R. v. Fensom (J.J.), (2014) 589 A.R. 181 (QB)

• Judge: Topolniski, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 09, 2014
• Citations: (2014), 589 A.R. 181 (QB);2014 ABQB 238

R. v. Fensom (J.J.) (2014), 589 A.R. 181 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. MY.045

Her Majesty the Queen v. Jeremy James Fensom (130375942Q1; 2014 ABQB 238)

Indexed As: R. v. Fensom (J.J.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of St. Paul

Topolniski, J.

May 9, 2014.

Summary:

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and was convicted of witness intimidation.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench sentenced the accused to three years' imprisonment for aggravated assault and one year's imprisonment (consecutive) for witness intimidation. The accused was given 642 days credit for 428 days of pre-trial custody (1.5 to 1.0 basis).

Criminal Law - Topic 5804

Sentencing - General - Consecutive sentences - Reduced total term (totality principle) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5938 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5830.4

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Guilty plea - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5938 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5848.2

Sentencing - Considerations - Time already served - The accused was sentenced to a total of four years' imprisonment for aggravated assault and witness intimidation - At issue was whether he should receive credit for 428 days of pre-trial custody on a 1.0 to 1.0 basis or enhanced credit on a 1.5 to 1.0 basis - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the considerations in R. v. Wust (SCC 2008) remained relevant after the 2009 enactment of the Truth in Sentencing Act - In most circumstances, credit on a 1.5 to 1.0 basis was appropriate on the basis of a loss of early parole release, even if the conditions of detention were not particularly harsh and parole was unlikely - The court stated that "[The accused] candidly admits that there is nothing unique about his experience on remand and that he has no evidence or information to offer about his experience in any event. That said, even though [the accused's] crimes are very serious and involve violence, he does appear to be a potential candidate for parole or early release. Further, the conditions in Alberta remand facilities are notorious. There is no evidence that [the accused's] conduct in remand has been unusual. I therefore conclude that a 1.5:1 ratio enhanced credit for his 428 days of pre-trial custody is appropriate." - See paragraphs 97 to 108.

Criminal Law - Topic 5938

Sentence - Aggravated assault - The 35 year old accused and Mercer were involved in the illicit drug trade - Mercer told one woman (Black) that he committed a murder - Black told a friend and her mother - The accused found out and, brandishing a handgun, threatened Black to keep her mouth shut - Days earlier, the accused said that he became angry with another woman (Bandura) as they drove by the murder scene, because he believed that she played a role in instigating the murder by Mercer - The accused continued to drive to an isolated rural area, then severely beat Bandura by punching and kicking her - Bandura suffered multiple facial bone fractures and a fractured left eye socket - She required surgery to place five metal plates and a mesh fiber to her face - Her jaw had to be wired shut - Both victims were fearful and psychologically scarred - The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and was convicted of witness intimidation - Aggravating factors included a completely gratuitous assault that was not spontaneous but a calculated act of vengeance for a perceived wrong, serious, long-lasting injuries, and the use of a weapon to intimidate a witness - There were no mitigating factors of significant weight - The accused's late guilty plea to aggravated assault in the face of a strong Crown case had virtually no weight even though it saved court time and spared Bandura from testifying - Dropping Bandura off at a third party's house after the beating, rather than leaving her in a snow bank on the side of the road, was not a mitigating factor - The accused showed no remorse - He had a lengthy criminal record dating from his youth comprised mainly of drug offences - He had two stale-dated convictions for assault and weapons possession - The accused's conduct was at the high end of the scale of moral blameworthiness - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench sentenced the accused to three years' imprisonment for aggravated assault and one year's imprisonment (consecutive) for witness intimidation - The accused was given 642 days credit for 428 days of pre-trial custody (1.5 to 1.0 basis) - The total sentence of four years' imprisonment did not offend the totality principle, as it did not constitute a "crushing sentence" - See paragraphs 1 to 86.

Criminal Law - Topic 5980

Sentence - Intimidation of justice system participant - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5938 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Crazyboy (S.E.), [2011] A.R. Uned. 765; 2011 ABPC 380, varied (2012), 533 A.R. 371; 557 W.A.C. 371; 2012 ABCA 228, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Rowbottom (L.P.) (2006), 68 W.C.B.(2d) 603 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.), varied [2008] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. Uned. 20 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Michel, 2010 NWTTC 9, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Nasogaluak (L.M.), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206; 398 N.R. 107; 474 A.R. 88; 479 W.A.C. 88; 2010 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Lake (D.J.) (2008), 429 A.R. 398; 421 W.A.C. 398; 2008 ABCA 204, refd to. [para. 19].

