Offences of Violence (Sentencing): Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
 
(25 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Currency|January 2018}}
[[fr:Infractions de violence et de voies de fait (détermination de la peine)]]
{{Currency2|January|2018}}
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderOffences}}
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderOffences}}
==General Principles==
==General Principles==
A key societal right for all people is the right to be "free from unconsented invasions on his or her physical security or dignity".<Ref>
A key societal right for all people is the right to be "free from unconsented invasions on his or her physical security or dignity."<Ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Ogg-Moss|1txjt|1984 CanLII 77 (SCC)|[1984] 2 SCR 173}}{{perSCC|Dickson J}} (5:0) ("One of the key rights in our society is the individual’s right to be free from unconsented invasions on his or her physical security or dignity and it is a central purpose of the criminal law to protect members of society from such invasions.")
{{CanLIIRP|Ogg-Moss|1txjt|1984 CanLII 77 (SCC)|[1984] 2 SCR 173}}{{perSCC|Dickson J}} (5:0) ("One of the key rights in our society is the individual’s right to be free from unconsented invasions on his or her physical security or dignity and it is a central purpose of the criminal law to protect members of society from such invasions.")
</ref>
</ref>
Line 10: Line 11:


Provocation will have an effect on sentence for assault. Where the injury occurred while in an initially consensual fight the sentence will be less than where the attack was unprovoked and against a defenceless victim.<ref>
Provocation will have an effect on sentence for assault. Where the injury occurred while in an initially consensual fight the sentence will be less than where the attack was unprovoked and against a defenceless victim.<ref>
{{CanLIIR-N|Johnson|, [1998] BCJ NO.2924 (BCCA)}}</ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Johnson|1f0vs|1998 CanLII 4838 (BC CA)|131 CCC (3d) 274}}{{perBCCA-H|Prowse JA}}</ref>


In offences of violence involving a weapon, "the primary sentencing objectives to be applied are deterrence and protection of the public."<ref>
In offences of violence involving a weapon, "the primary sentencing objectives to be applied are deterrence and protection of the public."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Philpott|2fx0s|2011 NLTD 30 (CanLII)|958 APR 119}}{{perNLSC|LeBlanc J}}</ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Philpott|2fx0s|2011 NLTD 30 (CanLII)|958 APR 119}}{{perNLSC|LeBlanc J}}</ref>
Random acts of violence upon strangers will often attract jail sentence. <ref>
''R v Lewis'', 1983 OntCA -- 9 mo for random unprovoked assault<br>
</ref>


Sports-related violence can frequently allow for discharges.<ref>
Sports-related violence can frequently allow for discharges.<ref>
{{CanLIIR-N|Carroll| (1995) 38 CR 238 (BCCA)}}
{{CanLIIRP|Carroll|1ddnb|1995 CanLII 1123 (BC CA)|(1995) 38 CR 238}}{{perBCCA-H|Donald JA}}
</ref>
</ref>
   
   
Line 46: Line 43:
# evidence that it was out of character or isolated event
# evidence that it was out of character or isolated event


{{reflist|2}}
Psychologists do make a distinction between "affective violence" and "predatory violence". Affective violence concerns "violence that is reactive and emotionally driven". Predatory violence concerns violence where the offender "sought both gratification and compliance."<ref>
 
{{CanLIIR|States|h4m1q|2017 ONSC 4023 (CanLII)}}{{atL|h4m1q|298}} ("Both saw the initial assault of Mr. States as important. From their respective psychiatric and psychological perspectives, both saw the offence as involving affective violence: violence that is reactive and emotionally driven.")<br>
== Domestic Violence==
{{CanLIIR|Paxton|g2jtf|2013 ABQB 750 (CanLII)}}{{perABQB|S.L. Martin J}}{{atL|g2jtf|234}}
Section 718.2(a)(ii) provides that “evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender’s intimate partner or a member of the victim or the offender’s family...shall be deemed to be an aggravating factor." This can include those who are in a sexual relationship but may not be co-habitating.<Ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Wenc|2607q|2009 ABCA 328 (CanLII)|AJ No 1075}}{{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0){{atsL|2607q|23| to 25}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


