Perjury and Related Forms of Obstruction (Sentencing Cases): Difference between revisions

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 {{SCaseHeader}}
+{{SCase1|''R v King, <br> [http://canlii.ca/t/hzqqc 2019 ONSC 2166] (CanLII){{perONSC|Boucher J}} | 2 years | }}
 {{SCase1|''R v Vanier'', <br> [http://canlii.ca/t/hss5k 2018 ONCS 4070] (CanLII){{perONSC|Thorburn J}} | 3 years | }}
@@ Line 12: / Line 14: @@
 {{SCase1|''R v Schertzer'',<br>[http://canlii.ca/t/gh86h 2015 ONCA 259] (CanLII){{perONCA|Benotto JA}}| 3 years |"Five members of the Toronto Police Service Drug Squad have lied about when a search was conducted - see if it was before or after the warrant arrived at the scene. The agents falsified their notes; have lied in a subsequent information to obtain a search warrant; and gave false testimony in order to conceal the real moment of execution of the search. All of the defendants were found guilty of attempting to obstruct justice. Three of the defendants were also convicted of perjury." }}
-{{SCase1|''R v Millington'', <br>[http://canlii.ca/t/gkh89 2015 BCSC 1380] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Ehrcke J}} |30 months | The offender was a police officer who had tasered a person at the airport who then died. He then perjured himself at a public inquiry.}}
+{{SCase1|''R v Millington'', <br>[http://canlii.ca/t/gkh89 2015 BCSC 1380] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Ehrcke J}} |30 months | "Millington made false statements at the inquiry into the death of Robert Dziekanski at the Vancouver International Airport. He was one of the four police officers who had detained Mr. Dziekanski at the airport. Millington applied a taser to Mr. Dziekanski five times, which led to Dziekanski’s death. The perjury was on material aspects of the encounter, and his evidence had been contradicted by video. The testimony frustrated the ability of the inquiry in its search for answers. His evidence continued over several days and unfairly cast the victim in a negative light. Millington had no prior record and many letters referencing his good character. The court referred to numerous prior cases setting out the sentencing range for perjury. The court rejected the option of a conditional sentence because it would not adequately meet the need for deterrence and denunciation."}}
 {{SCase1|''R v Robinson, <br> [http://canlii.ca/t/gkwtz 2015 BCSC 1535] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Smith J}} | {{TwoYearsLess}} | "The accused, a police officer, was found guilty of perjury. He was present when a Taser was used against Robert Dziekanski at YVR airport. Mr. Dziekanski died later. The accused testified at a public inquiry and lied about the circumstances that led to Mr. Dziekanski's death." }}
-{{SCase1|''R v Reyat'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g64pl 2014 BCCA 101] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Saunders JA}} | 9 years | "The accused was found guilty of perjury for his false testimony in the Air India case (bombing of Air India Flight 182 that killed 329 people). The accused falsely stated that he did not recall any details of the plot to bomb the aircraft." The offence was politically motivated. He was previously convicted of manslaughter linked to the bombing. }}
+{{SCase1|''R v Reyat'', [http://canlii.ca/t/g64pl 2014 BCCA 101] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Saunders JA}} | 9 years | "A jury found Reyat guilty of perjury in proceedings that alleged 19 false statements. Reyat was a key witness in the murder trial of two Air India bombers, Malik and Bagri. Reyat had falsely claimed he did not remember important details of the narrative. His evidence foreclosed a relevant line of questioning and related to central events in the matter. His conduct was characterized as a stain on the process of a mass murder trial and was a deliberate attempt to frustrate justice. Reyat had also been convicted of three counts of manslaughter related to the Air India bombing prior to the Malik and Bagri trial. He received the longest sentence in Canadian history for perjury, 9 years’ imprisonment." The offence was politically motivated. He was previously convicted of manslaughter linked to the bombing. }}
