R. v. Hennessey (S.W.) et al., 2010 ABCA 274

• Judge: Côté, McFadyen and Martin, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: September 27, 2010
• Citations: 2010 ABCA 274;(2010), 490 A.R. 35 (CA)

R. v. Hennessey (S.W.) (2010), 490 A.R. 35 (CA);

        497 W.A.C. 35

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] A.R. TBEd. SE.106

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Shawn William Hennessey (appellant)

(0903-0044A)

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Dennis Keegan Cheeseman (appellant)

(0903-0043A; 2010 ABCA 274)

Indexed As: R. v. Hennessey (S.W.) et al.

Alberta Court of Appeal

Côté, McFadyen and Martin, JJ.A.

September 27, 2010.

Summary:

Four RCMP officers, conducting a search on Roszko's rural property, were ambushed and shot and killed by Roszko. Roszko then killed himself. Hennessey gave Roszko a rifle and ammunition and Hennessey and Cheeseman drove Roszko to his property. Although neither Hennessey nor Cheeseman were present when the shootings took place, both knew that the RCMP were present investigating the scene, knew Roszko intended to burn the Quonset housing his marijuana grow operation and knew that an armed confrontation was a real possibility. Hennessey and Cheeseman pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a judgment reported (2009), 458 A.R. 260, sentenced Hennessey to 15 years' imprisonment, less three years' credit for pleading guilty and 19.5 months' credit for pre-trial custody, leaving a net sentence of 10 years and 4.5 months. Cheeseman was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment, less three years' credit for pleading guilty and 21.5 months' credit for pre-trial custody, leaving a net sentence of seven years and 2.5 months. Both Hennessey and Cheeseman appealed their sentences.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals. Both sentences fell within the acceptable range. Martin, J.A., dissenting in part, would have dismissed Hennessey's appeal, but allowed Cheeseman's appeal to the extent of reducing his sentence by three years.

Criminal Law - Topic 5830.4

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Guilty plea - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5882 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5831

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Retribution or punishment - The Alberta Court of Appeal distinguished between vengeance and retribution - The court stated that "retribution (in the legal sense, not the loose popular sense) is a legitimate aim of sentencing; in some senses it is the fundamental one, especially in a serious crime" - See paragraph 32.

Criminal Law - Topic 5848.2

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Time already served (incl. bail) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5882 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5882

Sentence - Manslaughter - Roszko's property was being searched by RCMP officers - He fled - The 26 year old Hennessey provided Roszko with a rifle and ammunition - Then Hennessey and the 21 year old Cheeseman drove Roszko to a field adjacent to his property - Roszko, visibly angry and seeking revenge, headed towards the officers - Roszko ambushed, shot and killed four RCMP officers, then killed himself - Although neither Hennessey nor Cheeseman were present at the time of the shootings, they knew the RCMP were present and knew that an armed confrontation was a real possibility - Although they considered warning the police, and had sufficient time to do so, they chose not to do so purportedly because they feared Roszko - Hennessey and Cheeseman pleaded guilty to manslaughter - Both were remorseful and had no prior criminal record - The Crown sought a 10-15 year sentence - Hennessey and Cheeseman sought a 4-5 year sentence - The trial judge sentenced Hennessey to 15 years' imprisonment, less three years' credit for pleading guilty and 19.5 months' credit for pre-trial custody, leaving a net sentence of 10 years and 4.5 months - Cheeseman was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment, less three years' credit for pleading guilty and 21.5 months' credit for pre-trial custody, leaving a net sentence of seven years and 2.5 months - The court declined to give either credit for the time spent released on restrictive bail conditions - Hennessey's moral blameworthiness was high, as he had to know that Roszko, in an enraged and heavily armed state, was a serious danger to the officers - Hennessey also acted in his own self-interest, as he was involved in the marijuana grow operation on Roszko's property - Cheeseman was less culpable - He was primarily a bystander with knowledge of the danger Roszko presented - The court noted that "violence against police officers in the course of their duties will be severely sanctioned" - Denunciation and deterrence were paramount - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed sentence appeals by both Hennessey and Cheeseman - Their sentences of 12 years and nine years respectively (sentences before credit for pre-trial custody was applied) fell within the acceptable range.

Cases Noticed:

University of Regina v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1975 and Thurlow (1980), 3 Sask.R. 65; 111 D.L.R.(3d) 128 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Allen (D.) (2002), 208 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 250; 624 A.P.R. 250; 93 C.R.R.(2d) 55 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Woloshyn (J.A.) (2006), 225 B.C.A.C. 161; 371 W.A.C. 161; 209 C.C.C.(3d) 539 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

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. 15].

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. 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. 15].

