R. v. Druken (J.K.), (2005) 252 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 314 (NLTD)

• Judge: Thompson, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
• Case Date: December 15, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2005), 252 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 314 (NLTD)

R. v. Druken (J.K.) (2005), 252 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 314 (NLTD);

    756 A.P.R. 314

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. DE.016

Her Majesty the Queen v. Jody Keith Druken

(1997 St. J. No. 0851; 2005 NLTD 209)

Indexed As: R. v. Druken (J.K.)

Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court

Trial Division

Thompson, J.

December 15, 2005.

Summary:

The accused was acquitted on a murder charge arising from the shooting death of his brother. The Crown appealed the acquittal.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 219; 633 A.P.R. 219, allowed the appeal on the sole ground that the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury regarding the included offence of manslaughter. The court ordered a new trial, limited to the offence of manslaughter. Subsequently, the accused pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter and a conviction was entered. Joint sentencing submissions were presented.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division, rejected the joint submission and sentenced the accused to 12 years' imprisonment, less six years for time already served and time spent on judicial release.

Criminal Law - Topic 5813

Sentencing - Sentencing procedure and rights of the accused - Plea bargain or joint submission - Effect of - The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the shooting death of his brother in a parking lot following a confrontation at a doctor's office - The brothers had been feuding for some time - The accused shot the victim twice at close range in a stand-off preparing for a fight - The accused claimed that he did not intended to kill the victim, who had previously threatened the accused - Accused had prior criminal record, including armed robbery - A joint sentencing submission recommended a sentence of five years that had been satisfied by 30 months of pre-trial custody and restrictive conditions of his judicial interim release following an acquittal on a charge of murder arising from the shooting - The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division, rejected the joint submission and imposed a sentence of 12 years' imprisonment, less credit for six years (i.e., five years for time served and one year for his time on judicial release) - The court noted that in this case the foreseeability of the risk of death was high, bordering on intent to commit murder and showed a high degree of disregard for the occurrence of serious bodily harm or death - There was nothing to support the acceptance of a sentence of five years which fell at the lowest end of the range of sentences for manslaughter involving a firearm - Such a sentence would not serve the principles of deterrence and denunciation - It was not consistent with sentences in other cases, and if accepted, compromised significantly the administration of justice and the public interest - The shooting was essentially unexplained - The accused was not impaired, he could have avoided the confrontation and there was no necessity to discharge the firearm.

Criminal Law - Topic 5813

Sentencing - Sentencing procedure and rights of the accused - Plea bargain or joint submission - Effect of - The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division, stated that a joint submission obtained by an accused in return for a plea of guilty, who thereby gave up his right to a trial, should not be rejected unless the sentence was contrary to public interest and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute - See paragraph 73.

Criminal Law - Topic 5882

Sentence - Manslaughter - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 5813 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Canning (C.) (1996), 148 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 464 A.P.R. 1 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Osmond (J.P.) (1996), 140 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 123; 438 A.P.R. 123 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. J.P.O. - see R. v. Osmond.

R. v. Lockyer (D.L.) (2000), 195 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 586 A.P.R. 1; 2000 NFCA 59, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Cuff (M.N.) (2003), 224 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 322; 669 A.P.R. 322; 2003 NLSCTD 49, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Cooper (G.) (1997), 153 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 106; 475 A.P.R. 106 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Lamirande (S.C.) et al. (2002), 163 Man.R.(2d) 163; 269 W.A.C. 163; 164 C.C.C.(3d) 299 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused 307 N.R. 399; 180 Man.R.(2d) 49; 310 W.A.C. 49, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Nienhuis (1991), 117 A.R. 253; 2 W.A.C. 253 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Gray and Schinkel (No. 2) (1990), 64 Man.R.(2d) 284 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Metcalfe (P.V.) (1997), 99 B.C.A.C. 15; 162 W.A.C. 15 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Maxwell (A.J.) (1999), 131 B.C.A.C. 52; 214 W.A.C. 52 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Garrison (R.) (1999), 125 O.A.C. 260 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Dubasz (W.J.) (1995), 165 A.R. 399; 89 W.A.C. 399 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Henderson (E.) et al. (2005), 207 B.C.A.C. 14; 341 W.A.C. 14 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Richer - see R. v. Henderson (E.) et al.

R. v. Black (C.V.) (1989), 94 N.S.R.(2d) 59; 247 A.P.R. 59 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Cooney (R.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 89; 98 C.C.C.(3d) 196 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Birchall (R.D.) (2001), 155 B.C.A.C. 273; 254 W.A.C. 273; 158 C.C.C.(3d) 340 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Walcot (M.F.) (2001), 152 B.C.A.C. 200; 250 W.A.C. 200; 154 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Donovan (B.) (2003), 268 N.B.R.(2d) 371; 704 A.P.R. 371 (T.D.), affd. (2004), 272 N.B.R.(2d) 279; 715 A.P.R. 279; 188 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Pashe (S.J.) (1995), 100 Man.R.(2d) 61; 91 W.A.C. 61 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Kittle (P.M.) (1996), 142 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 87; 445 A.P.R. 87 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Wust (L.W.) (2000), 252 N.R. 332; 134 B.C.A.C. 236; 219 W.A.C. 236 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Hilderman (A.E.D.) (2005), 371 A.R. 4; 354 W.A.C. 4 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Chan (Y.C.S.), [2004] B.C.T.C. 1581 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Verdi-Douglas (2002), 162 C.C.C.(3d) 37 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Guignard (M.) (2005), 282 N.B.R.(2d) 346; 738 A.P.R. 346; 195 C.C.C.(3d) 145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. MacIvor (R.M.) (2003), 215 N.S.R.(2d) 344; 675 A.P.R. 344 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Grandy (E.J.) (2005), 246 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 36; 731 A.P.R. 36 (N.L.T.D.), refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. Sinclair (E.J.) (2003), 184 Man.R.(2d) 1; 318 W.A.C. 1; 185 C.C.C.(3d) 569; 22 C.R.(6th) 319; 2004 MBCA 48, refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Dorsey (C.) (1999), 123 O.A.C. 342 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. McKay (D.E.) (2004), 184 Man.R.(2d) 259; 318 W.A.C. 259 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. McCart (R.C.), [2004] A.R. Uned. 42; 2004 ABCA 103, refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. G.P. (2004), 229 N.S.R.(2d) 61; 725 A.P.R. 61; 2004 NSCA 154, refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Cromwell (Y.M.) (2005), 238 N.S.R.(2d) 17; 757 A.P.R. 17; 2005 NSCA 137, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Martineau (1990), 112 N.R. 83; 109 A.R. 321; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Creighton (1993), 157 N.R. 1; 65 O.A.C. 321; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 346 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Fowler (1984), 48 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 175; 142 A.P.R. 175 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 117].

R. v. Snelgrove (1977), 13 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 190; 29 A.P.R. 190 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 118].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Martin Committee Report - see Ontario (Attorney General), Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure and Resolution Discussions, Report of (Martin Committee Report).

Ontario (Attorney General), Attorney General's Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure and Resolution Discussions, Report of (Martin Committee Report) (1993), generally [para. 74].

Ruby, Clayton C., Sentencing (6th Ed.), generally [para. 32]; p. 671, para. 23.115 [para. 35].

Stuart, Don, Annotation to R. v. Sinclair, 2003 CarswellMan 573, generally [para. 82].

Counsel:

Stephen Dawson, for the Crown;

Garrett O'Brien and Alan Henry, for the accused.

This matter has heard at St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, by Thompson, J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on December 15, 2005.