 {{SCase1|''R v Akinyemi'', <br> [http://canlii.ca/t/g7d3s 2014 ONCJ 278] (CanLII){{perONCJ|De Filippis J}}|90 days | found guilty of public mischief, fraud over, and perjury. The offender made a false report of a vehicle theft to collect insurance.}}
+{{SCase1|''R v Talbot,<br>[2013] O.J. No. 3230 (SC){{fix}}| 16 months| "At his bail hearing for a breach of probation charge, the accused provided two fabricated letters and gave false oral evidence suggesting that he was employed and that he required bail to maintain that employment. These actions were found to show significant planning and deliberation. The evidence was for his own benefit and it resulted in him ultimately receiving an intermittent sentence for the underlying offence. He accused was indigenous and had a history of substance abuse. He had a lengthy prior record. He plead guilty and he had participated in counselling and rehabilitative efforts."}}
+{{SCase1|''R v White'',<br>2010 ONSC 6539{{fix}} | 30 months | "White gave perjured evidence in his own trial for possession of a firearm and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.  Had the accused’s evidence been accepted, it would have resulted in the police evidence being rejected. In mitigation the accused was an involved parent of two children. In aggravation, the perjury was planned and deliberate, and his sister assisted by corroborating his perjured evidence. The evidence accused the police of lying and had been repeated in multiple proceedings (in a first trial, and on the retrial following an appeal). The underlying offence was very serious."}}
 {{SCase1|''R v Hedderson'',<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/1n7d8 2006 CanLII 15422] (NL P.C.){{perNLPC|Gorman J}}| 2 years |}}
@@ Line 25: / Line 31: @@
 The accused "filed an application in Supreme Court in Vancouver to vary the terms of his bail. [It included] a letter sworn by Mr. J.W.C. to be from his employer.  The contents of the affidavit and the supporting letter explain the reasons and need for the bail variation. ...In fact, the letter attached to the affidavit was not written by Mr. J.W.C.’s employer.  ...  Mr. J.W.C. wrote and signed the letter without the employer’s knowledge or permission.   The Bail Variation Application did not proceed." The offender was 24 years old. He had a record of B&Es, stolen property, breach of court orders x 5, assault, mischief, and public mischief}}
-{{SCase1|''R v CD'',<br>[http://canlii.ca/t/1cwrl 2000 CanLII 3118] (ON CA), (2000), 132 O.A.C. 133 (C.A.){{TheCourtONCA}}| 1 year | The accused swore a false affidavit in support of a bail application.}}
+{{SCase1|''R v CD'',<br>[http://canlii.ca/t/1cwrl 2000 CanLII 3118] (ON CA), (2000), 132 O.A.C. 133 (C.A.){{TheCourtONCA}}| 1 year | "CD committed perjury in circumstances intended for his own benefit.  He had applied for bail pending appeal from his sexual assault convictions. In his supporting affidavit, he had falsely sworn that two employers knew of his convictions and were willing to hire him notwithstanding if he were to be released. The court of appeal noted that graver circumstances, such as giving false evidence in the trial of a serious matter, would generally merit a heavier sentence. His 1-year sentence, which was consecutive to his sexual assault sentence, was recognized as being within the range."}}
 {{SCase1|''R v MacIver'', <br>[http://canlii.ca/t/1fl91 2000 MBCA 82] (CanLII){{perMBCA|Scott CJ}}| 8 years (global)| The offender was convicted of income tax evasion, 4 counts of perjury, and one count making false statements. He participated in a sophiticated scheme over a long period of time to hide funds overseas. He was a 68 year old lawyer who was in poor health with no prior record. The Crown appealed a sentence of 21 months Conditional sentence and a one million dollar fine. }}
 {{SCase1|''R v Colbourne'',<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/5fkl 2002 ABPC 141] (CanLII){{perABPC|Semenuk J}}| 90 days jail | testified in traffic court and accused was acquitted as a result; limited record}}