A spousal connection between the offender and victim is an aggravating factor at common law.<ref>
{{reflist|2}}
{{CanLIIRP|Doyle|1ms6d|1991 CanLII 2535 (NSCA)|, 108 NSR (2d) 1 (CA)}}{{perNSCA|Hallett JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Brown|1p6kf|1992 ABCA 132 (CanLII)|13 CR (4th) 346, 73 CCC 242}}{{TheCourtABCA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Pitkeathly|6k0z|1994 CanLII 222 (ON CA)|29 CR (4th) 182}}{{TheCourtONCA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Jackson|2dczm|1996 ABCA 195 (CanLII)|106 CCC (3d) 557}}{{perABCA|O'Leary JA}} (3:0)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Edwards|5tk2|1996 CanLII 1522 (ON CA)|28 OR (3d) 54, 105 CCC (3d) 21}}{{perONCA|Finlayson JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Stone|1fqn2|1999 CanLII 688 (SCC)|[1999] 2 SCR 290}}{{perSCC|Bastarache J}} (5:4)<br>
</ref>


; Denunciation and Deterrence are Primary
== Group Violence ==
The primary principles are denunciation and general deterrence for domestic violence offences.<ref>
When sentencing for group violence, it is not permitted to argue that a particular individual’s contribution was less than others and so deserves a lower sentence. They are responsible for the group that they contributed to.
{{CanLIIRP|McCarthy|1l14d|2005 NLCA 36 (CanLII)|198 CCC (3d) 383}}{{perNLCA|Cameron JA}}<br>
<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Dodd|27pr2|1999 CanLII 18930 (NL CA)|180 Nfld. & PEIR 145}}{{perNLCA|Marshall JA}} at 38<br>
{{CanLIIRP|MacIntyre and Liron|2dttv|1992 ABCA 319 (CanLII)|18 WCB (2d) 123}}{{perABCA|Fraser CJ}} at para 3 (“...when individuals act as part of a group or gang and perpetrate criminal acts, this gang-like feature of their activities does not permit each individual to offer his individual involvement alone ignoring, for sentencing purposes, the seriousness of their collective actions. When a person acts in concert with other members of a group or gang to victimize a single victim, that person must accept the consequences which flow from this group action. Each member of the group must be taken to know that by committing individual assaults upon a victim, he advances and even encourages the violence of the others.”)
{{CanLIIR-N|O'Keefe|, (1997), 158 Nfld. & PEIR 138 (NLPC)}}{{atp|252}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Rahaman|1vb1k|2008 ONCA 1 (CanLII)|76 WCB (2d) 138}}{{perONCA|Watt JA}}{{atL|1vb1k|46}} (The primary objectives in offences of "violence arising out of an existing or failed domestic or romantic relationship" is denunciation and deterrence.)<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Saghier|gwt8d|2017 ONSC 227 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Garson J}}{{atL|gwt8d|46}}<br>
also see {{CanLIIRP|Dodd|27pr2|1999 CanLII 18930 (NLCA)|, [1999] NJ No. 262 (Nfld. C.A.}} and [http://canlii.ca/t/1npl7 1999 CanLII 13904] (NL CA){{perNLCA|Marshall JA}}{{atsL|27pr2|38| to 39}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Campbell|7cld|2003 CanLII 48403 (ON CA)|170 OAC 282}}{{TheCourtONCA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Wishlow|fx8rk|2013 MBCA 34 (CanLII)|291 Man R (2d) 149}}{{perMBCA|Steel JA}} (3:0) ("Domestic violence is a serious problem in our society and the paramount sentencing principle for assaults of this nature should be deterrence and denunciation.")<br>
</ref>
 
Offences of violence that are between ex-partners would not be considered a case of domestic violence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Wesslen|ggf30|2015 ABCA 74 (CanLII)|599 AR 159}}{{TheCourtABCA}} (3:0)
</ref>
 
Courts are not to tolerate domestic violence within the communities.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Wilhelm|g656v|2014 ONSC 1637 (CanLII)|OJ No 1176}}{{perONSC|Hill J}}{{atL|g656v|101}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Menary|ftc37|2012 ONCA 706 (CanLII)|298 OAC 108}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|ftc37|7}}<br>
</ref>
 
