Sexual interference
R. v. J.W.W.
A publication ban applies. The offender is not named.
- Below the Crown's ask
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
After a trial, the offender was convicted of sexual interference with a child for historical offences committed in the Kelowna area in the 1990s. The Crown sought three to five years in custody; the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day. Justice Milman found a conditional sentence inappropriate given the aggravating factors, but imposed two and a half years' imprisonment, at the lower end of the range, citing the age of the offences, the offender's productive life since, and his minimal risk of reoffending.
In the judge's words
1Having considered the circumstances of this case as I have outlined them, I am not persuaded that a CSO would be an appropriate disposition, in light of the authorities that have been cited to me, given the aggravating factors that I have outlined. However, I am satisfied that the mitigating factors present in this case, although not justifying a CSO, do justify a custodial sentence at the lower end of the range described in those cases.
The record
- Convicted of
- Sexual interference (CC 151)
- Prior convictions
- 2 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: C. Gagnon
Defence: L. McPheeters
Sources
- R. v. J.W.W., 2025 BCSC 849 Court decision, CanLII, April 10, 2025
[21] Crown counsel seeks a custodial sentence of three to five years, as well as a number of ancillary orders.
[17] Defence counsel seeks a conditional sentence order ("CSO") lasting two years less a day, arguing that the circumstances are sufficiently exceptional to justify a departure from the range for an offence of this kind.
[13] J.W.W. has a criminal record that dates back to the late 1980s. It includes two convictions: one for impaired driving, the other for failing to appear. He received small fines for both.
[38] Having considered the circumstances of this case as I have outlined them, I am not persuaded that a CSO would be an appropriate disposition, in light of the authorities that have been cited to me, given the aggravating factors that I have outlined. However, I am satisfied that the mitigating factors present in this case, although not justifying a CSO, do justify a custodial sentence at the lower end of the range described in those cases.
[39] J.W.W., please stand. I am sentencing you to a term of two and a half years' imprisonment.
- R. v. J.W.W., 2025 BCSC 849 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia