R. v. Cheddesingh (D.M.), (2004) 319 N.R. 94 (SCC)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ.
• Citation: (2004), 319 N.R. 94 (SCC),JE 2004-789,[2004] SCJ No 15 (QL),19 CR (6th) 35,182 CCC (3d) 37,[2004] ACS no 15,186 OAC 184,319 NR 94,2004 SCC 16,[2004] 1 SCR 433,[2004] CarswellOnt 1132
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Date: 19 March 2004

R. v. Cheddesingh (D.M.) (2004), 319 N.R. 94 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2004] N.R. TBEd. AP.022

David Masi Cheddesingh v. Her Majesty The Queen

(29662)

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

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ.

March 19, 2004.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of, inter alia, manslaughter. The sentencing judge imposed a life sentence and an eight year period of parole ineligibility under s. 743.6 of the Criminal Code. The accused appealed his sen­tence. Both parties conceded that the mini­mum ineligibility period under s. 743.6 in connection with a life sentence was 10 years.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 162 O.A.C. 151, dismissed the accused's sentence appeal. However, the court varied the period of parole ineligibility to 10 years. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 5670

Punishments - Sentence - Imprisonment and parole - Parole - Period of ineligibility - The accused was convicted of man­slaughter resulting from the rape and sub­sequent death of a 76 year old widow - The sentencing judge imposed a life sen­tence and imposed a period of parole ineligibility under s. 743.6 - The accused argued that the trial judge erred by apply­ing the same analysis in imposing the sentence as he did in imposing the period of parole ineligibility - The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected the argument and held that a 10 year parole ineligibility period was proper - The sentencing judge had engaged in a detailed analysis of the ac­cused's personal characteristics and person­ality disorders, which demonstrated that he would be a continuing danger until he was rehabilitated, which likely could not occur in the normal parole eligibility period - There was ample evidentiary support for extending the parole ineligibility period - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the accused's appeal - See paragraph 2.

Criminal Law - Topic 5849.10

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - When maximum sentence avail­able - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "A maximum penalty of any kind will by its very nature be imposed only rarely ... and is only appropriate if the offence is of sufficient gravity and the offender dis­plays sufficient blameworthiness. As is al­ways the case with sentencing, the inquiry must proceed on a case-by-case basis." - See paragraph 1.

Criminal Law - Topic 5882

Sentence - Manslaughter - The accused broke into a 76 year old widow's apart­ment - He tortured the victim by debating whether he would sexually assault her - He told her that he had a razor - He violently sexually assaulted her - The accused was in the apartment for almost three hours - He stole the victim's glasses and wallet - After a month in the hospital, the victim died as a result of septic complications from cirrhosis associated with vaginal trauma - The accused was convicted of, inter alia, manslaughter - Expert evidence indicated that the accused's personality disorder made him a danger to society - The sentencing judge imposed a life sen­tence, holding that the offence was one of stark horror - The sentencing judge also imposed a period of parole ineligibility under s. 743.6 - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the use of terms such as "stark horror", "worst offence" and "worst offender" added nothing to the analysis and should be avoided - However, the court affirmed the life sentence and held that a 10 year parole ineligibility period was proper.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Zinck (T.R.), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 41; 300 N.R. 201; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 674 A.P.R. 1; 2003 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 2].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Manson, A., Law of Sentencing (2001), p. 106 [para. 1].

Counsel:

C. Leslie Maunder, for the appellant;

Sandra Kingston and David Leposky, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Not disclosed.

This appeal was heard on March 19, 2004, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. McLachlin, C.J.C., delivered the following oral decision in both official languages on the same date.