Custodial sentences are considered the norm where significant bodily harm has been inflicted in a domestic violence situation.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Inwood|1p78h|1989 CanLII 263 (ON CA)|, [1989] O.J. No. 428 (CA)}}{{perONCA|Howland CJO}}<Br>
{{supra1|Saghier}}{{atL|gwt8d|46}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>
This is in part due to courts recognizing that domestic violence is often part of continuous abuse ongoing in the relationship.<Ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Bates|1fbc9|2000 CanLII 5759 (ON CA)|146 CCC (3d) 321}}{{perONCA|Moldaver and Feldman JJA}}{{atL|1fbc9|30}}</ref>


{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}
Line 95: Line 61:
[[Position of Trust as a Factor in Sentencing]]
[[Position of Trust as a Factor in Sentencing]]


== Group Violence ==
==Peace Officers as Offender==
When sentencing for group violence, it is not permitted to argue that a particular individual’s contribution was less than others and so deserves a lower sentence. They are responsible for the group that they contributed to.
{{seealso|Assaults Relating to Persons in Authority (Sentencing Cases)}}
<ref>
* [[Offences of Violence by Persons in Authority (Sentencing)]]
{{CanLIIRP|MacIntyre and Liron|2dttv|1992 ABCA 319 (CanLII)|18 WCB (2d) 123}}{{perABCA|Fraser CJ}} at para 3 (“...when individuals act as part of a group or gang and perpetrate criminal acts, this gang-like feature of their activities does not permit each individual to offer his individual involvement alone ignoring, for sentencing purposes, the seriousness of their collective actions. When a person acts in concert with other members of a group or gang to victimize a single victim, that person must accept the consequences which flow from this group action. Each member of the group must be taken to know that by committing individual assaults upon a victim, he advances and even encourages the violence of the others.”)
</ref>


{{reflist|2}}
==Domestic Violence==
* [[Intimate Partner Violence Sentencing]]


==Child Victims==
==Types of Victims==
===Child Victims===
{{seealso|Victims as a Factor in Sentencing}}
{{seealso|Victims as a Factor in Sentencing}}
Offences of violence against children by their parents requires a strong response due to their inability to defend themselves and the fiduciary duty towards them.<ref>
Offences of violence against children by their parents requires a strong response due to their inability to defend themselves and the fiduciary duty towards them.<ref>
Line 113: Line 79:


Certain courts have divided offences involving the assault of children into three categories:<ref>
Certain courts have divided offences involving the assault of children into three categories:<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|MacDonald' (K.)|230n0|2009 MBCA 36 (CanLII)|236 Man.R. (2d) 239}}{{perMBCA|Scott CJ}}{{atL|230n0|14}}</ref>
{{CanLIIRP|MacDonald (K.)|230n0|2009 MBCA 36 (CanLII)|236 Man.R. (2d) 239}}{{perMBCA|Scott CJ}}{{atL|230n0|14}}</ref>
#cases involving the application of force with the expectation of causing injury or indifference to it;
#cases involving the application of force with the expectation of causing injury or indifference to it;
#cases involving the application of force where a parent was immature and unskilled and acting out of emotional upset, frustration or temper and did not fully appreciate the serious injuries which might result; and
#cases involving the application of force where a parent was immature and unskilled and acting out of emotional upset, frustration or temper and did not fully appreciate the serious injuries which might result; and
Line 120: Line 86:
{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}


==Peace Officers as Victim==
===Peace Officers as Victim===
 
Police officers put themselves in harm's way to protect the community and preserve a just, peaceful and safe society. "Violent attacks upon police officers who are doing their duty are attacks on the rule of law and on the safety and well-being of the community as a whole. Sentences imposed for those attacks must reflect the vulnerability of the police officers, society's dependence on the police, and society’s determination to avoid a policing mentality which invites easy resort to violence in the execution of the policing function."<ref>  
Police officers put themselves in harm's way to protect the community and preserve a just, peaceful and safe society. "Violent attacks upon police officers who are doing their duty are attacks on the rule of law and on the safety and well-being of the community as a whole. Sentences imposed for those attacks must reflect the vulnerability of the police officers, society's dependence on the police, and society’s determination to avoid a policing mentality which invites easy resort to violence in the execution of the policing function."<ref>  
{{CanLIIR-N|MacArthur|, [2004] O.J. No. 721 (ONCA)}}{{at-|49}}</ref>
{{CanLIIR-N|MacArthur|, [2004] O.J. No. 721 (ONCA)}}{{at-|49}}</ref>


