Sexual interference, Making child sexual abuse material

R. v. P.P.A.

A publication ban applies. The offender is not named.

  • Below the Crown's ask

Sentence and the Crown's position

Crown asked8 years in custody1
Judge imposed4 years 6 months in custody (3.5 years and 1 year consecutive), less 1,272 days credit, then 2 years probation1
1280 days less custody than the Crown asked

What the law allows

Maximum14 years
Crown asked8 years in custody
Judge imposed4 years and 6 months in custody
Defence asked3 years and 6 months in custody
Minimum1 year
For sexual interference (CC 151), the Criminal Code currently allows up to 14 years when the Crown proceeds by indictment, with a mandatory minimum of 1 year. The sentence imposed is 32% of the maximum. Read the section.

The offender pleaded guilty to sexual interference involving two complainants aged 12 and 14 and to making child pornography, offences committed in 2021. The Crown sought a global sentence of eight years in custody and the defence three and a half years. Justice Devlin found four years and one year, consecutive, fit, then reduced the first by six months for totality, imposing four years and six months less 1,272 days of pre-sentence credit, followed by two years of probation.

In the judge's words

I believe that only a modest reduction is warranted to give effect to the totality principle. Therefore, I find that a reduction in sentence of six months from the sentence imposed for Count 1 is necessary and sufficient, in the circumstances.

1

The record

Prior convictions
0 prior convictions1
At the time of the offence
Not stated1
Defence asked for
3 years and 6 months in custody1
Appeal
Not yet checked
Counsel
Crown: S.M. Bertrand, K. LeNoble
Defence: T.C. Paisana, M.J. Gismondi

Sources

  1. R. v. P.P.A., 2025 BCSC 159 Court decision, CanLII, February 6, 2025[3] The Crown submits that a fit sentence for Count 1 is five years' imprisonment, followed by four years' imprisonment for Count 2. The Crown suggests a global sentence of 8 years' imprisonment to conform with the totality principle.[51] Counsel for … submit that a global sentence of 3.5 years' imprisonment is appropriate, consisting of 3 years for Count 1 and six months for Count 2.[27] … has no criminal history.[106] … I believe that only a modest reduction is warranted to give effect to the totality principle. Therefore, I find that a reduction in sentence of six months from the sentence imposed for Count 1 is necessary and sufficient, in the circumstances.[107] … I sentence you to three years and six months' imprisonment. … On Count 2 of the Indictment, the making of child pornography, I sentence you to one year's imprisonment. … Therefore, your global sentence is four years and six months. … At a rate of 1.5:1, … is entitled to a credit of 1,272 days. … (a) You must comply with the probation order for a term of 2 years.
  2. R. v. P.P.A., 2025 BCSC 159 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia

publicly
Sentence Watch is part of Publicly: sites built from government and court records, with every fact linked to its source. Publicly is not affiliated with any government. Visits are counted with Google Analytics, which sets cookies.