R. v. Crowe (R.T.), 2014 NSSC 210

• Judge: Robertson, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: June 10, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2014 NSSC 210;(2014), 346 N.S.R.(2d) 148 (SC)

R. v. Crowe (R.T.) (2014), 346 N.S.R.(2d) 148 (SC);

    1095 A.P.R. 148

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JN.051

Her Majesty the Queen v. Robert Thomas Crowe

(CRH No. 340325; 2014 NSSC 210)

Indexed As: R. v. Crowe (R.T.)

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Robertson, J.

June 10, 2014.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of unlawful confinement, sexual assault causing bodily harm, breach of probation and breach of a recognizance (see [2012] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 112). The Crown requested a dangerous offender assessment. The Crown's expert's assessment report was filed within the 120 day period prescribed by s. 752.1 of the Criminal Code, but the expert's assessment of the accused, instead of being commenced within the prescribed 60 day period, was commenced on the 89th day and completed on the 91st day. The accused applied to have the Crown's dangerous offender application declared a nullity due to the delay in the completion of the assessment by the Crown's expert.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at 332 N.S.R.(2d) 119; 1052 A.P.R. 119, dismissed the application.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court designated the accused to be a long-term offender and sentenced him to 10 years' imprisonment for the sexual assault. With respect to the non-predicate offences, the court sentenced the accused to concurrent sentences of three years for the unlawful confinement, and one year for each of the remaining offences. The court also imposed a DNA order, a lifetime firearms prohibition and lifetime registration pursuant to the Sexual Offence Information Registration Act.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by a restriction on publication under s. 486 of the Criminal Code and Maritime Law Book's editorial policy.

Criminal Law - Topic 5868

Sentence - Forcible confinement or seizure - The accused was convicted of unlawful confinement, sexual assault causing bodily harm, breach of probation and breach of a recognizance - While walking the victim home between 3:30 and 4:00 a.m., the accused forced her into a secluded driveway where he forced her to perform oral sex and engage in anal sex and then attempted vaginal sex - He took her phone so she could not call for help - She was crying - Despite her pleas, he refused to let her go, got angry and told her to shut up - He ceased the assault and fled when interrupted by a passing motorist - He had a difficult childhood, an early life history of conduct disorder behaviours, youthful criminal activity and poor educational outcomes - In 2007, at age 19, he sexually assaulted two children (ages 13 and 14) - Diagnosed as being paraphilia and pedohebephilia - Had an antisocial personality disorder and met the criteria to be designated a psychopath, with other clusters of personality pathology - A moderate to high risk of reoffending - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court accepted that the sexual assault constituted a serious personal injury offence - The accused met all of the four potential means by which he could qualify as a dangerous offender (pattern of repetitive behaviour; pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour with a substantial degree of indifference as to the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his behaviour upon others; offence of brutal nature; and a failure to control sexual impulses) - However, the court designated him as a long-term offender and sentenced him to 10 years' imprisonment for the sexual offence where there was a reasonable expectation that, with treatment, the risk of reoffending could be controlled in the community - The court also imposed ancillary orders and concurrent sentences of three years for the unlawful confinement and one year for each of the remaining offences.

Criminal Law - Topic 5892

Sentence - Breach of restraining order - Recognizance or undertaking - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5868 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5898

Sentence - Breach of probation - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5868 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5933

Sentence - Sexual assault with weapon, threats to third party or causing bodily harm - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5868 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 6503

Dangerous or long-term offenders - Detention (incl. common law preventive detention) - Dangerous offender - Defined - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5868 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 6503.1

Dangerous or long-term offenders - Detention (incl. common law preventive detention) - Long-term offender - Defined - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5868 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 6512

Dangerous or long-term offenders - Detention (incl. common law preventive detention) - Evidence and proof - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court reviewed the purpose of the dangerous offender provisions and stated that "Protecting the public interest is paramount in any dangerous offender application. The public must be protected from the offender who has committed a serious personal injury offence and who has a propensity to commit violent crimes of a sexual nature. ... The prevention of future violence, not punishment is the main objective of the legislation. ... The onus of proof is upon the Crown and the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt (including acts of past discreditable or criminal conduct. However the future likelihood component is to a standard on a balance of probabilities. The Crown need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender will re-offend, only that there is a likelihood he will inflict harm. ... This is not a trial but a sentencing hearing. Hearsay evidence is admissible in dangerous offender applications where found to be credible and trustworthy. ... The confession rule has not been established for proceedings related to sentencing ... The court cannot draw an adverse inference from the offender's refusal to fully cooperate with the Crown's expert. ..." - The court set out additional evidentiary privileges that had emerged in the development of the dangerous offender sentencing regime - See paragraphs 13 to 29.

Criminal Law - Topic 6512

Dangerous or long-term offenders - Detention (incl. common law preventive detention) - Evidence and proof - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court reviewed what the Crown had to prove to obtain a dangerous offender designation - See paragraphs 30 to 45.