{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}
 
===Transit Workers===
==Peace Officers as Offender==
 
===Principles===
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)}}{{atL|2czk3|29}}<br>
R v Feeney et al. (2008), 2008 ONCA 756 (CanLII), 238 C.C.C. (3d) 49 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 5<br>
Hill v. Hamilton Wentworth, 2007 SCC 41, at para. 116 per Charron J in dissent “[p]olice officers are the main actors who have been entrusted to fulfil this important function” of upholding the law.
</ref>
 
Police officers, as officials discharging public duties, occupy a special position of trust in the community.<Ref>
{{supra1|Cook}} at para 29<Br>
R. v. LeBlanc (2003), 2003 NBCA 75 (CanLII), 180 C.C.C. (3d) 265 (N.B.C.A.) at para. 32<br>
R. v. McClure (1957), 118 C.C.C. (3d) 192 (Man. C.A.) at 200<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Berntson||2000 SKCA 47 (CanLII)|145 CC. (3d) 1}}{{atL||24}} ("[A] heavy trust and responsibility is placed in the hands of those holding public office or employ")
</ref>
 
The administration of justice “depend[s] on the fidelity and honesty of the police”.<Ref>
R v McClure, supra, at 200
</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>
 
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>
 
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>
 
{{Reflist|2}}
===Factors===
; Good Character
A peace officer will usually come with the ability to adduce a great deal of good character evidence as it is this quality of character that allows the person to attain a position of trust.<Ref>
{{supra1|Cook}} at para 36<br>
{{CanLIIR|Lepine|2dhdc|2010 ABPC 374 (CanLII)}}{{perABPC|Rosborough J}}{{atL|2dhdc|24}}
</ref>
 
; Impact on Employment
While loss of employment as a peace officer is a factor to be considered in sentence it cannot "trump" or undermine the need for denunciation and deterrence.<ref>
{{supra1|Cook}} at para 41 to 42<br>
Preston at para 3 (The trial judge "understood the appellant’s job was significantly at risk but as he correctly said that factor “ought not in this case on these facts trump the pressing need for denunciation and deterrence”.")
</ref>
Loss of employment should be considered an ancillary consequence that is strictly speaking not a mitigating factor.<ref>
{{supra1|Lepine}} at para 26 citing Manson, et al in Sentencing and Penal Policy in Canada, 2nd ed, Manson, Healy, Trotter, Roberts and Ives, Edmond Montgomery Publications Limited, Toronto, 2008 at p. 124<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Mand|59zg|1999 ABPC 160 (CanLII)|334 AR 398}}{{perABPC|Ayotte J}} ("[The offender] also makes a more troubling submission ...to take into account the possible effect on the constable’s employment, on his career as a police officer, if a conviction is entered. ... I hasten to add that sentencing courts cannot be held hostage to what employers might do. Every employed offender must face the reaction of his employer to his or her conviction for a criminal offence. Indeed courts hear every day about the likely loss of a job upon conviction for impaired driving, for example. That is an inevitable side-effect of breaking the law. Employers have the right to make decisions about employment; courts have a duty to impose an appropriate sentence.")<br>
{{CanLIIR|Lindsay|jjx8v|2021 ABQB 839 (CanLII)}}{{perABQB|Lema J}}{{AtL|jjx8v|98}} ("This offence effectively ended Mr. Lindsay’s career with the Calgary Police Service, but as a not-unexpected consequence, it does not mitigate here...")<br>
{{CanLIIR|Partington|jl1q0|2021 ABPC 301 (CanLII)}}{{perABPC|Ayotte J}}
</ref>
 
; Terms of Custody
A peace officer serving incarceration will almost inevitably be expected to serve the sentence in protective custody and can be mitigating.<Ref>
{{supra1|Cook}} at para 43<br>
</ref>
 
; General Considerations
Factors to offences of violence by police officers can include:<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Gillian|25q6w|2009 BCPC 241 (CanLII)}}{{perBCPC|Watchuk J}}{{atL|25q6w|69}}</ref>
#Was the officer on duty at the time or off duty?
#Was the offence committed spontaneously in the heat of the moment or was it committed continually or with time for the officer to consider his actions?
#Was there a concern for his personal or fellow officers’ safety at the time of the assault?
#Was the victim a prisoner in the officer’s custody in an institution?
#What was the nature of the assault?
#What were the injuries suffered by the victim?
#Was the sentencing at the conclusion of a trial or was it a result of a guilty plea?
#Did the officer express or show remorse?
#Did the officer impede or assist the resulting police investigation of his actions?
#What was the experience and rank of the officer at the time of the offence?
 
