R. v. Conlon (S.K.), (2011) 517 A.R. 365 (PC)

• Judge: Daniel, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: March 25, 2011
• Citations: (2011), 517 A.R. 365 (PC);2011 ABPC 259

R. v. Conlon (S.K.) (2011), 517 A.R. 365 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] A.R. TBEd. SE.026

Her Majesty the Queen v. Sean Keegan Conlon (090140757P10103; 2011 ABPC 259)

Indexed As: R. v. Conlon (S.K.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Daniel, P.C.J.

August 29, 2011.

Summary:

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery. He was being sentenced 2.5 years' later, during which time he had completely rehabilitated himself by resolving his substance abuse issues while under restrictive bail conditions. The Crown sought 18-24 months' imprisonment. The accused sought a conditional sentence or, alternatively, a suspended sentence or intermittent sentence.

The Alberta Provincial Court sentenced the accused to 90 days' intermittent imprisonment plus two years' probation.

Criminal Law - Topic 5664

Punishments (sentence) - Imprisonment and parole - Intermittent imprisonment - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5855 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5704

Punishments (sentence) - Suspended sentence - Suspended sentence - Circumstances when appropriate - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5855 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5855 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5723

Punishments (sentence) - Probation or probation order - Conditions - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5855 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5832

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Rehabilitation - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5855 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5833

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Deterrence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5855 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5848.2

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Time already served (incl. bail) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5855 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5849.15

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Length of time since offence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5855 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5849.16

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Addicts - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5855 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5855

Sentence - Robbery - In October 2008, the 30 year old accused, desperate to fund his crack cocaine addiction, agreed to participate in a commercial premises robbery as the get-away driver and look-out - The victims were robbed by the others under threat of being shot with what appeared to be a sawed-off shotgun -The others were masked - When the accused was caught several days later, he admitted his involvement, but declined to identify the others - He received $1,150 from the robbery proceeds - The accused had no prior record and an extremely positive pre-sentence report - He pleaded guilty to robbery - The Crown sought 18-24 months' imprisonment - The accused sought a conditional sentence or, alternatively, a suspended sentence or an intermittent sentence - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the violence involved (offenders masked, use of a shot-gun to threaten the victims) made the robbery a "serious personal injury offence", which precluded a conditional sentence - A suspended sentence was not appropriate to address denunciation and deterrence - The court sentenced the accused to a 90 day intermittent sentence followed by two years' probation - Sentencing had been delayed for 2.5 years - During that time, the accused was released on bail under restrictive terms, including an 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. curfew - He had completely rehabilitated himself through counselling to resolve his addiction problems - There was no alcohol or drug use since the robbery - The accused was now a law-abiding, employed electrician, with a supportive wife and two children - He was remorseful and a low risk to re-offend - In the past 2.5 years the accused had accomplished what society would demand (rehabilitation) - Individual deterrence was not needed - General deterrence did not require an 18-24 month sentence and might even negate all that the accused had accomplished to rehabilitate himself - Probation conditions included, inter alia, $3,000 restitution over 22 months, 200 hours of community service, continued addiction counselling, and a letter of apology to the robbery victims.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Johnas et al. (1982), 41 A.R. 183; 2 C.C.C.(3d) 490; 32 C.R.(3d) 1; 1982 CarswellAlta 299 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Griffin (E.M.) (2010), 294 N.S.R.(2d) 117; 933 A.P.R. 117; 2010 CarswellNS 525 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Otter (C.G.), [2010] A.R. Uned. 557; 2010 CarswellAlta 1390 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Ponticorvo (R.) (2009), 448 A.R. 275; 447 W.A.C. 275; 246 C.C.C.(3d) 48; 2009 CarswellAlta 432 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Lebar (S.M.) (2010), 260 O.A.C. 169; 252 C.C.C.(3d) 411; 101 O.R.(3d) 263; 2010 CarswellOnt 1625 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Kratky (K.J.), [2010] A.R. Uned. 592; 2010 CarswellAlta 1569 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. McLeod, 2010 CarswellOnt 6209 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Roy (D.W.) (2008), 307 Sask.R. 276; 417 W.A.C. 276; 2008 CarswellSask 197 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Becker (C.A.), [2009] A.R. Uned. 561; 2009 CarswellAlta 1315 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. J.L.M.A. (2010), 499 A.R. 1; 514 W.A.C. 1; 264 C.C.C.(3d) 134; 40 Alta. L.R.(5th) 199; 83 C.R.(6th) 199 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Morrisseau (M.R.), [2010] A.R. Uned. 938 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Hilderman (A.E.D.) et al. (2004), 369 A.R. 28; 64 W.C.B.(2d) 448 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Moore (L.M.), [2006] A.R. Uned. 891; 2006 ABPC 266, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Hennessey (S.W.) et al. (2009), 458 A.R. 260 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Clark (M.B.) (2008), 446 A.R. 148; 442 W.A.C. 148 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Sandercock (1985), 62 A.R. 382; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 79; 40 Alta. L.R.(2d) 265; 48 C.R.(3d) 154 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Neve (L.C.) (1999), 237 A.R. 201; 197 W.A.C. 201; 137 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 71 Alta. L.R.(3d) 92 (C.A.), dist. [para. 14].

R. v. Hendsbee (C.B.) (2009), 284 N.S.R.(2d) 57; 901 A.P.R. 57 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Thompson, [2009] O.J. No. 3330 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Carman (E.S.) (2001), 290 A.R. 74 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Baxter (A.K.), [2005] A.R. Uned. 205 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Sim (A.Z.) (2004), 357 A.R. 230; 334 W.A.C. 230 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Millar (1994), 31 C.R.(4th) 315 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Clemons (C.) (2003), 173 Man.R.(2d) 161; 293 W.A.C. 161; 2003 CarswellMan 115 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Peebles (D.A.) (1999), 240 A.R. 300 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. C.R.D. (2010), 477 A.R. 241; 483 W.A.C. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Bourassa (P.T.) (2004), 227 N.S.R.(2d) 173; 720 A.P.R. 173; 189 C.C.C.(3d) 438 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Evrard, [2005] J.Q. no. 4339 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Taylor (W.B.) (1997), 163 Sask.R. 29; 165 W.A.C. 29; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 376 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Bankay (J.), [2010] O.A.C. Uned. 646 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

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, refd to. [para. 32].

Counsel:

G. Haight, for the Crown;

M. Stephensen, for the accused.

This matter was heard on March 25, 2011, at Calgary, Alberta, before Daniel, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on August 29, 2011.