R. v. Dunphy-Taylor (A.), (2015) 362 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 331 (NLPC)

• Judge: Gorman, P.C.J.
• Court: Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 14, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2015), 362 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 331 (NLPC);2015 NLPC 1313

R. v. Dunphy-Taylor (A.) (2015), 362 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 331 (NLPC);

    1125 A.P.R. 331

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. JA.009

Her Majesty the Queen v. Alex Dunphy-Taylor

(2015 NLPC 1313A00977)

Indexed As: R. v. Dunphy-Taylor (A.)

Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court

Gorman, P.C.J.

January 19, 2015.

Summary:

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of resisting a peace officer, four counts of breach of undertaking, one count of mischief and two counts of breach of probation.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court sentenced the accused to a total of nine months' imprisonment. The court also imposed mandatory victim fine surcharges of $100 for three of the offences that occurred after October 24, 2013.

Criminal Law - Topic 5726

Punishments (sentence) - Probation or probation order - Circumstances when permissible - The 24 year old accused pleaded guilty to one count each of resisting a peace officer and mischief, four counts of breach of undertaking, and two counts of breach of probation - The intoxicated accused became loud and aggressive while at a house party - He was asked to leave and provided with taxi money - On the way out, he punched a window pane in the front door, breaking it - While outside, he obstructed traffic and left a bag full of his clothes in the middle of the street - He re-entered the house - He was forcibly removed and the door was locked - He punched the door breaking a second pane of glass - He then unlocked the door and re-entered - The police were called - The accused fled - Police found him under the deck at the back of the residence - He vigorously resisted arrest - At the time, he was bound by a probation order and an undertaking - He breached the probation order on several occasions by not reporting to his probation officer - He failed to comply with a curfew imposed by a recognizance - One month later, he failed to comply with an undertaking that imposed a curfew - He had 26 prior convictions, none of which involved violence - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court determined individual sentences which totalled 420 days' imprisonment - Applying the totality principle the court reduced the sentence to 90 days, less eight days for pretrial custody - Although the sentence was higher than that requested by the Crown (5-7 months), it properly reflected the circumstances - Despite both counsel's request, the court declined to impose a probation order - The accused had shown that he would neither comply with probation orders nor cooperate with probation officers - See paragraphs 71 to 91.

Criminal Law - Topic 5804

Sentencing - General - Consecutive sentences - Reduced total term - Totality principle - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5726 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5849.7

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Representations of counsel - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5726 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5888

Sentence - Resisting or obstructing a peace officer - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5726 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5890

Sentence - Mischief - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5726 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5892

Sentence - Breach of restraining order, recognizance or undertaking - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5726 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5898

Sentence - Breach of probation - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5726 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5898

