Sexual interference
R. v. A.L.S.
A publication ban applies. The offender is not named.
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
The offender was convicted after trial of one count of sexual interference with a child, committed over a period of years while in a position of trust. The Crown sought four to six years of imprisonment and the defence proposed between two years less a day with probation and three and one half years. Justice Majawa imposed four and one half years of incarceration, citing the harm to the victim, the breach of trust, and the need for deterrence and denunciation.
In the judge's words
1In my view, this sentence reflects the significant harm done to the victim and the importance of deterring the accused and others from committing this offence in the future. It also reflects the offender's high level of moral blameworthiness.
The record
- Convicted of
- Sexual interference (CC 151)
- Prior convictions
- 0 prior convictions1
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- 2 years less a day in custody1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: G. Barnes
Defence: A. Zipp, J. Ross
Sources
- R. v. A.L.S., 2026 BCSC 1717 Court decision, CanLII, September 4, 2026
[2] The Crown seeks a sentence of imprisonment of four to six years and related ancillary orders.
[2] The Crown seeks a sentence of imprisonment of four to six years and related ancillary orders. The offender submits that the appropriate sentence is between incarceration of 2 years less a day with three years of probation and 3 and one half years incarceration.
[39] The fact that the offender has no criminal record is a mitigating factor as is his compliance with his conditions of release since his arrest.
[67] In my view, this sentence reflects the significant harm done to the victim and the importance of deterring the accused and others from committing this offence in the future. It also reflects the offender's high level of moral blameworthiness.
[65] I sentence you to four and one half years of incarceration.
- R. v. A.L.S., 2026 BCSC 1717 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia