R. v. Harrish (R.A.), 2011 ABCA 91

• Judge: Conrad, Berger and Watson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: March 22, 2011
• Citations: 2011 ABCA 91;(2011), 505 A.R. 173 (CA)

R. v. Harrish (R.A.) (2011), 505 A.R. 173 (CA);

      522 W.A.C. 173

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] A.R. TBEd. MR.159

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Robbie Allen Harrish (appellant)

(1003-0185-A; 2011 ABCA 91)

Indexed As: R. v. Harrish (R.A.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Conrad, Berger and Watson, JJ.A.

March 22, 2011.

Summary:

The 19 year old accused pleaded guilty to second degree murder. The Crown sought a period of parole ineligibility of 15-18 years. The accused sought the minimum 10 years. The trial judge sentenced the accused to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 16 years. The accused appealed, submitting that 16 years' parole ineligibility was demonstrably unfit given the accused's "horrible childhood", his youth, his guilty plea, and his limited intellectual capacity (IQ of 74).

The Alberta Court of Appeal, Watson, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal and reduced the period of parole ineligibility from 16 to 12 years.

Criminal Law - Topic 5669

Punishments (sentence) - Imprisonment and parole - Parole - Considerations - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5670 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5670

Punishments (sentence) - Imprisonment and parole - Parole - Period of ineligibility - The 19 year old accused pleaded guilty to second degree murder - He was angry with the victim from incidents earlier in the evening - The accused enlisted the help of a 16 year old youth to go after the victim at his house - The accused hit the victim over the head with a bottle - The youth then stabbed him over 40 times and slit his throat - There was an element of planning, involvement of a third party and a remorseless cleanup to avoid detection (murder scene cleaned, clothes washed and body moved) - The accused's psychological profile suggested a person who was unhappy, emotionally labile and quite angry - He had a troubled upbringing highlighted by foster care and behavioural problems - Although not diagnosed with any psychosis, the accused was "borderline mentally retarded" and in need of counselling and treatment - The accused had limited intellectual capacity (IQ of 74) and was assessed as a dependent adult because of "compromised brain stem integrity" - He had a minor, unrelated criminal record - The Crown sought a period of parole ineligibility of 15-18 years - The accused argued for the 10 year minimum - The trial judge sentenced the accused to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 16 years - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the accused's sentence appeal and reduced the period of parole ineligibility to 12 years - The sentence was manifestly unfit where the trial judge failed to give mitigating effect to the accused's guilty plea, his youthfulness, and the intellectual deficits which resulted in the accused's diminished moral blameworthiness.

Criminal Law - Topic 5670.4

Punishments (sentence) - Imprisonment and parole - Parole - Period of ineligibility - Reduction - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5670 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5881

Sentence - Murder - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5670 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Osei-Agyemang (R.) (2011), 493 A.R. 363; 502 W.A.C. 363; 2011 ABCA 2, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Pelletier (M.T.) (2004), 196 B.C.A.C. 247; 322 W.A.C. 247; 186 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. McKnight (R.) (1999), 119 O.A.C. 364; 135 C.C.C.(3d) 41 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

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, refd to. [para. 14, footnote 1].

R. v. R.R.R., [2003] O.J. No. 1465 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Reid (W.J.) (2003), 167 O.A.C. 336; 65 O.R.(3d) 723; 177 C.C.C.(3d) 260 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Goodstoney (G.E.) (2008), 440 A.R. 357; 438 W.A.C. 357; 2008 ABCA 401, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Hansen (1989), 96 A.R. 276 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. McLeod (J.E.) (2003), 177 O.A.C. 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Maciel (R.) (2007), 226 O.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Tran (T.K.) (2009), 464 A.R. 272; 467 W.A.C. 272; 2009 ABCA 308, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Atwal (R.S.) (2006), 232 B.C.A.C. 64; 385 W.A.C. 64; 2006 BCCA 493, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Trotman (S.W.) (2007), 239 B.C.A.C. 215; 396 W.A.C. 215; 2007 BCCA 209, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Paddy (R.C.) (2011), 366 Sask.R. 4; 2011 SKCA 12, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Nelson (C.G.) (2009), 240 Man.R.(2d) 130; 456 W.A.C. 130; 2009 MBCA 76, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Czibulka (L.) (2011), 275 O.A.C. 64; 2011 ONCA 82, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Bottineau (E.) et al. (2011), 276 O.A.C. 173; 2011 ONCA 194, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Nygaard, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1074; 101 N.R. 108; 102 A.R. 186; 51 C.C.C.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Farrant, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 124; 46 N.R. 337; 21 Sask.R. 271; 4 C.C.C.(3d) 354, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Randhile (S.R.) and Larocque (D.B.) (1997), 209 A.R. 209; 160 W.A.C. 209; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 565 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Frenette (P.M.) (1999), 237 A.R. 359; 197 W.A.C. 359; 1999 ABCA 225, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Ostertag (T.K.) (2000), 266 A.R. 57; 228 W.A.C. 57; 2000 ABCA 232, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Diebel (A.L.) (2007), 422 A.R. 377; 415 W.A.C. 377; 2007 ABCA 418, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Crane - see R. v. Strongman (K.) et al.

R. v. Strongman (K.) et al. (2007), 425 A.R. 200; 418 W.A.C. 200; 2007 ABCA 413, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Fattah (A.A.) (2009), 460 A.R. 262; 462 W.A.C. 262; 2009 ABCA 229, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Mitchell (R.W.) (2010), 268 O.A.C. 359; 2010 ONCA 692, refd to. [para. 38].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Manson, Allan, The Law of Sentencing (2001), pp. 297 [para. 15]; 298 [para. 14].

Counsel:

J.C. Robb, Q.C., for the respondent;

D.R. Hatch, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on January 18, 2011, before Conrad, Berger and Watson, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On March 22, 2011, the memorandum of judgment of the Court was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Berger, J.A. (Conrad, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 23;

Watson, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 24 to 39.