Sentence - Breach of probation - In R. v. Murphy (D) (2011 NLCA), the court stated that generally "... sentence in the range of one to three months imprisonment, or up to six months where the Crown proceeds by way of indictment is imposed for the breach of a probation order." - In R. v. Hutchings (R.) (2012 NLCA), the court stated that the range of sentence could "... range between one month and sometimes less to upwards of six months." - In R. v. Lewis (2012 NLCA), the court affirmed a sentence of nine months' imprisonment for breach of probation - In R. v. J.B. (2013 NLCA), the court affirmed a sentence of one month's imprisonment for breach of probation - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court stated that the above decisions "... illustrate that a prescriptive range has been set for the offence of breach of probation, but only at the higher range. Periods of imprisonment at the lower end of the range include periods of imprisonment of thirty days or less. Obviously, the imposition of a period of imprisonment is not mandatory, though general deterrence must be stressed. If the offender has a prior record for breaching court orders, then specific deterrence and protection of the public require emphasis. If the breach of the court order involves contact with a victim or witness, denunciation must be a significant consideration." - See paragraphs 41 to 46.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lundrigan (D.A.) (2012), 324 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 270; 1007 A.P.R. 270; 2012 NLCA 43, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Presgrave, [2014] Q.C.A. 105, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Squires (P.J.) (2012), 320 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 39; 993 A.P.R. 39; 2012 NLCA 20, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. O'Flaherty (A.E.) (1997), 155 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 150; 481 A.P.R. 150 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Knott (D.W.) (2012), 433 N.R. 38; 324 B.C.A.C. 1; 551 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Berner (C.-A.) (2013), 337 B.C.A.C. 146; 576 W.A.C. 146; 2013 BCCA 188, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Cluney (N.) (2013), 338 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 57; 1049 A.P.R. 57; 2013 NLCA 46, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Briand (R.) et al. (2010), 302 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 67; 938 A.P.R. 67; 2010 NLCA 67, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Hackett (T.M.) (2013), 345 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 1074 A.P.R. 1 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Solowan (K.S.T.), [2008] 3 S.C.R. 309; 381 N.R. 191; 261 B.C.A.C. 27; 440 W.A.C. 27; 2008 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. McNeil (S.J.) (2013), 340 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 42; 1057 A.P.R. 42; 2013 NLCA 52, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Johnston (H.E.) (2011), 311 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 129; 967 A.P.R. 129; 2011 NLCA 56, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Murphy (D.) (2011), 304 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 266; 944 A.P.R. 266; 2011 NLCA 16, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Hutchings (R.) (2012), 316 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 211; 982 A.P.R. 211; 2012 NLCA 2, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Lewis (D.E.) (2012), 318 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 64; 989 A.P.R. 64; 2012 NLCA 11, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. J.B. (2013), 341 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 329; 1061 A.P.R. 329; 2013 NLCA 61, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Simmonds (R.M.) (2014), 350 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 19; 1088 A.P.R. 19 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Best (C.A.T.) (2014), 355 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 82; 1106 A.P.R. 82; 2014 NLTD(G) 108, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Thorne (S.R.) (2014), 356 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 201; 1108 A.P.R. 201; 2014 NLTD(G) 111, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Young (G.T.) (2014), 357 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 40; 1109 A.P.R. 40; 2014 NLTD(G) 113, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Manning (J.C.) (2014), 345 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 25; 1074 A.P.R. 25 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Dwyer (J.R.) (2014), 359 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 90; 1117 A.P.R. 90 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Marsh (C.J.), (2014), 359 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 96; 1117 A.P.R. 96 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. O'Keefe (G.), [2006] N.J. No. 290 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Norman, [2011] N.J. No. 214; 2011 CarswellNF 208 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Minot (P.) (2011), 304 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 212; 944 A.P.R. 212; 2011 NLCA 7, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Crockwell (L.) (2013), 333 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 55; 1034 A.P.R. 55 (N.L.T.D. (Gen.)), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Sutherland (B.J.) (2014), 352 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 276; 1097 A.P.R. 276 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Gould (R.), (2014), 358 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 251; 1108 A.P.R. 251; 2014 CanLII 70456 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Saunders (J.A.) (2013), 343 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 1066 A.P.R. 271 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Turpin (J.P.) (2014), 346 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 91; 1078 A.P.R. 91 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Griffin (J.) (2014), 346 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 176; 1078 A.P.R. 176 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Ivany (G.J.) (2014), 354 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 121; 1102 A.P.R. 121 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Frampton (M.C.) (2014), 346 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 38; 1078 A.P.R. 38 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Tilley (A.E.), [2012] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. Uned. 72 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Gould (P.) (2014), 349 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 49; 1085 A.P.R. 49 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. K.C. (2014), 350 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 106; 1088 A.P.R. 106 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. W.L.(M.)S. (2014), 354 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 193; 1102 A.P.R. 193 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Rowe (D.) (2008), 273 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 38; 833 A.P.R. 38; 2008 NLCA 3, refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. E.W. (2002), 216 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 89; 647 A.P.R. 89 (N.L.C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Crocker (B.J.) (1991), 93 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 222; 292 A.P.R. 222 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. K.V.E. (2013), 347 B.C.A.C. 253; 593 W.A.C. 253; 2013 BCCA 521, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Khawaja (M.M.) (2012), 437 N.R. 42; 301 O.A.C. 200; 2012 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Castro (C.) (2010), 270 O.A.C. 140; 2010 ONCA 718, refd to. [para. 87].

Counsel:

L. St. Croix, for Her Majesty the Queen;

P. Chaffey, for Mr. Dunphy-Taylor.

This matter was heard at Corner Brook, N.L., on January 14, 2015, by Gorman, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on January 19, 2015.