Sentencing for Sexual Offences
General Principles
De facto consent of the victim is not an appropriate form of mitigation.[1]
Child Sexual Offences
Psychological Harm
It has been recognized by courts that child victims of sexual offences suffer from long lasting damage.[1] They suffer from emotional trauma that is often permanent. As adults they "may become incapable of forming loving relationship, always fearful of re-victimization by sexual partners. Further, the matured victim may become a sexual predator himself. It is often that an offender will report being victimized by other sexual predators as a child."[2]
The judge should consider the "likelihood of psychological harm to the victim".[3] But the judge does not need to take judicial notice of the psychological harm caused by a sexual offence.[4]
- ↑ R v DD, (2002), 163 CCC (3d) 471, 2002 CanLII 44915 (ON CA), per Moldaver JA (3:0), at para 36
- ↑ DD, supra, at paras 37 to 38
- ↑
R v Rosenthal, 2015 YKCA 1 (CanLII), per Schuler JA (3:0), at para 6 - the "likelihood is a reason that the principle of general deterrence is significant in sentencing for sexual assault"
R v McDonnell, 1997 CanLII 389 (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 948, per Sopinka J (5:4)
- ↑
Rosenthal, supra, at para 6
Position of Trust
Position of Trust as a Factor in Sentencing
Historical Sex Offences
Historical Sexual Offences should not have their penalties reduced simply because of the time that has passed between the offence and sentence. The magnitude and culpability remain the same. [1] The importance of denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives are not diminished.[2]
However, the passage of time can show that the offender is a low risk to re-offend and that the offence is not in the character of the offender.
- ↑ See Delay as a Factor in Sentencing
- ↑
R v Spence, 1992 ABCA 352 (CanLII), per curiam, at paras 9 to 14
Case Digests
See Also
| |||||