R. v. Chen (I.Y.Y.), 2007 MBQB 74

• Judge: Greenberg, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: March 29, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2007 MBQB 74;(2007), 218 Man.R.(2d) 1 (QB)

R. v. Chen (I.Y.Y.) (2007), 218 Man.R.(2d) 1 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. AP.010

Her Majesty The Queen v. Ingrid Yin Yu Chen (accused)

(CR 02-01-23218; 2007 MBQB 74)

Indexed As: R. v. Chen (I.Y.Y.)

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Greenberg, J.

March 29, 2007.

Summary:

The accused, a lawyer, was the subject of charges relating to the alleged extortion or attempted extortion of two individuals.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 209 Man.R.(2d) 161, convicted the accused of the attempted extortion. The matter proceeded to sentencing.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench sentenced the accused to 18 months' imprisonment.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5911 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5911

Sentence - Extortion - The accused, a practising lawyer, was convicted of attempted extortion for hiring a man she believed to be a thug to collect debts from her clients - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench sentenced the accused to 18 months' incarceration - The court noted that the accused did not seem to have an appreciation of the seriousness of her conduct - Rather, she felt that the charges had ruined her life and that she was the victim - The court stated that "her actions take 'professional misconduct' to a new level! There appears to be no Canadian precedent for it" - The court stated that a conditional sentence was not appropriate in this case, noting that she had already been sentenced to a conditional sentence for an immigration offence that was committed about the same time as these offences - Further, the seriousness of the offences, the fact that there was more than one count, the premeditated nature of the conduct and the fact that the accused was an officer of the court required a sentence that emphasized the denunciation and deterrence objectives of sentencing - Those objectives could not be met by allowing the accused to serve her sentence in the community.

Cases Noticed:

United States of America et al. v. Dynar, [1997] 2 S.C.R. 462; 213 N.R. 321; 101 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Manko (M.J.) (1992), 80 Man.R.(2d) 158 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Romolo (O.), [2002] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 30; 2002 MBCA 66, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Rutkowska (I.) (2005), 192 Man.R.(2d) 55; 340 W.A.C. 55; 2005 MBCA 18, refd to. [para. 13].

Counsel:

Paul Jensen, for the Crown;

E. Gene Zazalenchuk, for the accused.

This sentencing hearing was held before Greenberg, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following oral decision on March 29, 2007.