Sexual assault of a person under 16, Sexual assault
R. v. V.H.V.R.
A publication ban applies. The offender is not named.
- Below the Crown's ask
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
The offender was convicted after trial of two counts of sexual assault for repeated sexualized touching of two complainants over a number of years, beginning when each was about 10 years old. The Crown sought five years in custody and the defence a conditional sentence of two years less a day. Justice Duncan imposed three years (two years and 12 months consecutive), rejecting a conditional sentence and finding no significant mitigating factors.
In the judge's words
1To arrive at a sentence of less than two years and impose a CSO would constitute an exercise in reverse engineering that places the accused's personal circumstances ahead of the determination of a fit sentence in a case involving vulnerable victims to whom he was in a position of trust.
The record
- Convicted of
- Sexual assault of a person under 16 (CC 271 U16)
- Sexual assault (CC 271)
- Prior convictions
- 0 prior convictions1
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- 2 years less a day conditional sentence1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: D.J. Pruim
Defence: D.L. Karp, D.W.F. Chiu
Sources
- R. v. V.H.V.R., 2025 BCSC 2231 Court decision, CanLII, November 5, 2025
[28] Mr. Pruim for the Crown maintains that a sentence of 3.5 years on Count 1 and 3 years consecutive on Count 3, reduced through the principle of totality to a sentence of 5 years, is required to address the seriousness of the offences and the harms caused.
[29] Mr. Karp seeks a conditional sentence of imprisonment ("CSO")of two years less a day, with the first two‑thirds under house arrest and the last one‑third under a curfew.
[24] … That resulted in a conditional discharge, so V.H.V.R. is before the court as a first offender.
To arrive at a sentence of less than two years and impose a CSO would constitute an exercise in reverse engineering that places the accused's personal circumstances ahead of the determination of a fit sentence in a case involving vulnerable victims to whom he was in a position of trust.
[67] With these sentencing precedents and the decision in Friesen in mind, in terms of the sentence on Count 1, the sexual assault of C., a sentence of two years' imprisonment is a fit sentence. … [68] On Count 3, the sexual assault of A., I impose a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment consecutive to Count 1. … [69] The total sentence is three years.
- R. v. V.H.V.R., 2025 BCSC 2231 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia