Digest: R v John, 2018 SKPC 23

• Date: March 18, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKPC 23

Docket Number: 24493405 , PC17126

Court: Provincial Court

Date: 2018-03-18

Judges:

• Klause

Subjects:

• Criminal Law � Assault � Aggravated Assault � Sentencing � Dangerous Offender

Digest: he accused was convicted of: two counts of aggravated assault, contrary to s. 268 of the Criminal Code; and carrying a weapon for the purpose of committing an offence, contrary to s. 88 of the Code. After the Crown advised that it would seek to have the accused remanded for an assessment pursuant to s. 752.1 of the Code and the assessment was completed, a Dangerous Offender (DO) hearing was held. The Crown argued that the accused should be designated a DO and be given an indeterminate sentence whilst the defence submitted that if the accused was so designated, he should be granted a determinate sentence followed by a 10-year supervision order. The accused, an Aboriginal man, about 40 years of age, was raised by his parents in chaotic circumstances. His mother was violent and began physically abusing him when he was six. He began drinking at 10 and dropped out of school in grade six. When he was 12 he became involved in the criminal justice system by committing a break and entry to steal cigarettes and candy. Throughout his life, the accused had lived off robberies and break and entries to support his drug habit. He had committed 85 Criminal Code offences, 17 of which were for interpersonal violence and the possession and use of weapons. Since 1998, the violent offences became more frequent and more severe in nature. In the opinion of the psychiatrist who assessed him, the accused showed no understanding that his crimes violated the rights of others. He had received rehabilitative programming, including Aboriginal-centred programs and resources, during his periods of incarceration, apparently without effect. The accused was assessed at high risk for future acts of violence and based upon the stabbing he committed in the predicate offence, the outcome for a future victim could be severe. The accused�s treatment prospects were not promising and it would be necessary for him to be monitored and supervised for the longest possible period. The issues were: 1) whether the index offence, aggravated assault, was a serious personal injury offence as defined by s. 752 of the Code; 2) if so, did the accused meet the definition of dangerous offender pursuant to s. 753(1)(a)(i) or (ii) of the Code; and 3) if the...