Sexual interference
R. v. Z.G.H.
A publication ban applies. The offender is not named.
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
The offender pleaded guilty to sexual interference with a person under 16 in Cranbrook in January 2024, after supplying alcohol to the complainant. Crown and defence jointly proposed three years in custody. Justice Forth accepted the joint submission and imposed three years, noting the guilty plea, the offender's lack of a record and a moderate risk of future sexual violence.
In the judge's words
1Given that this is a joint sentence made on behalf of defence and Crown counsel for this offence, I would only depart from that joint submission if I considered the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest. In the circumstances, as a whole, I see no principled basis on which to depart from the joint submission.
The record
- Convicted of
- Sexual interference (CC 151)
- Prior convictions
- 0 prior convictions1
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- 3 years in custody1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: A. Zelmer
Defence: D. Forbes
Sources
- R. v. Z.G.H., 2025 BCSC 2313 Court decision, CanLII, November 20, 2025
[3] There is a joint submission made by counsel seeking a three-year jail sentence
[3] There is a joint submission made by counsel seeking a three-year jail sentence
[13] … has no criminal record.
Given that this is a joint sentence made on behalf of defence and Crown counsel for this offence, I would only depart from that joint submission if I considered the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest. In the circumstances, as a whole, I see no principled basis on which to depart from the joint submission.
[41] I have considered the joint submissions that have been made, as well as the materials I have been given, and I accept that an appropriate sentence for the offence is three years.
- R. v. Z.G.H., 2025 BCSC 2313 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia