R. v. Cairns (R.S.), 2004 BCCA 219

• Judge: Rowles, Newbury and Levine, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: December 17, 2003
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2004 BCCA 219;(2004), 197 B.C.A.C. 252 (CA)

R. v. Cairns (R.S.) (2004), 197 B.C.A.C. 252 (CA);

    323 W.A.C. 252

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AP.057

Regina (appellant) v. Robert Stewart Cairns (appellant)

(CA030990; 2004 BCCA 219)

Indexed As: R. v. Cairns (R.S.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Rowles, Newbury and Levine, JJ.A.

April 21, 2004.

Summary:

The accused was acquitted by a jury of second degree murder, but convicted of manslaughter in the death of his wife. He was sentenced to four years' imprisonment. The Crown appealed the sentence.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Rowles, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal, set aside the sentence and substituted a sentence of seven years' imprisonment.

Criminal Law - Topic 5801

Sentencing - General - Uniformity - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5882 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5831.9

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Domestic violence - [See Crim­inal Law - Topic 5882 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5882

Sentence - Manslaughter - The accused's wife provoked him over her gambling habits and requested money for sexual favours - He killed her with a hammer and strangulation, leaving her young son at home with the body - First offender - Stalwart community member - Highly regarded - Offence com­pletely out of charac­ter - Employed over 20 years - No societal risk - Primary care­giver to two elderly, ill parents - Em­otionally de­vas­tated; three pre-arrest sui­cide attempts - The British Columbia Court of Appeal increased the sentence from four years to seven - The trial judge over-emph­asized the mitigating factor of the ac­cused's back­ground/character and under-em­pha­sized the offence's aggravat­ing circum­stances - Four years did not accord with the uniformity principle or express suf­ficient denunciation for spousal man­slaughter - See paragraphs 9 to 10, 97 to 109.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Stone (B.T.), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 290; 239 N.R. 201; 123 B.C.A.C. 1; 201 W.A.C. 1; 173 D.L.R.(4th) 66; 134 C.C.C.(3d) 353, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Klassen (R.J.), [1997] Y.J. No. 4 (S.C.), affd. (1997), 95 B.C.A.C. 136; 154 W.A.C. 136 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1997), 225 N.R. 240; 109 B.C.A.C. 160; 177 W.A.C. 160, refd to. [para. 17].

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. 19].

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; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 327, refd to. [para. 19].

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. 19].

R. v. G.W., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 597; 247 N.R. 135; 181 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 139; 550 A.P.R. 139, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Gourgon (1981), 58 C.C.C.(2d) 193; 21 C.R.(3d) 384 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Johnson (D.K.) (1996), 84 B.C.A.C. 261; 137 W.A.C. 261; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 225; 26 M.V.R.(3d) 15 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Bernier (2003), 179 B.C.A.C. 218; 295 W.A.C. 218; 177 C.C.C.(3d) 137; 2003 BCCA 134, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Dang (W.P.) (2002), 172 B.C.A.C. 1; 282 W.A.C. 1; 2002 BCCA 304, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. N.P.D. - see R. v. Dang (W.P.)

R. v. Whicher (D.A.) (2002), 169 B.C.A.C. 275; 276 W.A.C. 275; 165 C.C.C.(3d) 535; 2002 BCCA 336, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. D.A.W. - see R. v. Whicher (D.A.).

R. v. Laberge (K.K.) (1995), 165 A.R. 375; 89 W.A.C. 375 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Kutschera (J.P.) (1999), 131 B.C.A.C. 120; 214 W.A.C. 120; 141 C.C.C.(3d) 254; 1999 BCCA 748 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Williams (G.M.) (1995), 61 B.C.A.C. 6; 100 W.A.C. 6 (C.A.), consd. [para. 68].

R. v. G.M.W. - see R. v. Williams (G.M.).

R. v. Puchalski, [1962] O.J. No. 162 (C.A.), consd. [para. 70].

R. v. Russell, [1977] O.J. No. 1124 (C.A.), consd. [para. 71].

R. v. McDow (G.A.) (1996), 147 N.S.R.(2d) 343; 426 A.P.R. 343 (C.A.), consd. [para. 72].

R. v. G.A.M. - see R. v. McDow (G.A.).

R. v. Archibald (R.J.) (1992), 15 B.C.A.C. 301; 27 W.A.C. 301 (C.A.), consd. [para. 74].

R. v. McCulloch (D.I.) (2001), 153 B.C.A.C. 32; 251 W.A.C. 32; 2001 BCCA 195, consd. [para. 75].

R. v. Howard (1991), 8 B.C.A.C. 241; 17 W.A.C. 241 (C.A.), consd. [para. 77].

R. v. Pettigrew (1990), 56 C.C.C.(3d) 390 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Wildeman (2002), 173 B.C.A.C. 214; 283 W.A.C. 214; 2002 BCCA 112, consd. [para. 80].

R. v. Khosa (S.S.) et al. (2003), 190 B.C.A.C. 42; 311 W.A.C. 42; 2003 BCCA 645, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Ollenberger (R.) (1994), 149 A.R. 81; 63 W.A.C. 81; 29 C.R.(4th) 166 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Pitkeathly (D.B.) (1994), 69 O.A.C. 352; 29 C.R.(4th) 182 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Hayman (J.H.) (1999), 118 O.A.C. 354; 135 C.C.C.(3d) 338 (C.A.), consd. [para. 87].

Counsel:

M.J. DeWitt-Van Oosten, for the appellant, Crown;

D.M. McKimm, Q.C., and S.E. Wishart, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Victoria, British Columbia, on December 17, 2003, before Rowles, Newbury and Levine, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered in Vancouver, British Columbia, on April 21, 2004, when the following opinions were filed:

Rowles, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 1 to 96;

Levine, J.A. (Newbury, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 97 to 109.