Sexual assault
R. v. A.H.
A publication ban applies. The offender is not named.
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
A jury found the offender guilty of two counts of sexual assault against two women in 2012, each of whom was asleep in his apartment after he offered them a place to stay through a drug recovery community. The Crown and defence jointly proposed two years on each count, consecutive, reduced for totality to three years in total. Justice Norell accepted the joint submission and imposed three years, finding it within the range for these offences and reflecting the need for denunciation and deterrence where vulnerable victims were involved.
In the judge's words
1It is appropriate that the two sentences be consecutive as the victims are different and the offences took place on different occasions and in different circumstances. I agree that a four‑year sentence would be unduly long and should be reduced under the totality principle.
The record
- Convicted of
- Sexual assault (CC 271, 2 counts)
- Prior convictions
- 2 prior convictions1
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- 3 years in custody1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: J. Fogel, T. Gloux
Defence: L. Myers, K.C.
Sources
- R. v. A.H., 2025 BCSC 2589 Court decision, CanLII, November 7, 2025
[2] The Crown and defence counsel made a joint submission for a proposed sentence of two years' imprisonment on each conviction, to be served consecutively, but reduced for the principle of totality to three years, being 18 months on each conviction.
[2] The Crown and defence counsel made a joint submission for a proposed sentence of two years' imprisonment on each conviction, to be served consecutively, but reduced for the principle of totality to three years, being 18 months on each conviction.
[21] … has dated convictions from one event in 1998. This was for possession of a prohibited weapon and possession of the same weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.
It is appropriate that the two sentences be consecutive as the victims are different and the offences took place on different occasions and in different circumstances. I agree that a four‑year sentence would be unduly long and should be reduced under the totality principle.
[51] On the charge of sexual assault of J.S. contrary to s. 271 of the Code, I sentence you to two years' imprisonment. On the charge of sexual assault of J.D. contrary to s. 271 of the Code, I sentence you to two years' imprisonment. Those sentences are to be served consecutively. However, considering the principle of totality, those sentences are reduced to a total sentence of three years' imprisonment, so each sentence imposed will be reduced to 18 months' imprisonment, and those sentences will be served consecutively.
- Criminal Code, s. 271 Record, Justice Laws Website
- R. v. A.H., 2025 BCSC 2589 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia