R. v. D.H., (2000) 189 Sask.R. 295 (CA)

• Judge: Vancise, Lane and Jackson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: March 01, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2000), 189 Sask.R. 295 (CA);2000 SKCA 42

R. v. D.H. (2000), 189 Sask.R. 295 (CA);

    216 W.A.C. 295

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] Sask.R. TBEd. AP.017

D.H. (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(7783; 2000 SKCA 42)

Indexed As: R. v. D.H.

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Vancise, Lane and Jackson, JJ.A.

April 11, 2000.

Summary:

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of assault causing bodily harm to the com­plain­ant. The accused was also found guilty of two counts of uttering threats to cause death to the complainant, one count of un­lawful confinement of the complainant, one count of committing sexual assaults on the com­plainant on numerous occasions and one count of committing assaults causing bodily harm to the complainant on numerous occa­sions.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 176 Sask.R. 235, sentenced the accused to concurrent sentences totalling seven years' imprison­ment and ordered that the accused serve one-half of his sentence before being eligible for parole. The accused appealed from the con­victions. He also appealed the order that he was required to serve one-half of his sen­tence before he was eligible for parole.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dis­missed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 5204.3

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility - Evidence of disposition or propensity of accused - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5209 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5209

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility and relevancy - Prejudicial evidence - The accused was convicted of uttering death threats, unlawful confinement, sexual assaults and assaults causing bodily harm - The complainant was the accused's half sister and they had travelled from Romania to Canada as illegal immigrants - The accused appealed the convictions, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of incidents between the accused and the complainant prior to their arrival in Saskatchewan and by allowing the complainant to testify as to what the accused had told her about his having been in jail for rape and other violent crimes - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dis­missed the appeal - The test for admissi­bil­ity was whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect - Although the trial judge applied the wrong test, if he had applied the cor­rect test, the evidence would have been admis­sible as it demonstrated the accused's control over the complainant - See para­graphs 5 to 17.

Criminal Law - Topic 5449

Evidence and witnesses - Testimony re­specting the accused - Character of accused - General - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5209 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5660

Punishments (sentence) - Imprisonment and parole - Term of imprisonment - With­out parole - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5932 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5670

Punishments (sentence) - Imprisonment and parole - Parole - Period of ineligibil­ity - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5932 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5810.2

Sentencing - Sentencing procedure and rights of the accused - Reasons for sen­tence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5932 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5868

Sentence - Forcible confinement - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5932 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5883

Sentence - Assault causing bodily harm - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5932 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5895

Sentence - Threats - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5932 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5932

Sentence - Sexual assault - The accused pleaded guilty to one count of assault causing bodily harm - He was also found guilty of two counts of uttering death threats, one count of unlawful confine­ment, one count of committing sexual assaults and one count of committing assaults causing bodily harm - The com­plainant was the accused's half sister and they had travelled from Romania to Canada as illegal immigrants - The trial judge sen­tenced the accused to concurrent sentences totalling seven years' imprison­ment and ordered that the accused serve one-half of his sentence before being eligible for parole - The accused appealed the period of parole ineligibility, arguing that the trial judge erred in failing to give clear and articulate reasons for the order - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dis­missed the appeal - The reasons for sen­tence were extensive and adequate and the sentence, including parole ineligibility, was not unfit - See paragraph 18.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. L.E.D., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 111; 97 N.R. 321; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 142, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. L.B.; R. v. M.A.G. (1997), 102 O.A.C. 104; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Arp (B.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 339; 232 N.R. 317; 114 B.C.A.C. 1; 186 W.A.C. 1; 166 D.L.R.(4th) 296; 20 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. F.F.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 697; 148 N.R. 161; 120 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 332 A.P.R. 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 112, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Chiasson (J.L.) (1995), 168 N.B.R.(2d) 182; 430 A.P.R. 182; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 564 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Counsel:

W.H. Roe, for the appellant;

W.T. Jennings, for the Crown.

This appeal was heard on March 1, 2000, before Vancise, Lane and Jackson, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Lane, J.A., on April 11, 2000.