Doman v. Superintendent of Brokers (B.C.) et al. (1996), 85 B.C.A.C. 210; 138 W.A.C. 210; 31 B.C.L.R.(3d) 357 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Lausberg (S.P.) (2013), 544 A.R. 56; 567 W.A.C. 56; 2013 ABCA 72, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Elson (C.E.), [2012] A.R. Uned. 280; 2012 ABPC 88, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Cardinal (E.A.) (2012), 522 A.R. 259; 544 W.A.C. 259; 2012 ABCA 102, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Lewis (G.A.) (2012), 536 A.R. 258; 559 W.A.C. 258; 2012 ABCA 289, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Bigsorrelhorse (L.), [2012] A.R. Uned. 558; 2012 ABCA 327, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Moller (M.H.) (2012), 539 A.R. 300; 561 W.A.C. 300; 2012 ABCA 381, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Desjarlais (R.E.) (2009), 256 Man.R.(2d) 1; 2009 MBPC 45, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Jamieson (D.J.), [2009] A.R. Uned. 68; 2009 ABCA 208, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Wright (T.M.) (2011), 502 A.R. 318; 517 W.A.C. 318; 2011 ABCA 42, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Bunes (D.H.) (1999), 232 A.R. 152; 195 W.A.C. 152; 1999 ABCA 29, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. J.C.K. (2013), 542 A.R. 242; 566 W.A.C. 242; 2013 ABCA 50, leave to appeal denied (2013), 466 N.R. 396; 588 A.R. 400; 626 W.A.C. 400 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Johnson (F.B.) (2013), 553 A.R. 157; 583 W.A.C. 157; 2013 ABCA 190, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Ellwood (G.D.), [2013] A.R. Uned. 514; 2013 ABPC 148, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Summers (S.) (2013), 304 O.A.C. 322; 114 O.R.(3d) 641; 2013 ONCA 147, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Ipeelee (M.), [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433; 428 N.R. 1; 288 O.A.C. 224; 318 B.C.A.C. 1; 541 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. J.L.M.A. (2010), 499 A.R. 1; 514 W.A.C. 1; 2010 ABCA 363, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Arcand - see R. v. J.L.M.A.

R. v. Mellstrom (1975), 22 C.C.C.(2d) 472; 29 C.R.N.S. 327 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Augustine (S.W.) (2007), 315 N.B.R.(2d) 183; 815 A.P.R. 183; 2007 NBQB 158, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Crazybull (Q.R.), [2005] A.R. Uned. 97; 2005 ABCA 215, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Munro (H.) (2000), 66 W.C.B.(2d) 276 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), affd. (2003), 168 O.A.C. 380; 173 C.C.C.(3d) 281 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Thuraisingam, 1997 CarswellOnt 6369 (Gen. Div.), affd. [1997] O.J. No. 3593 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Crazyboy (S.E.) (2012), 533 A.R. 371; 557 W.A.C. 371; 2012 ABCA 228, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Viscomi (S.) (2012), 524 A.R. 241; 545 W.A.C. 241; 2012 ABCA 135, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Byce, 2007 CarswellOnt 5984 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Ellson (E.A.) (2006), 276 Sask.R. 244; 2006 SKPC 9, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Ruth (K.L.), [2012] A.R. Uned. 115; 2012 ABCA 168, refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. B.S.M. (2011), 502 A.R. 253; 517 W.A.C. 253; 2011 ABCA 105, refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. K.D.H. (2012), 546 A.R. 248; 2012 ABQB 471, refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Samoilov (I.I.) (2013), 553 A.R. 351; 583 W.A.C. 351; 2013 ABCA 261, refd to. [para. 70].

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, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. D.J.D. (2010), 487 A.R. 84; 495 W.A.C. 84; 2010 ABCA 207, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Wharry (W.E.) (2008), 437 A.R. 148; 433 W.A.C. 148; 2008 ABCA 293, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Tiegs (B.D.), [2012] A.R. Uned. 42; 2012 ABCA 116, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Wust (L.W.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 455; 252 N.R. 332; 134 B.C.A.C. 236; 219 W.A.C. 236; 2000 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Summers (S.) (2014), 456 N.R. 1; 316 O.A.C. 349; 2014 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 102].

Counsel:

Harvey Neufeld (Politeski Strilchuk Milen), for the accused;

Randall Brandt (Alberta Justice Crown Prosecution Services), for the Crown.

This matter was heard on February 25-28, 2014, before Topolniski, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of St. Paul, who delivered the following judgment on May 9, 2014.