Criminal Law - Topic 6551

Dangerous or long-term offenders - Detention (incl. common law preventive detention) - Protection of public - General - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 6512 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 6552

Dangerous or long-term offenders - Detention (incl. common law preventive detention) - Protection of the public - Pattern of repetitive behaviour - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5868 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 6553

Dangerous or long-term offenders - Detention (incl. common law preventive detention) - Protection of the public - Brutality of predicate offence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5868 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 6558

Dangerous or long-term offenders - Detention (incl. common law preventive detention) - Protection of the public - Dangerous sexual offender - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5868 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 6562

Dangerous or long-term offenders - Detention (incl. common law preventive detention) - Protection of the public - Persistent aggressive behaviour - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5868 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 6563

Dangerous or long-term offenders - Detention (incl. common law preventive detention) - Protection of the public - Indifference respecting consequences of behaviour to others - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5868 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 6575

Dangerous or long-term offenders - Detention (incl. common law preventive detention) - Sentencing - Sentence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5868 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Johnson (J.J.), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 357; 308 N.R. 333; 186 B.C.A.C. 161; 306 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. L.E.B. (2002), 205 N.S.R.(2d) 348; 643 A.P.R. 348; 2002 NSSC 156, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Payne (L.M.), [2001] O.T.C. 15 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Szostak (P.L.) (2014), 314 O.A.C. 89 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Warawa (R.A.) (2011), 519 A.R. 140; 539 W.A.C. 140; 2011 ABCA 294, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Racher (B.A.), [2011] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1313; 2011 BCSC 1313, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Carleton, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 58; 52 N.R. 293; 47 A.R. 160, affing. (1981), 32 A.R. 181; 69 C.C.C.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. D.L.S., [2000] B.C.J. No. 47 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Currie (R.O.R.) (1997), 211 N.R. 321; 100 O.A.C. 161; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 205 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Gardiner, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368; 43 N.R. 361; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 477, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Jones (S.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 229; 166 N.R. 321; 43 B.C.A.C. 241; 69 W.A.C. 241; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 353, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Boyd (1983), 8 C.C.C.(3d) 143 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Brown (W.G.) (1999), 24 B.C.T.C. 221 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. R.E.T. (2005), 219 B.C.A.C. 298; 361 W.A.C. 298; 204 C.C.C.(3d) 51 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Blair (C.M.) (2002), 167 B.C.A.C. 21; 274 W.A.C. 21; 164 C.C.C.(3d) 453 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Little (G.) (2007), 226 O.A.C. 148; 225 C.C.C.(3d) 20 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. McLean (A.D.) (2009), 272 N.S.R.(2d) 379; 869 A.P.R. 379; 241 C.C.C.(3d) 538 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Neve (L.C.) (1999), 237 A.R. 201; 197 W.A.C. 201; 137 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 1999 ABCA 206, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Shrubsall (W.C.) (2001), 199 N.S.R.(2d) 314; 623 A.P.R. 314 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Lewis (1984), 4 O.A.C. 98; 12 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Jack (T.P.) (1998), 104 B.C.A.C. 175; 170 W.A.C. 175 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Dicks (D.E.) (1996), 150 N.S.R.(2d) 378; 436 A.P.R. 378 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. MacInnis (J.R.) (1981), 49 N.S.R.(2d) 393; 96 A.P.R. 393; 64 C.C.C.(2d) 553 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Teskey (L.M.) (1996), 183 A.R. 55 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. L.M.T. - see R. v. Teskey (L.M.).

R. v. Rindero (J.E.), [1999] B.C.T.C. 12 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Boutilier (J.H.) (1995), 144 N.S.R.(2d) 293; 416 A.P.R. 293; 101 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. J.H.B. - see R. v. Boutilier (J.H.).

R. v. Larkham, [1987] O.J. No. 1203 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Kanester, [1968] 1 C.C.C. 351 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Knight (1975), 27 C.C.C.(2d) 343 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. P.M.C., [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. J56 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Langevin (1984), 3 O.A.C. 110; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 336 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. B.W.N. (2003), 270 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 710 A.P.R. 201 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. G.N.B. (2012), 406 Sask.R. 241; 2012 SKQB 397, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Bunn (G.N.) - see R. v. G.N.B.

R. v. Antonius (M.A.), [2000] B.C.T.C. 1086 (S.C.), affd. (2003), 182 B.C.A.C. 172; 300 W.A.C. 172 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2003), 321 N.R. 399; 205 B.C.A.C. 160; 337 W.A.C. 160 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Downs (C.J.) (2012), 397 Sask.R. 83 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 96].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ewaschuk, Eugene G., Criminal Pleadings and Practice in Canada (2nd Ed.), c. 18:3500 [para. 16].

Counsel:

Eric Taylor and James Giacomantonio and Cait Regan-Cottreau, law student, for the Crown;

J. Brian Church, Q.C., for the offender.

This application was heard at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on May 12, 13, 16, 20-23 and 29, 2014, by Robertson, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment orally on June 10, 2014 and in writing on June 20, 2014.