Sexual assault
R. v. A.J.
A publication ban applies. The offender is not named.
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
The offender was found guilty after trial of five counts of sexual assault committed between 2019 and 2021 against five complainants who trusted him. The Crown sought two years less a day in custody plus three years of probation, and the defence an 18-month conditional sentence order. Justice Murray imposed consecutive sentences totalling two years less a day in jail followed by three years of probation, finding a conditional sentence unfit given the number of offences and the serious breach of trust.
In the judge's words
1The circumstances are aggravated by the factors listed above, including the number of offences and the fact that they involve a serious breach of trust. As recently stated by our Court of Appeal in R. v. Maslehati, 2024 BCCA 207 at para. 113, a conditional sentence order will generally not be a fit sentence without a factual finding of diminished blameworthiness or compelling mitigation. No such diminishing factor is present in this case. I find that a conditional sentence order is not an appropriate sentence.
The record
- Convicted of
- Sexual assault (CC 271, 5 counts)
- Prior convictions
- 0 prior convictions1
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- 18 months conditional sentence1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: L. Phipps, C. Ussery
Defence: J. Watt
Sources
- R. v. A.J., 2025 BCSC 688 Court decision, CanLII, March 24, 2025
[8] Crown submits that a total sentence of two years less one day, plus probation for three years, is appropriate.
[8] Crown submits that a total sentence of two years less one day, plus probation for three years, is appropriate. Defence takes the position that a Conditional Sentence Order of 18 months plus probation is a fit sentence.
[22] By way of mitigating factors, at 38 years of age, … is relatively young. He has no criminal record.
[26] The question now becomes whether allowing … to serve this jail sentence in the community under a conditional sentence order would be consistent with the principles of sentencing. … The circumstances are aggravated by the factors listed above, including the number of offences and the fact that they involve a serious breach of trust. As recently stated by our Court of Appeal in R. v. Maslehati, 2024 BCCA 207 at para. 113, a conditional sentence order will generally not be a fit sentence without a factual finding of diminished blameworthiness or compelling mitigation. No such diminishing factor is present in this case. I find that a conditional sentence order is not an appropriate sentence.
[24] I have considered the cases put before me by counsel. … Having regard to the circumstances and the case law, I am satisfied that the appropriate sentence is a cumulative jail sentence of 2 years less a day plus probation for 3 years to follow.
- Criminal Code, s. 271 Record, Justice Laws Website
- R. v. A.J., 2025 BCSC 688 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia