
After a trial, the offender, then 78, was convicted of one count of sexual interference for touching an eight-year-old complainant on a number of occasions while in a position of trust. The Crown sought three years in custody; the defence proposed an eight-month conditional sentence, citing the offender's age and health. Justice MacNaughton imposed two years in custody, finding that a conditional sentence would not reflect the moral blameworthiness of sexual violence against a child.
In the judge's words
1Sexual abuse of a child is highly morally blameworthy.
The record
- Convicted of
- Sexual interference (CC 151)
- Prior convictions
- 0 prior convictions1
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- 8 months conditional sentence1
- Mandatory minimum
- Found unconstitutional or not applied under a binding ruling1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: M. Myhre
Defence: M. Ritzker
Sources
- R. v. G.R.D., 2024 BCSC 431 Court decision, CanLII, March 11, 2024
[32] The Crown submits that in the circumstances of this case, a custodial sentence of three years is appropriate.
[34] … submits that an eight-month conditional sentence is appropriate given
[30] The maximum penalty for the offence of sexual interference is 14 years in jail. The minimum sentence of one year in jail has been declared unconstitutional in R. v. Scofield, 2019 BCCA 3.
[68] Other mitigating factors in this case are that … does not have a prior criminal record and that he has some community support.
[108] Sexual abuse of a child is highly morally blameworthy.
[110] Accordingly, I sentence … to two years in custody.
- R. v. G.R.D., 2024 BCSC 431 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia