Sentencing Factors Relating to the Offence

From Canadian Criminal Law Notebook
Jump to: navigation, search

General Principles

See also: Sentencing Factors Relating to the Offender

Offence-related factors that have been considered include:

  • Degree of Planning and Premeditation;
  • Duration of the Offence;
  • Reasons for the Offence to conclude;
  • Recency of the Offence;
  • Offender's Role in Offence;
  • Breach of Trust;
  • Status of the Victim including:
    • Harm or Risk of Harm on Victim;
    • Victim Under 18 Years of Age;
  • Public Abhorrence of Type of Crime;
  • Prevalence of This Type of Crime in the Community;
  • Degree of Cooperation with Police;
  • State Misconduct (including Police Misconduct).

Section 718.2(a) provides that "a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender".

Other factors and principles are listed at s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code:

Other sentencing principles
718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor,
(ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender’s spouse or common-law partner,
(ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years,
(iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim,
(iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation,
(iv) evidence that the offence was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization,
(v) evidence that the offence was a terrorism offence, or
(vi) evidence that the offence was committed while the offender was subject to a conditional sentence order made under section 742.1 or released on parole, statutory release or unescorted temporary absence under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act

shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances;
...
1995, c. 22, s. 6; 1997, c. 23, s. 17; 2000, c. 12, s. 95; 2001, c. 32, s. 44(F), c. 41, s. 20; 2005, c. 32, s. 25; 2012, c. 29, s. 2; 2015, c. 13, s. 24, c. 23, s. 16.


CCC

Hate-based Offences

Section 718.2 (a)(i) requires the judge to take as aggravating "evidence that the offence was motivated by hate based on race or colour."

This factor is based on the principle that "crimes of violence increase when respect for the rights of others decreases". [1]

This factor can apply in circumstances where racist commentary accompanies an assault. [2]

  1. R v Ingram (1977), 35 CCC (2d) 376 (ONCA) at para 8
  2. Ingram
    R v Vrdoljak, 2002 CarswellOnt 1005, [2002] O.J. 1332(*no link)
    c.f. R v Crowchief, 2016 ABPC 151 (CanLII)

Degree of Planning and Premeditation

A greater degree of planning increases the moral culpability of the offender. Where the offence involved significant preparatory work it suggests that the offender is of bad character due to time on the commission of an offence. The court is more likely to conclude the person is a "career criminal".

Closely related to this is the degree of sophistication of the offence. An offender with a great deal of intelligence and drive is more culpable due to the ability to have insight into their conduct including the harm that would result from it.

Motive for the Offence

Self-Help
Offences committed for the purpose of retaliation or self-help are not mitigating factors. In certain circumstances, they increase the need for deterence. [1]

  1. R v Clayton, 2014 ABCA 27 (CanLII) at para 35

Duration of the Offence

The duration of the offence is a useful measure of the offender's culpability. An offence that is ongoing for a period of time requires that the accused continuously decide to continue in a criminal endeavour. As they continue to decided to commit the offence their responsibility for the outcome increases. Related to this, it is a factor to consider whether the offender stopped the offence by their own accord due to a decision to cease criminal activity or whether they merely stopped because they have achieved their goal or were caught in the act.

Recency of the Offence

Most often seen in the context of historical sexual assault offences, the “antiquity of the offence is not usually a mitigating feature” [1] However, “the offender may be entitled to a somewhat reduced sentence if he has led an exemplary life during the intervening years and demonstrates genuine remorse. Such circumstances would obviate the need for individual deterrence and time for rehabilitation.”[2]

  1. R v R. (A.), 1994 CanLII 4524 (MB CA), [1994] 4 W.W.R. 620 (Man. C.A.),
  2. R v RA 1994 CanLII 4524 at para 34

Role in Offence

The accused's role in the offence will influence the penalty. Typically the greater and more culpable a role the accused played, the greater the penalty. This is particularly the case where the party has less autonomy, control, or awareness of the circumstances.

A "look out" or "driver" may be seen as less serious than those who participated in the offence itself.

Breach of Trust

Where an offender was able to commit an offence by taking advantage of their position of trust, this factor will be treated as aggravating.

