R. v. Ambrose (B.A.),

• Judge: C,Fraser,Veit
• Neutral Citation: 2000 ABCA 264
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Date: 15 May 2000

R. v. Ambrose (B.A.) (2000), 271 A.R. 164 (CA);

    234 W.A.C. 164

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] A.R. TBEd. OC.046

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Bonny Ann Ambrose (appellant)

(9803-0310-A; 2000 ABCA 264)

Indexed As: R. v. Ambrose (B.A.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Fraser, C.J.A., Côté, J.A., and Veit, J.(ad hoc)

October 5, 2000.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of mischief for falsely accusing a police officer of sexually assaulting her. The sentencing judge sen­tenced her to imprisonment for two years less a day. The accused appealed the sen­tence.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Fraser, C.J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal to the extent of reducing the sentence by 11 weeks to account for pretrial custody. Fraser, C.J.A., would have imposed a one year conditional sentence.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - The accused was convicted of mischief for falsely accusing a police officer of sexually assaulting her - Although the accused indicated a day or so after the allegation that "in view of her emotional condition, she did not want to proceed at this time with the matter", she persisted in the false allegation - The offence was calculated and was likely an attempt to gain revenge against the officer - It had harmful results to the officer and the justice system - The sentencing judge sentenced the accused to imprisonment for two years less a day - The Alberta Court of Appeal affirmed that a conditional sentence was not appropriate - However, the court reduced the sentence by 11 weeks to account for the 36 days the accused spent remanded at a mental hos­pital - See paragraphs 1 to 66.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - The Alberta Court of Appeal stated that R. v. Brady (Alta. C.A.) "did not dictate an offence-specific presumption against con­ditional sentences where the primary sen­tencing considerations are denunciation and deterrence. If some may have treated the comments in Brady as a sentencing rule which operated as an offence-specific presumption against conditional sentences from the outset of the sentencing process, that would be an error in principle. It would also be an error to require that 'exceptional circumstances' exist as a conditional precedent to considering the possibility of a conditional sentence even where deterrence and denunciation are the primary sentencing considerations. It does not, however, invariably follow that simply because a sentencing judge looked for 'exceptional circumstances' or something comparable in deciding whether, in the result, to impose a conditional sentence, that of itself, warrants appellate interven­tion. That will depend on whether in the result, applying the correct principles, the sentence imposed is nevertheless a fit and proper one despite the sentencing judge's erroneous initial inquiry." - See paragraphs 61 and 95.

Criminal Law - Topic 5847

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Remorse of accused - The Al­berta Court of Appeal discussed the effect of an accused's remorse or lack of remorse in determining sentence - See paragraphs 2 to 4 and 71 to 89 - The court stated, inter alia, that "Lack of remorse should not be used to impose a sentencing surcharge on top of what would otherwise be an ap­propriate sentence. However, to the extent that lack of remorse evidences a higher degree of criminal culpability at the time of commission of a crime, it may be taken into account as a potentially aggravating factor in sentencing and may in turn influ­ence a sentencing judge's assessment of what an 'appropriate sentence' would be. Similar considerations apply where a sen­tencing judge is entitled to assess the of­fender and his or her character in deter­mining both the length and venue of sen­tence. ... However, in no event should a trial judge equate the way in which an accused has chosen to conduct his or her defence with lack of remorse. Nor should the trial judge then aggravate the sentence imposed based on that lack of remorse." - See paragraph 85.

Criminal Law - Topic 5848.2

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Time already served - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5890

Sentence - Mischief - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Hudon (N.A.) (1996), 187 A.R. 345; 127 W.A.C. 345 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 25, 120].

R. v. Lukasik (1982), 22 Alta. L.R.(2d) 222 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 42, 119].

R. v. Gill (B.S.) (1994), 162 A.R. 163; 83 W.A.C. 163 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 42, 121].

R. v. Tesar, [1991] N.W.T.J. No. 151 (Terr. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 42, 122].

R. v. Waiting (D.J.) (2000), 261 A.R. 334; 225 W.A.C. 334 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 42, 123].

R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61; 249 N.R. 201; 142 Man.R.(2d) 161; 212 W.A.C. 161; 140 C.C.C.(3d) 449, consd. [paras. 49, 93].

R. v. Brady (J.R.) (1998), 209 A.R. 321; 160 W.A.C. 321; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 504 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 49, 93].

R. v. Sawchyn, [1981] 5 W.W.R. 207; 30 A.R. 314 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1981] 2 S.C.R. xi; 39 N.R. 616; 33 A.R. 198, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Anderson (R.J.) (1992), 16 B.C.A.C. 14; 28 W.A.C. 14; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 523 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Kozy (1990), 41 O.A.C. 27; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 500 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. Valentini (D.) et al. (1999), 118 O.A.C. 1; 132 C.C.C.(3d) 262 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. Vickers (J.T.) (1998), 105 B.C.A.C. 42; 171 W.A.C. 42 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Dunbar (1966), 51 Cr. App. R. 57 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Skone (1966), 51 Cr. App. R. 165 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Harper (1967), 52 Cr. App. R. 21 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Blaize, [1997] E.W.J. No. 3640 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Young (1983), 21 Sask.R. 308 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Gladue (J.T.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688; 238 N.R. 1; 121 B.C.A.C. 161; 198 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. J.M. (1998), 160 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 38; 494 A.P.R. 38 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Shropshire (M.T.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227; 188 N.R. 284; 65 B.C.A.C. 37; 106 W.A.C. 37, refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; 194 N.R. 321; 73 B.C.A.C. 81; 120 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. McDonnell (T.E.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 948; 210 N.R. 241; 196 A.R. 321; 141 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. L.F.W., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 132; 249 N.R. 345; 185 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 562 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. R.N.S., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 149; 249 N.R. 365; 132 B.C.A.C. 1; 215 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. R.A.R., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 163; 249 N.R. 322; 142 Man.R.(2d) 282; 212 W.A.C. 282, refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. Bunn (T.A.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 183; 249 N.R. 296; 142 Man.R.(2d) 256; 212 W.A.C. 256, refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. Wells (J.W.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 207; 250 N.R. 364; 250 A.R. 273; 213 W.A.C. 273, refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. Bartoshewsky, [1982] A.J. No. 104 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Gardiner, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368; 43 N.R. 361; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 477, refd to. [para. 110].

R. v. Vollrath, [1994] A.J. No. 511 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 125].

R. v. Loutfi, 1998 ABCA 59 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 125].

R. v. Theysen (M.E.) (1996), 197 A.R. 40 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 125].

R. v. Pilch (B.J.R.) (1999), 141 Man.R.(2d) 283 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 125].

R. v. Davis (A.A.) (2000), 148 Man.R.(2d) 99; 224 W.A.C. 99 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 125].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Renaud, Gilles, Case Comment re R. v. J.M.: Willingness to Make Amends and the Contents of a Probation Officer's Report (1998), 163 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 82; 503 A.P.R. 82, generally [para. 88].

Ruby, Clayton, Sentencing (5th Ed. 1999), p. 190 [para. 78].

Counsel:

J. Watson, Q.C., for the respondent;

M.T. Duckett, Q.C., for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on May 15, 2000, by Fraser, C.J.A., Côté, J.A., and Veit, J.(ad hoc), of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal was deliv­ered on October 5, 2000, and the following opinions were filed:

Côté, J.A. (Veit, J.(ad hoc), concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 66;

Fraser, C.J.A., dissenting - see para­graphs 67 to 135.