+{{SCase1|''R v Jonas'',<br>[http://canlii.ca/t/233g9 1998 CanLII 17690] (ON CA){{TheCourtONCA}} | 15 month (perjury)<br>7 years (global) | "Jonas lied at his own bail hearing stage about the circumstances of a prior conviction, by suggesting that the circumstances of the conviction arose from his involvement in assisting police. His defence at trial was that he did not intend to mislead. He had a prior lengthy record including administration of justice offences and had three times served penitentiary sentences. He had a recent good work report, and a limited work history due to prior sentences."}}
 {{SCase1|''R v Johnson'',<br>[1996] 182 N.B.R. (2d) 373, [http://canlii.ca/t/1lxfb 1996 CanLII 4835] (NB CA){{perNBCA|Bastarache JA}} | 3 months | }}
@@ Line 35: / Line 43: @@
 {{SCase1|''R v Sheppard'',<br>[1995] N.J. No. 330 (P.C.) {{NOCANLII}} |  6 months |}}
-{{SCase1|''R v Bermudez'',<br>[http://canlii.ca/t/fwhl3 2013 ONCJ 113] (CanLII){{perONCJ|Brewer J}}| 3.5 years |"The accused pled guilty to 8 counts of giving evidence to the contrary. He falsely testified in a murder trial 2 e degree with a desire to help his friend accused of murder." He was 39 yeras old. He plead guilty and accepted responsibility. He was on strict conditions for 20 months. }}
+{{SCase1|''R v Bermudez'',<br>[http://canlii.ca/t/fwhl3 2013 ONCJ 113] (CanLII){{perONCJ|Brewer J}}| 3.5 years |"Burmudez plead guilty to eight counts of giving contradictory evidence in the proceedings related to his former common-law partner’s second-degree murder charge. The charge related to the death of her two-year old daughter. He gave contradictory evidence at various points in the proceedings about significant aspects of the evidence involving the commission of the offence, and his contradictions resulted in delays in the proceedings. He had a prior conviction for fraud and breach of probation. His motivation was related to his relationship with the accused. He had been abusing substances since the death of the child and his own child had been apprehended and made a ward of the state. He had a supportive family and had maintained gainful employment." He was 39 yeras old. He plead guilty and accepted responsibility. He was on strict conditions for 20 months. }}
 {{SCase1|''R v Martin,<br> [http://canlii.ca/t/fvtsl 1993 CanLII 8213] (NB QB){{perNBQB|Creaghan J}} | 3.5 years | "The accused pleaded guilty to perjury. He testified falsely in a murder trial 2 e degree that the victim was already dead when he arrived home with his friend Mr. Gallant. He sought to give the false impression that Mr. Gallant could not have killed her." He had a minor criminal record.}}
@@ Line 128: / Line 136: @@
 {{SCaseHeader}}
-{{SCase1|''R v Dorn'',<br>2010 ONSC 2631{{fix}} | 2 years | "The accused pleaded guilty to perjury by giving contradictory evidence. He had testified falsely to a preliminary investigation of murder in 1 st degree". The offender plead guilty. He had a positive pre-sentence report and no prior record.}}
+{{SCase1|''R v Dorn'',<br>2010 ONSC 2631{{fix}} | 2 years | "Dorn was an important witness in a murder trial of four accused. He gave contradictory evidence at the trial and preliminary hearing in the matter on several points in his narrative. The evidence had implications for the degree of responsibility of the various accused and was part of a sustained campaign to benefit his friends who were accused of the murder. He had one prior related conviction involving the same matter. The impact of the contradictory evidence on the result of the trial was difficult to ascertain, though it made the jury’s task more difficult, and it had impaired the truth-seeking function of the trial. The perjury also had a negative emotional impact on the family of the victim. Dorn had an extremely positive presentence report. He had separated himself from his prior associates. He had two young children and was the primary earner in the family. He plead guilty." The offender plead guilty. He had a positive pre-sentence report and no prior record.}}
 {{SCase1|''R v Desnomies'', <br> [http://canlii.ca/t/1mbln 2005 SKCA 148] (CanLII){{perSKCA|Gerwing JA}} | {{TwoYearsLess}} | "The accused was found guilty of presenting conflicting evidence.She testified at the preliminary inquiry of her friend, who was charged with second degree murder. She stated that her friend had confessed to killing the victim. She then presented contradictory testimony to her friend's trial, denying the confession."}}