Where there is a breach of the public's trust it will be treated as aggravating beyond private breach of trust.[1]

An airport baggage handler is in a position of trust when using their position to assist in drug importation.[2]

Relationships of trust will exist in a variety of offences, most typically in sexual offences (particularly child sex offences), fraud/theft offences in employment contexts, and in some drug trafficking or smuggling cases.

There also exists the offences of Breach of Trust (Offence) and Breach of Public Trust (Offence) that create on offence from the act of breaching trust.

  1. R v Gill, 2003 BCCA 208 (CanLII)
    R v Lecourt 2005 QCCA 845 (CanLII)
  2. see R v Mohamed, 2013 ONCA 704

Status of the Victim

See Victims as a Factor in Sentencing

Public Abhorrence of Type of Crime

The public's abhorrence of the type of crime is a factor that enhances the penalties in sentence. Through the principle of denunciation, the courts have an obligation to express the abhorrence of the public of a particular offence such a offences of violence.[1]

  1. R v W.H.M., 1994 CanLII 7583 (NS SC)

Prevalence of This Type of Crime in the Community

See also: Judicial Notice

A judge may take some limited judicial notice to the prevalence of certain types of offences within the community.[1] However, doing so has the tendency to create unfairness to both parties.[2]

If the judge is going to rely upon prevalence of crime in sentencing an offender, he or she should give notice to the parties and an opportunity to reply.[3]

  1. R v VHM, 2004 NBCA 72 (CanLII) ("When imposing a sentence, a judge should be cautious about relying on the incidence of crime in any area serviced by the judge because of the judge’s particular knowledge of cases coming before the judge or from statistics garnered by the judge from court records for that district")
    R v Trachsel, 2010 SKQB 288 (CanLII), at paras 18 to 22
  2. VHM, ibid. ("I ring the bell of caution here because when, figuratively, a judge decides to step down from the bench and infuse into his or her reasons the current experience of the court with an incidence of crime in the community, it injects a body of evidence into the mix that is almost unassailable and, in any event, unfair to the Crown and, more so, to an offender.")
  3. VHM, ibid. ("it was unfair to take judicial notice of the prevalence of the crime in issue in the county without prior warning to the accused and the Crown")

Degree of Cooperation with Police

State Misconduct

Strength of the Crown's Case

The strength of the Crown's case can be a factor to sentence.[1] But not frequently seen in a disputed sentencing context.

The strength and weaknesses of the Crown's case is a considerable factor considering whether to adopt a joint recommendation.[2] Weaknesses in case are referred to as "special circumstances" that would warrant a joint recommendation for an exceptional sentence.[3]

Strength of the case is more frequently seen as a factor in whether to deny bail on tertiary grounds.

Where the strength of the case is great, the effect of a guilty plea seems to have a lesser impact.[4]

  1. e.g. R v DS, 2011 ONSC 3627 (CanLII) at para 34
    and R v Lonegren, 2009 BCSC 1678 (CanLII)
  2. R v Oxford, 2010 NLCA 45 (CanLII)
  3. R v G.W.C., 2001 ABCA 41 (CanLII), at para 5
  4. e.g. R v Rusk, 2006 ABPC 365 (CanLII) at para 38 appealed to 2007 ABCA 189 (CanLII)
    R v J. F. K., 2011 ABQB 671 (CanLII), at para 31
    See Sentencing Factors Relating to the Offender#Guilty Plea

Uncharged Criminal Conduct

Offenders are only sentenced “in respect of crimes for which they have been specifically charged and of which they have been validly convicted.”[1] The Crown cannot attempt to seek sentences based on uncharged offences. The Crown must chose what is the most appropriate charge to apply.[2]

Prior uncharged conduct cannot be used as an aggravating factor, however, can be relevant to sentencing as it shows character and background.[3]

However, under section 725(1)(d), "In determining the sentence, a court ... (c) may consider any facts forming part of the circumstances of the offence that could constitute the basis for a separate charge."

An offender cannot be punished for unproven acts.[4]

  1. R v Larche, 2006 SCC 56 (CanLII), [2006] 2 SCR 762
  2. e.g. see R v S. (G. E.), 2007 MBCA 105 (CanLII) at para 13
  3. R v B.M., 2008 ONCA 645 (CanLII)
  4. R v Gardiner, 1982 CanLII 30 (SCC), [1982] 2 SCR 368
    R v Lees, 1979 CanLII 43 (SCC), [1979] 2 SCR 749