R. v. Higgins (K.J.), (2001) 160 Man.R.(2d) 105 (CA)
Judge | Twaddle, Kroft and Steel, JJ.A. |
Court | Court of Appeal (Manitoba) |
Case Date | November 06, 2001 |
Jurisdiction | Manitoba |
Citations | (2001), 160 Man.R.(2d) 105 (CA);2001 MBCA 177 |
R. v. Higgins (K.J.) (2001), 160 Man.R.(2d) 105 (CA);
262 W.A.C. 105
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2001] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. DE.045
Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Kenneth J. Higgins (accused/respondent)
(AR 01-30-04906; 2001 MBCA 177)
Indexed As: R. v. Higgins (K.J.)
Manitoba Court of Appeal
Twaddle, Kroft and Steel, JJ.A.
November 6, 2001.
Summary:
Higgins, 50, caused the death of his 21 year old passenger by driving at a reckless speed while impaired by alcohol. The lack of a criminal record, the injuries he suffered in the accident and other mitigating factors resulted in Higgins being sentenced to an 18 month conditional sentence. The Crown appealed from sentence, arguing that the optional conditions imposed were so lenient that the sentence did not adequately reflect the principles of deterrence and denunciation.
The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and varied the optional conditions.
Criminal Law - Topic 5720.5
Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - Conditions of - Higgins, 50, caused the death of his 21 year old passenger by driving at a reckless speed while impaired by alcohol - He was sentenced to an 18 month conditional sentence with 120 hours of community service - The Crown appealed, arguing that the curfew conditions imposed were so lenient that the sentence did not adequately reflect the principles of deterrence and denunciation - The Manitoba Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and varied the optional conditions - The court noted that the conditions imposed regarding the latter half of the sentence were such that an external observer would have had trouble determining that Higgins was serving any sentence at all - The court imposed strict curfew restrictions for the entirety of the 18 month sentence, increased the hours of community service and added an 18 month driving restriction after the term of the sentence.
Criminal Law - Topic 5833
Sentencing - Considerations - Deterrence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.5 ].
Criminal Law - Topic 5848.7
Sentencing - Considerations - Denunciation or repudiation of conduct - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.5 ].
Criminal Law - Topic 5865.1
Sentence - Dangerous driving causing death or bodily harm - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.5 ].
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Harb (W.) (2001), 160 Man.R.(2d) 138; 262 W.A.C. 138 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].
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. 10].
R. v. Reed (R.R.) (1998), 102 B.C.A.C. 157; 166 W.A.C. 157 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].
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. 13].
R. v. Rezaie (M.) (1996), 96 O.A.C. 268; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Healy, Patrick, The Punitive Nature of the Conditional Sentence (2001), 80 Can. Bar Rev. 1011, generally [para. 9].
Roberts, Julian V., Unearthing the Sphinx: The Evolution of Conditional Sentencing (2001) 80 Can. Bar Rev. 1019, pp. 1020 [para. 9]; 1024 [para. 11].
Counsel:
D.R. Slough, for the appellant;
E.J. Roitenberg, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on November 6, 2001, by Twaddle, Kroft and Steel, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Steel, J.A., delivered the following decision for the court orally on November 6, 2001, and in written form on December 7, 2001.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R. v. Blok-Andersen (P.) et al., (2014) 358 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 211 (NLTD(G))
...be considered as a mitigating factor they must impose significant custodial and penal attributes. As this court said in R. v. Higgins , 2001 MBCA 177, 160 Man. R.(2d) 105 (Man. C.A.), when the terms "merely mimic the conditions of ordinary life for the accused ... [they] do not contain......
-
R v Bear,
...a less compelling argument for credit in sentencing than curfews that are more restrictive in nature (Irvine at para 30; R v Higgins, 2001 MBCA 177 at para 20, 160 Man R (2d) [97] As mentioned, the trial judge determined that the d......
-
R. v. Gordon, 2019 SKPC 58
...to be considered as a mitigating factor they must impose significant custodial and penal attributes. As this court said in R. v. Higgins, 2001 MBCA 177, 160 Man. R. (2d) 105 (Man. C.A.), when the terms "merely mimic the conditions of ordinary life for the accused ... [they] do not contain a......
-
R. v. Hickey,
...to be considered as a mitigating factor they must impose significant custodial and penal attributes. As this court said in R. v. Higgins, 2001 MBCA 177, 160 Man. R. (2d) 105 (Man C.A.), when the terms “merely mimic the conditions of ordinary life for the accused … [they] do no......
-
R. v. Blok-Andersen (P.) et al., (2014) 358 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 211 (NLTD(G))
...be considered as a mitigating factor they must impose significant custodial and penal attributes. As this court said in R. v. Higgins , 2001 MBCA 177, 160 Man. R.(2d) 105 (Man. C.A.), when the terms "merely mimic the conditions of ordinary life for the accused ... [they] do not contain......
-
R v Bear,
...a less compelling argument for credit in sentencing than curfews that are more restrictive in nature (Irvine at para 30; R v Higgins, 2001 MBCA 177 at para 20, 160 Man R (2d) [97] As mentioned, the trial judge determined that the d......
-
R. v. Gordon, 2019 SKPC 58
...to be considered as a mitigating factor they must impose significant custodial and penal attributes. As this court said in R. v. Higgins, 2001 MBCA 177, 160 Man. R. (2d) 105 (Man. C.A.), when the terms "merely mimic the conditions of ordinary life for the accused ... [they] do not contain a......
-
R. v. Hickey,
...to be considered as a mitigating factor they must impose significant custodial and penal attributes. As this court said in R. v. Higgins, 2001 MBCA 177, 160 Man. R. (2d) 105 (Man C.A.), when the terms “merely mimic the conditions of ordinary life for the accused … [they] do no......