R. v. Howe (P.L.), 2007 NBCA 84

• Judge: Turnbull, Richard and Bell, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
• Case Date: October 29, 2007
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: 2007 NBCA 84;(2007), 330 N.B.R.(2d) 204 (CA)

R. v. Howe (P.L.) (2007), 330 N.B.R.(2d) 204 (CA);

      330 R.N.-B.(2e) 204; 845 A.P.R. 204

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2008] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.013

Renvoi temp.: [2008] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.013

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Peter Leon Howe (respondent)

(47/07/CA; 2007 NBCA 84)

Indexed As: R. v. Howe (P.L.)

Répertorié: R. v. Howe (P.L.)

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Turnbull, Richard and Bell, JJ.A.

November 15, 2007.

Summary:

Résumé:

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing death and failure to stop at the scene of an accident involving death.

The New Brunswick Provincial Court sentenced the accused to concurrent terms of two years less a day, to be served in the community, plus two victim surcharges of $100 each and probation. The Crown appealed, with leave.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The court sentenced the accused to three years in gaol for impaired driving causing death plus six months consecutive for failure to stop at the scene of an accident involving death, less 2:1 credit for four months spent in remand, for a global sentence of two years and 10 months. The victim surcharges and the probation remained unchanged.

Courts - Topic 5

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - General principles - Authority and use of precedents - General - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5830.3 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5803 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5803

Sentencing - General - Consecutive sentences - The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing death and failure to stop at the scene of an accident involving death - The sentencing judge sentenced the accused to concurrent terms of two years less a day, to be served in the community - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal quashed the sentence - Consecutive sentences were called for where each offence protected a different societal interest - The resulting sentence here would have exceeded the two years less one day maximum for which a conditional sentence was permissible - Thus, a conditional sentence would not have been available - See paragraphs 26 to 31.

Criminal Law - Topic 5804

Sentencing - General - Consecutive sentences - Reduced total term (totality principle) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5864.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5830.3

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Changes in maximum sentence available - In 2001, amendments to the Criminal Code increased the maximum sentence for impaired driving causing death from 14 years in gaol to life imprisonment - The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing death in respect of a 2006 incident - The sentencing judge relied on pre-amendment precedents and imposed a two years less a day conditional sentence - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal quashed the sentence - The sentencing judge erred in relying on pre-amendment precedents - When Parliament increased the maximum penalty provided for a particular offence, the message was clear: Parliament wanted more severe penalties to be imposed - See paragraphs 19 to 25.

Criminal Law - Topic 5864.1

Sentence - Impaired driving causing death - The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing death and failure to stop at the scene of an accident involving death - The accused was aged 41 years, divorced, and a father of two - No previous record - Had a problem with alcohol - The victim was a "happy 23 year old young man with so much to live for" - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal sentenced the accused to three years in gaol for impaired driving causing death plus six months consecutive for failure to stop at the scene of an accident involving death, less 2:1 credit for four months spent in remand, for a global sentence of two years and 10 months - The court applied the totality principle so that "the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh" - See paragraphs 46 to 57.

Criminal Law - Topic 5866

Sentence - Leaving scene of an accident - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5864.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 6203

Sentencing - Appeals - Variation of sentence - Grounds for varying sentence imposed by trial judge - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5803 and Criminal Law - Topic 5830.3 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 5720.4

Peines (sentence) - Emprisonnement avec sursis - Circonstances permettant ou justifiant l'emprisonnement avec sursis - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 5803

Détermination de la peine - Généralités - Peines consécutives - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 5803 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 5804

Détermination de la peine - Généralités - Peines consécutives - Peine totale réduite (principe de totalité) - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 5804 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 5830.3

Détermination de la peine - Facteurs considérés lors de l'infliction de la peine - Modification de la peine maximale disponible - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 5830.3 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 5864.1

Peine - Conduite avec facultés affaiblies causant la mort - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 5864.1 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 5866

Peine - Quitter le lieu d'un accident - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 5866 ].

Droit criminel - Cote 6203

Détermination de la peine - Appels - Modification de la peine - Motifs de modification d'une peine infligée par le juge du procès - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 6203 ].

Tribunaux - Cote 5

Stare decisis - Autorité des décisions judiciaires - Principes généraux - Autorité et utilisation des précédents - Généralités - [Voir Courts - Topic 5 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. R.K.J. (1998), 207 N.B.R.(2d) 24; 529 A.P.R. 24 (C.A.), consd. [para. 5].

R. v. LeBlanc (G.A.) (2003), 264 N.B.R.(2d) 341; 691 A.P.R. 341; 2003 NBCA 75, consd. [para. 6].

R. v. Collier (G.E.) (2006), 303 N.B.R.(2d) 369; 787 A.P.R. 369; 2006 NBCA 92, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Daley (M.D.) (2002), 258 N.B.R.(2d) 7; 676 A.P.R. 7; 2003 NBQB 20 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Lafond (S.) (2002), 249 N.B.R.(2d) 337; 648 A.P.R. 337 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Adams, 2005 NBPC 19, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Rhyason (B.P.) (2007), 404 A.R. 191; 394 W.A.C. 191; 2007 ABCA 119, folld. [para. 22].

R. v. K. (1985), 62 A.R. 161 (C.A.), consd. [para. 23].

R. v. Pallen (1990), 111 N.B.R.(2d) 168; 277 A.P.R. 168 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Taylor (S.C.), [2000] B.C.T.C. 300; 2000 BCSC 734, affd. (2000), 148 B.C.A.C. 152; 243 W.A.C. 152; 2000 BCCA 654, consd. [para. 26].

R. v. Gummer (1983), 1 O.A.C. 141 (C.A.), consd. [para. 29].

R. v. McGuire, [1984] A.J. No. 353 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Cox (1986), 76 N.S.R.(2d) 185; 189 A.P.R. 185 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Grewal, [1991] B.C.J. No. 3116 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. King (M.) (1989), 80 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 14; 249 A.P.R. 14 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Alfred (A.) (1998), 105 O.A.C. 373 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Ploumis (F.) (2000), 140 O.A.C. 88 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2001), 271 N.R. 198; 149 O.A.C. 396 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. MacIver (D.N.) (2000), 150 Man.R.(2d) 123; 230 W.A.C. 123; 2000 MBCA 82, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Frechette (G.A.J.) (2001), 156 Man.R.(2d) 104; 246 W.A.C. 104; 2001 MBCA 66, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Pakoo (K.G.) (2004), 190 Man.R.(2d) 133; 335 W.A.C. 133; 2004 MBCA 157, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Lyver (C.F.) (2007), 425 A.R. 320; 418 W.A.C. 320; 2007 ABCA 369, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Joe (P.) (2005), 217 B.C.A.C. 270; 358 W.A.C. 270; 2005 YKCA 9, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Bernshaw (N.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254; 176 N.R. 81; 53 B.C.A.C. 1; 87 W.A.C. 1, consd. [para. 35].

R. v. Biancofiore (N.F.) (1997), 103 O.A.C. 292; 35 O.R.(3d) 782 (C.A.), consd. [para. 36].

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; 2000 SCC 5, consd. [para. 37].

R. v. R.T.S. (2006), 301 N.B.R.(2d) 338; 783 A.P.R. 338; 2006 NBCA 65, refd to. [para. 56].

Counsel:

Avocats:

William J. Corby, Q.C., for the appellant;

Ronald E. Morris, Q.C., for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 29, 2007, by Turnbull, Richard and Bell, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal released its decision orally on November 15, 2007, and the following reasons were released in both official languages by Richard, J.A., on May 8, 2008.