View source for Employment Status as a Factor of Sentencing

==General Principles==
{{seealso|Sentencing Factors Relating to the Offender|Offences of Violence by Persons in Authority (Sentencing)|Assaults Relating to Persons in Authority (Sentencing Cases)}}

In general, a good work history is mitigating as it indicates a prior good character.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Johnston|fmqxj|2011 NLCA 56 (CanLII)|274 CCC (3d) 388}}{{perNLCA|White JA}} (3:0){{atL|fmqxj|21}}</ref>

The offender's "opportunity for employment" is an important factor to determine if there is a "reasonable prospect for rehabilitation."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Hunt|fpvck|2012 NLCA 5 (CanLII)|100 WCB (2d) 602}}{{perNLCA|Barry JA}} (3:0){{atL|fpvck|19}}</ref>

A judge may take [[Judicial Notice|judicial notice]] that a first-time offender receiving a criminal conviction will negatively impact their future in various ways including employment and travel.<REf>
{{CanLIIRP|Edmunds|frgxs|2012 NLCA 26 (CanLII)|288 CCC (3d) 164}}{{perNLCA|White JA}}{{atL|frgxs|20}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

===Peace Officers===
; Objectives of Sentencing
Breach of trust offences committed by peace officers must emphasize denunciation and deterrence.<Ref>
{{supra1|Cook}} at para 38<Br>
{{CanLIIR|Cusack|hv0nm|1978 CanLII 2283 (NS CA)|41 CCC (2d) 289}}{{perNSCA|Hart JA}} ("If one unbundles the several principles that come into play in shaping a fit sentence for conduct by an on-duty police officer amounting to criminal breach of trust under s. 122, general deterrence and denunciation overshadow all others. Those principles command more than lip service; they must impact upon the sentencing process and help shape its outcome.") <br>
see also s. 718.2(a)(iii) of the Code
</ref>

; Duties and Institutional Importance
Offences committed by persons who are "sworn to uphold the law" such as police officers have a "special duty to be faithful to the justice system" and so sentences require the objectives of denunciation has heightened significance.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Hansen|grx7v|2016 ONSC 3583 (CanLII)|30 CR (7th) 117}}{{perONSC|Braid J}}{{atsL|grx7v|28| to 29}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Schertzer|gh86h|2015 ONCA 259 (CanLII)|325 CCC (3d) 202}}{{perONCA|Benotto JA}}{{atsL|gh86h|134| to 136}} - re "special duty"<Br>
</ref>

Police officer offenders who commit a breach of trust will be subject to "severe sentences" absent exceptional mitigating factors.<ref>
{{supra1|Hansen}}{{atL|grx7v|28}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Cook|2czk3|2010 ONSC 5016 (CanLII)|OJ No 4414}}{{perONSC|Hill J}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Rudge|g2lwx|2014 ONSC 241 (CanLII)|OJ No 113}}{{perONSC|Hambly J}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Leblanc|1v2|2003 NBCA 75 (CanLII)|180 CCC (3d) 265}}{{perNBCA|Drapeau CJ}}<Br>
</ref>

The administration of justice “depend[s] on the fidelity and honesty of the police”.<Ref>
R. v. McClure (1957), 118 CCC (3d) 192 (Man. C.A.) at 200<!--not on Canlii--><br>

</ref>

All persons working in the justice system "owe a duty to the public to uphold the values of that system."<Ref> 
{{CanLIIR|Cook|2czk3|2010 ONSC 5016 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Hill J}}{{atL|2czk3|29}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Feeney et al.|21gdf|2008 ONCA 756 (CanLII)|238 CCC (3d) 49}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{AtL|21gdf|5}}<br>
{{CanLIIRPC|Hill v Hamilton Wentworth|1t3lv|2007 SCC 41 (CanLII)|}}{{perSCC|Charron J}}{{ATL|1t3lv|116}} in dissent “[p]olice officers are the main actors who have been entrusted to fulfil this important function” of upholding the law.
</ref>

