Sexual interference
R. v. S.P.P.
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 found guilty of sexual interference with a child under 16 over several years between 2012 and 2017; a sexual assault finding on the same facts was stayed. The Crown sought three and a half to four years in a federal institution and the defence two years followed by three years' probation. Justice Norton imposed two years in custody followed by three years' probation, finding the defence proposal fit under the principles in Friesen.
In the judge's words
1In the circumstances of this case, I consider the sentence proposed by S to be a fit and proper sentence that achieves the principles and purposes of sentencing as enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Friesen.
The record
- Convicted of
- Sexual interference (CC 151)
- Prior convictions
- Not recorded
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- 2 years in custody1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: Nicholas Comeau
Defence: Thomas Singleton, KC; Leora Lawson
Sources
- R. v. S.P.P., 2025 NSSC 216 Court decision, CanLII, June 13, 2025
[28] The Crown submits that a sentence in the range of forty-two (42) months to forty-eight (48) months of custody in a federal institution. (Three-and-a-half to four years) would be a fit and proper sentence
[29] The Defence says that the Court should sentence S to two (2) years custody followed by three (3) years probation.
[30] In the circumstances of this case, I consider the sentence proposed by S to be a fit and proper sentence that achieves the principles and purposes of sentencing as enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Friesen.
[31] On the s. 151 offence I sentence S to two (2) years custody followed by three (3) years probation including the following conditions:
- R. v. S.P.P., 2025 NSSC 216 Court decision, Courts of Nova Scotia