R. v. Brown (M.D.), 2012 NSSC 306

• Judge: MacAdam, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: August 01, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2012 NSSC 306;(2012), 320 N.S.R.(2d) 208 (SC)

R. v. Brown (M.D.) (2012), 320 N.S.R.(2d) 208 (SC);

    1014 A.P.R. 208

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. SE.003

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Michael Dow Brown (respondent)

(Cr. Am. 391524; 2012 NSSC 306)

Indexed As: R. v. Brown (M.D.)

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

MacAdam, J.

August 20, 2012.

Summary:

The accused, while incarcerated for one year for making child pornography, assaulted another inmate by choking him in a dispute over the television remote. The accused pleaded guilty to summary conviction assault. The Crown sought a 30 day consecutive sentence. The trial judge sentenced the accused to a $200 fine and a 15% victim surcharge. The Crown appealed.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 5861

Sentence - Assault - The accused, while incarcerated for one year for making child pornography, assaulted another inmate by choking him in a dispute over the television remote - The accused pleaded guilty to summary conviction assault - The Crown sought a 30 day consecutive sentence - The trial judge sentenced the accused to a $200 fine and a 15% victim surcharge - The accused had no previous record of violence, it was a "low end assault" and the fact that the assault occurred in a correctional facility did not change things in a material way - The Crown appealed, arguing that child pornography was a "violent" offence, it was not a "low end assault" and assaults occurring in a correctional facility was an aggravating factor - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court dismissed the appeal - The trial judge did not err in the findings he made respecting the record of violence, the nature of the assault or the place where it occurred - The trial judge considered all relevant factors and sentencing principles - The sentence imposed was not manifestly unfit, as it fell within the acceptable range.

Cases Noticed:

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. 10].

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. 12].

R. v. Partridge (C.S.) (2005), 238 N.S.R.(2d) 373; 757 A.P.R. 373; 2005 NSCA 159, refd to. [paras. 13, 26].

R. v. L.M. (2008), 374 N.R. 351; 2008 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. R.A.R. (2000), 249 N.R. 322; 142 Man.R.(2d) 282; 212 W.A.C. 282; 2000 SCC 8, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Fitzgerald, Surette and Campbell (1985), 72 N.S.R.(2d) 176; 173 A.P.R. 176 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Sinclair (1982), 55 N.S.R.(2d) 541; 114 A.P.R. 541 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Veysey (J.M.) (2006), 303 N.B.R.(2d) 290; 787 A.P.R. 290; 2006 NBCA 55, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Shalley (J.D.) (2005), 201 Man.R.(2d) 142; 366 W.A.C. 142; 2005 MBCA 150, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Mitchell (1981), 29 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 125; 82 A.P.R. 125 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Cormier (1986), 70 N.B.R.(2d) 107; 179 A.P.R. 107 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Winters, 1989 CarswellSask 612, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Bartkow (1978), 24 N.S.R.(2d) 518; 35 A.P.R. 518 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Oliver, [1993] N.W.T.R. 277 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

Counsel:

Bruce C. Baxter, CA, CAE, for the appellant, Crown;

Joel E. Pink, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on August 1, 2012, at Amherst, N.S., before MacAdam, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment on August 20, 2012.