; Breach of Trust
Police officers, as officials discharging public duties, occupy a special position of trust in the community.<Ref>
{{supra1|Cook}}{{atL|2czk3|29}}<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|LeBlanc|1v2|2003 NBCA 75 (CanLII)|180 CCC (3d) 265}}{{perNBCA|Drapeau CJ}}{{AtL|1v2|32}}<br>
{{supra1|McClure}}, at 200<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Berntson|1l71v|2000 SKCA 47 (CanLII)|145 CCC (3d) 1}}{{perSKCA|Tallis JA}}{{atL|1l71v|24}} ("[A] heavy trust and responsibility is placed in the hands of those holding public office or employ")
</ref>
The commission of an offence while acting as a peace officer will generally be treated as a breach of trust offence.<Ref>
e.g. {{supra1|Cook}}
</ref>

; Special Status
Police powers give them access to "places and situations" that ordinary persons do not experience. In those circumstances they can commit offences without raising suspicions.<ref>
{{supra1|Cook}}{{atL|2czk3|32}} (" The police, in the execution of their duties, gain access to places and situations which the ordinary person does not experience: ...  In such situations, an officer may be in a position “where he can commit offences without arousing suspicions”: ...  For example, where a police officer victimizes a drug dealer, “the offender is likely to escape scot-free”:")<Br>
LeBlanc at para 27 ("Police officers have opportunities, practically on a daily basis, to cross the line and engage in prohibited conduct.  The public trusts them to resist the temptation and relies upon the courts to deal firmly with those who stray.")
</ref>

; Gravity of Penalties
Absent exceptional mitigating factors, a peace officer who commits a criminal offences should receive more severe sentences than those of regular citizens.<Ref>
{{supra1|Cook}} at para 38<Br>
{{supra1|Cusack}} at 2<br>
{{CanLIIR|Gabruch|gn3tk|2016 ABPC 16 (CanLII)}}{{perABPC|Fraser J}}{{atL|gn3tk|9}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|Bal|fw1rs|2013 BCPC 21 (CanLII)}}{{atL|fw1rs|95}}
</ref>

; Serving a Jail Sentence
A peace officer being sentenced to a period of incarceration is at risk from the general population and will inevitably serve much of the sentence in protective custody, which should warrant mitigating the punishment.<ref>
{{supra1|Cook}}{{atL|2czk3|43}} ("Because an inmate who is known to be, or discoverable as, a former police officer is at risk from general population prisoners, such an offender will almost inevitably serve much or all of the sentence in protective custody. This reality, involving as it does more limited social contact and institutional amenities, ordinarily warrants consideration in mitigation of punishment.")<br>
{{supra1|Rudge}}{{atL|g2lwx|23}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

===Effect on Employment and Status===

There is a division on how to treat the loss of employment as a mitigating factor. There are some authorities that suggest that it is.<ref>
R v Gorman, [1971] O.J. No. 1640, (1971), 1971 CanLII 628 (ON CA), 4 C.C.C. (2d) 330 (Ont.C.A.)<br>
R. v. McCormick, (1979), 1979 CanLII 2958 (MB CA), 47 C.C.C. (2d) 224, [1979] 4 W.W.R. 453 (Man.C.A.)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Bunn|527l|2000 SCC 9 (CanLII)|[2000] 1 SCR 183}}{{perSCC|Lamer J}} (5:3)
</ref>
While other courts contend loss of professional or social status is not generally a mitigating factor nor is the ability to do a particular job well a mitigating factor.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Ambrose|5rqs|2000 ABCA 264 (CanLII)|234 WAC 161}}{{perABCA|Cote JA}} (2:1){{atL|5rqs|37}}</ref>

It has been said that the "ruin and humiliation" brought upon the accused and his family as well as the loss of professional status can provide denunciation and deterrence.<ref>
{{supra1|Bunn}}{{atL|527l|23}}</ref>

{{reflist|2}}