R. v. Currie (R.O.R.), (1997) 211 N.R. 321 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 31, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1997), 211 N.R. 321 (SCC)

R. v. Currie (R.O.R.) (1997), 211 N.R. 321 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Robert Currie (respondent)

(25053)

Indexed As: R. v. Currie (R.O.R.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory,

McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ.

January 31, 1997.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of three sexual assaults. The Crown applied to have him sentenced as a dangerous offender. The accused was declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence. The accused appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 86 O.A.C. 143, allowed the appeal. The court concluded that the dan­gerous offender finding was unjustified, quashed the order for an indeterminate sen­tence and substituted a sentence of time served. The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal. The court set aside the sentence of time served and restored the trial judge's designation of the accused as a dangerous offender and imposition of an indeterminate sentence.

Criminal Law - Topic 5932

Sentence - Sexual assault - In 1989, the accused was convicted of three sexual assault charges for sexually touching several young girls in a department store - The trial judge declared the accused a dangerous offender and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment - Serious criminal record involving sexual assaults, beginning with violent sexual offences 15 years earlier - The appeal court quashed the dangerous offender finding and reduced sentence to time served - The Supreme Court of Canada restored the trial judge's designation of the accused as a dangerous offender and im­position of an indeterminate sentence - See paragraphs 17 to 45.

Criminal Law - Topic 6502

Dangerous offenders - Detention - Gen­eral - Conditions precedent - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "there are two thresholds that the Crown must surpass in order for the dangerous offender application to be successful [Criminal Code, s. 753(b)]. The Crown must first establish that the offender has been convicted of a 'serious personal injury offence'. Then the focus of the inquiry shifts. The question then becomes whether there is a 'likelihood' that the offender will cause 'injury, pain or other evil to other persons through [his] failure in the future to control his sexual impulses'" - See paragraph 20.

Criminal Law - Topic 6512

Dangerous offenders - Detention - Gen­eral - Evidence - In 1989, the accused was convicted of three sexual assaults for sexually touching several young girls in a department store - Serious criminal record involving sexual assaults, beginning with violent sexual offences 15 years earlier - The trial judge determined that the accused was a dangerous offender and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of imprison­ment - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the trial judge was not required to focus on the objective serious­ness of the predicate offences and, ac­cordingly, his decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence - Moreover, absent an error of law, the dangerous offender determi­nation was a finding of fact, based on the competing credibility of expert witnesses, that an appeal court should not lightly disturb - See paragraphs 17 to 40.

Criminal Law - Topic 6516

Dangerous offenders - Detention - Gen­eral - Appeals - Scope of - [See Crimi­nal Law - Topic 6512 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 6575

Dangerous offenders - Detention - Sen­tencing - Sentence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5932 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. McCraw, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 72; 128 N.R. 299; 49 O.A.C. 47; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 517, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 61 C.R.(3d) 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 27].

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; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 129 D.L.R.(4th) 657, refd to. [para. 33].

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. 33].

R. v. McDonnell (T.E.) (1997), 210 N.R. 241; 196 A.R. 321; 141 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Langevin (1984), 3 O.A.C. 110; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 336 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Sullivan (1987), 20 O.A.C. 323; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 143 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 29 C.R.(4th) 113, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Barrett (D.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 752; 179 N.R. 68; 80 O.A.C. 1; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 319, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Knight (1975), 27 C.C.C.(2d) 343 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Dwyer (1977), 3 A.R. 96; 34 C.C.C.(2d) 293 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Carleton (1982), 32 A.R. 181; 69 C.C.C.(2d) 1 (C.A.), affd. [1983] 2 S.C.R. 58; 52 N.R. 293; 47 A.R. 160, refd to. [para. 42].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 753(b) [para. 20]; sect. 759(1) [para. 33].

Counsel:

Lucy Cecchetto and Aimée Gauthier, for the appellant;

Alan D. Gold, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Gold & Fuerst, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 31, 1997, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the court was rendered on January 31, 1997 and Lamer, C.J.C., delivered the following written reasons in both official languages on May 22, 1997.