R. v. L.M., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 163; 374 N.R. 351; 2008 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. LeBeau (S.) (2001), 148 O.A.C. 256 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Dunn (M.) (2002), 156 O.A.C. 27 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Almon (J.D.) (1999), 250 A.R. 157; 213 W.A.C. 157 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Goodstoney (C.S.) (1999), 232 A.R. 243; 195 W.A.C. 243 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Sinclair (W.J.) (2009), 245 Man.R.(2d) 237; 466 W.A.C. 237; 2009 MBCA 91, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Hachey (P.A.) (1999), 232 A.R. 150; 195 W.A.C. 150 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Morrisey (M.L.) (No. 2), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 90; 259 N.R. 95; 187 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 585 A.P.R. 1; 2000 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Stone (B.T.), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 290; 239 N.R. 201; 123 B.C.A.C. 1; 201 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3; 157 N.R. 1; 65 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633; 112 N.R. 83; 109 A.R. 321, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Laberge (K.K.) (1995), 165 A.R. 375; 89 W.A.C. 375 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Nikkel (L.E.) et al. (2001), 162 B.C.A.C. 57; 264 W.A.C. 57; 2001 BCCA 745, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Auclair (J.) (2001), 148 O.A.C. 71 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Briscoe (M.E.) et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 411; 400 N.R. 216; 477 A.R. 86; 483 W.A.C. 86; 2010 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Greyeyes (E.R.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 825; 214 N.R. 43; 152 Sask.R. 294; 140 W.A.C. 294, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Wobbes (Z.) (2008), 242 O.A.C. 7; 235 C.C.C.(3d) 561; 2008 ONCA 567, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Overacker (W.) (2005), 367 A.R. 250; 346 W.A.C. 250; 198 C.C.C.(3d) 472; 2005 ABCA 150, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Ervin (D.) (2003), 327 A.R. 350; 296 W.A.C. 350; 2003 ABCA 179, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Church (1985), 7 Cr. App. Rep. 370 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Dunlop and Sylvester, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 881; 27 N.R. 153; 47 C.C.C.(2d) 93, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Briscoe (M.E.) et al. (2008), 437 A.R. 301; 433 W.A.C. 301; 2008 ABCA 327, affd. (2010), 400 N.R. 216; 477 A.R. 86; 483 W.A.C. 86; 2010 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Younger (D.M.) (2004), 187 Man.R.(2d) 121; 330 W.A.C. 121; 186 C.C.C.(3d) 454; 2004 MBCA 113 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2005), 336 N.R. 200; 201 Man.R.(2d) 318; 366 W.A.C. 318 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Blomert (D.A.) (1993), 109 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 343 A.P.R. 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 541 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Bell (L.A.), 2003 CarswellMan 594 (Q.B.), leave to appeal denied [2006] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 9; 2006 MBCA 19, refd to. [para. 78].

Anderson v. South Vancouver (Municipality) (1911), 45 S.C.R. 425, refd to. [para. 80].

Corkings v. Collins, [1936] S.C.R. 37, refd to. [para. 80].

Mackie v. Wolfe (1996), 184 A.R. 339; 122 W.A.C. 339 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

Northern Alberta Institute of Technology Academic Staff Association v. Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (2004), 346 A.R. 316; 320 W.A.C. 316; 2004 ABCA 42, leave to appeal denied (2004), 333 N.R. 191 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 80].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 80].

Kreglinger v. New Patagonia et al., [1914] A.C. 25; 83 L.J. Ch. 79 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 80].

Bagby v. Gustavson International Drilling Co. et al. (1980), 24 A.R. 181 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

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, refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61; 249 N.R. 201; 142 Man.R.(2d) 161; 212 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Hamilton (M.A.) et al. (2004), 189 O.A.C. 90; 186 C.C.C.(3d) 129 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Bowen and Kay (1988), 91 A.R. 264; 63 Alta. L.R.(3d) 311 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. Ruzic (M.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 687; 268 N.R. 1; 145 O.A.C. 235; 2001 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 106].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ferris, Thomas Wayne, Sentencing: Practical Approaches (2005), pp. 457 to 459 [para. 20].

Manson, Allan, The Law of Sentencing (2001), p. 91 [para. 46].

Renaud, Gilles, The Sentencing Code of Canada: Principles and Objectives (2009), §§ 9.39 to 9.51 [para. 20].

Counsel:

S.D. Hughson, Q.C., for the respondent;

H.E. Wolch, Q.C., for the appellant, Hennessey;

P.J. Royal, Q.C., for the appellant, Cheeseman.

These appeals were heard on June 16, 2010, before Côté, McFadyen and Martin, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal.

On September 27, 2010, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Côté, J.A. (McFadyen, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 86;

Martin, J.A., dissenting in part - see paragraphs 87 to 117.