 
; Ranges
In Ontario a custodial sentence in excess of 60 days is generally required for assaults by peace officers or court officers on prisoners.<Ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Thomas|fv11d|2012 ONSC 6653 (CanLII)|104 WCB (2d) 704}}{{perONSC|Code J}}{{atL|fv11d|49}}
</ref>
Cases with custody involve some form of aggravation such as:<Ref>
{{ibid1|Thomas}} at para 49
</ref>
* "ongoing assaults by a group of officers";
* "defenceless prisoners who were handcuffed or shackled";
* "cover-ups with falsified notes and false reports"; and
* "the laying of charges against the innocent victim of the assault".
 
In such cases, 30 to 60 days is considered "lenient".<Ref>
{{ibid1|Thomas}} at para 49<Br>
</ref>
 
 
{{reflist|2}}
 
==Transit Workers==


{{quotation2|
{{quotation2|
; Aggravating circumstance — assault against a public transit operator
; Aggravating circumstance — assault against a public transit operator
269.01 (1) When a court imposes a sentence for an offence referred to in paragraph 264.1(1)(a) or any of sections 266 to 269, it shall consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the victim of the offence was, at the time of the commission of the offence, a public transit operator engaged in the performance of his or her duty.
269.01 (1) When a court imposes a sentence for an offence referred to in paragraph 264.1(1)(a) {{AnnSec2|264.1(1)(a)}} or any of sections 266 to 269 {{AnnSec2|266 to 269}}, it shall consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the victim of the offence was, at the time of the commission of the offence, a public transit operator engaged in the performance of his or her duty.


; Definitions
; Definitions
Line 236: Line 104:
<br>
<br>
2015, c. 1, s. 1.
2015, c. 1, s. 1.
|[{{CCCSec|269.01}} CCC]
|{{CCCSec2|269.01}}
|{{NoteUp|269.01|1|2}}
|{{NoteUp|269.01|1|2}}
}}
}}


{{OffencesNavBar/Violence}}
{{OffencesNavBar/Violence}}

Latest revision as of 13:05, 29 September 2024

This page was last substantively updated or reviewed January 2018. (Rev. # 96548)

General Principles

A key societal right for all people is the right to be "free from unconsented invasions on his or her physical security or dignity."[1] It is a "central purpose" of the criminal law to protect the public from such invasions.[2]

Provocation will have an effect on sentence for assault. Where the injury occurred while in an initially consensual fight the sentence will be less than where the attack was unprovoked and against a defenceless victim.[3]

In offences of violence involving a weapon, "the primary sentencing objectives to be applied are deterrence and protection of the public."[4]

Sports-related violence can frequently allow for discharges.[5]

  1. ↑ R v Ogg-Moss, 1984 CanLII 77 (SCC), [1984] 2 SCR 173, per Dickson J (5:0) ("One of the key rights in our society is the individual’s right to be free from unconsented invasions on his or her physical security or dignity and it is a central purpose of the criminal law to protect members of society from such invasions.")
  2. ↑ Ogg-Moss, ibid.
  3. ↑ R v Johnson, 1998 CanLII 4838 (BC CA), 131 CCC (3d) 274, per Prowse JA
  4. ↑ R v Philpott, 2011 NLTD 30 (CanLII), 958 APR 119, per LeBlanc J
  5. ↑ R v Carroll, 1995 CanLII 1123 (BC CA), (1995) 38 CR 238, per Donald JA

General Factors

Key Aggravating Factors

  1. History of spousal abuse / previously assaulted same victim
  2. Criminal record for violence or related convictions
  3. Spouse or common law spouse is victim = breach of trust
  4. Serious injuries to complainant
  5. Planned or pre-meditated
  6. Use of weapon
  7. Children witnessed the assault or were present when the assault occurred
  8. Offence occurred in the home
  9. Degradation of victim
  10. Separate acts occurring over a period of time
  11. No remorse
  12. Home invasion
  13. Intoxicated at time of offence

Other Factors

  1. degree of provocation
  2. circumstances that make it desirable to preserve the family relationship
  3. evidence that it was out of character or isolated event

Psychologists do make a distinction between "affective violence" and "predatory violence". Affective violence concerns "violence that is reactive and emotionally driven". Predatory violence concerns violence where the offender "sought both gratification and compliance."[1]

  1. ↑ R v States, 2017 ONSC 4023 (CanLII), at para 298 ("Both saw the initial assault of Mr. States as important. From their respective psychiatric and psychological perspectives, both saw the offence as involving affective violence: violence that is reactive and emotionally driven.")
    R v Paxton, 2013 ABQB 750 (CanLII), per S.L. Martin J, at para 234

Group Violence

When sentencing for group violence, it is not permitted to argue that a particular individual’s contribution was less than others and so deserves a lower sentence. They are responsible for the group that they contributed to. [1]

  1. ↑ R v MacIntyre and Liron, 1992 ABCA 319 (CanLII), 18 WCB (2d) 123, per Fraser CJ at para 3 (“...when individuals act as part of a group or gang and perpetrate criminal acts, this gang-like feature of their activities does not permit each individual to offer his individual involvement alone ignoring, for sentencing purposes, the seriousness of their collective actions. When a person acts in concert with other members of a group or gang to victimize a single victim, that person must accept the consequences which flow from this group action. Each member of the group must be taken to know that by committing individual assaults upon a victim, he advances and even encourages the violence of the others.”)

Position of Trust

Position of Trust as a Factor in Sentencing

Peace Officers as Offender

See also: Assaults Relating to Persons in Authority (Sentencing Cases)

Domestic Violence

Types of Victims

Child Victims

See also: Victims as a Factor in Sentencing

Offences of violence against children by their parents requires a strong response due to their inability to defend themselves and the fiduciary duty towards them.[1]

The most important factors to consider is the child's exposure to harm and the forseeability of the harm.[2]

Certain courts have divided offences involving the assault of children into three categories:[3]

  1. cases involving the application of force with the expectation of causing injury or indifference to it;
  2. cases involving the application of force where a parent was immature and unskilled and acting out of emotional upset, frustration or temper and did not fully appreciate the serious injuries which might result; and
  3. cases involving diminished responsibility through mental disorder where the abnormal mental condition of the accused requires the treatment of the offender to be given priority over the principles of general and individual deterrence.
  1. ↑ R v Laberge, 1995 ABCA 196 (CanLII), 27 WCB (2d) 176, per Fraser CJ, at para 28
  2. ↑ R v Nickel, 2012 ABCA 158 (CanLII), 545 WAC 366, per Watson JA (3:2), at paras 34, 35
  3. ↑ R v MacDonald (K.), 2009 MBCA 36 (CanLII), 236 Man.R. (2d) 239, per Scott CJ, at para 14

Peace Officers as Victim

Police officers put themselves in harm's way to protect the community and preserve a just, peaceful and safe society. "Violent attacks upon police officers who are doing their duty are attacks on the rule of law and on the safety and well-being of the community as a whole. Sentences imposed for those attacks must reflect the vulnerability of the police officers, society's dependence on the police, and society’s determination to avoid a policing mentality which invites easy resort to violence in the execution of the policing function."[1]

  1. ↑ R v MacArthur, [2004] O.J. No. 721 (ONCA)(*no CanLII links) , at para 49

Transit Workers

Aggravating circumstance — assault against a public transit operator

269.01 (1) When a court imposes a sentence for an offence referred to in paragraph 264.1(1)(a) [threats – causing harm or death] or any of sections 266 to 269 [forms of assault], it shall consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the victim of the offence was, at the time of the commission of the offence, a public transit operator engaged in the performance of his or her duty.

Definitions

(2) The following definitions apply in this section.
"public transit operator" means an individual who operates a vehicle used in the provision of passenger transportation services to the public, and includes an individual who operates a school bus.
"vehicle" includes a bus, paratransit vehicle, licensed taxi cab, train, subway, tram and ferry.
2015, c. 1, s. 1.

– CCC (CanLII), (DOJ)

Note up: 269.01(1) and (2)

v • e
 
Violent Offences
Offences
Retrieved from "https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php?title=Offences_of_Violence_(Sentencing)&oldid=96548"