R. v. Hutchings (R.), (2012) 316 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 211 (NLCA)

• Judge: Green, C.J.N.L., Welsh, Rowe, White and Hoegg, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Newfoundland)
• Case Date: November 07, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2012), 316 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 211 (NLCA);2012 NLCA 2

R. v. Hutchings (R.) (2012), 316 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 211 (NLCA);

    982 A.P.R. 211

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. JA.024

Richard Hutchings (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(10/100; 2012 NLCA 2)

Indexed As: R. v. Hutchings (R.)

Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court

Court of Appeal

Green, C.J.N.L., Welsh, Rowe, White and Hoegg, JJ.A.

January 12, 2012.

Summary:

The appellant sought leave to appeal and, if leave was granted, appealed against a sentence imposed in the Provincial Court, totalling seven years and two days (less 141 days for pretrial custody) for two counts of armed robbery, one count of attempted armed robbery, two counts of being disguised with intent and two counts of breach of probation. The issue on appeal was whether the sentencing judge properly applied the principles relating to consecutive and concurrent sentences and, in particular, the totality principle. The appellant submitted that as a result of the improper application of these principles, the resulting overall sentence was unfit and should be reduced.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal sat as a panel of five rather than the usual three where recent jurisprudence in the court had discussed the circumstances under which the totality principle could be engaged in differing terms. The court granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal and varied the sentence to a total term of imprisonment of five years and six months, less 141 days for pretrial custody.

Criminal Law - Topic 5731

Punishments (sentence) - Probation or probation order - Breach of - The accused was sentenced to a total of seven years and two days (before credit for pretrial custody) for two counts of armed robbery, one count of attempted armed robbery, two counts of being disguised with intent and two counts of breach of probation, arising out of two incidents - The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal held, inter alia, that the trial judge's sentences of one day each for the breaches of probation were inappropriate - Sentences could range between one month and sometimes less to upwards of six months - In one case, the court had accepted statements in prior cases that sentences for noncompliance with probation orders could be one month or less even where there were prior convictions - The accused, although young, had a lengthy prior record that included several convictions for failure to comply with court orders - Given the requirements of specific and general deterrence, sentences of two months for each offence were necessary to achieve respect for the observance of court orders - See paragraphs 99 and 100.

Criminal Law - Topic 5731

Punishments (sentence) - Probation or probation order - Breach of - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 5802 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5802

Sentencing - General - Concurrent sentences - The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal discussed the circumstances where consecutive or concurrent sentences should be imposed when sentencing for multiple offences - "The first step in sentencing in the context of multiple convictions is ... to determine the appropriate sentence for each individual offence, applying the full range of applicable sentencing principles. The sentences so arrived at should presumptively be imposed consecutively. The second step is to consider whether some or all of the offences are related in a manner such that they can be considered a single criminal adventure. If so, those that are so regarded should generally be made concurrent with the heaviest sentence arising out of that single criminal adventure. It is not always easy to determine what offences constitute a single criminal adventure. ... The third step in the context of multiple offences, following the application of the proper principles respecting consecutive and concurrent sentences in accordance with the second step, is to consider and apply the totality principle. ... If the totality principle would be offended by keeping the remaining sentences consecutive, after following the second step, then the sentencing court should further adjust the overall sentence by either making additional sentences concurrent or if that does not achieve an appropriate result, by shortening some of the individual sentences." - The totality principle could not be employed to increase the overall sentence beyond the total arrived at by adding up each individual sentence - See paragraphs 18 to 27.

Criminal Law - Topic 5802

Sentencing - General - Concurrent sentences - The accused was sentenced to a total of seven years and two days (less 141 days' pretrial custody) for two counts of armed robbery, one count of attempted armed robbery, two counts of being disguised with intent and two counts of breach of probation, arising out of two incidents (Hamilton Robbery and Blackmarsh Robbery) - He was in his 20's - Lengthy prior record - Addicted to drugs - The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal varied the total term of imprisonment to five years and six months, less 141 days' pretrial custody - To achieve this result, the court imposed the following sentences: (i) Hamilton Robbery: robbery, 4 years; attempted robbery, 3 years concurrent; wearing a mask, 1 year concurrent; breach of probation, 2 months concurrent (changed, for totality, from consecutive to concurrent); (ii) Blackmarsh Robbery: robbery, 1 year, 6 months consecutive (reduced, for totality, from an otherwise appropriate sentence of four years) (less 141 days' pretrial custody); wearing a mask, 1 year concurrent; breach of probation, 2 months concurrent (changed, for totality, from consecutive to concurrent) - See paragraphs 85 to 113.

Criminal Law - Topic 5803

Sentencing - General - Consecutive sentences - [See first Criminal Law - Topic 5802 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5804

Sentencing - General - Consecutive sentences - Reduced total term (totality principle) - [See both Criminal Law - Topic 5802 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5804

Sentencing - General - Consecutive sentences - Reduced total term (totality principle) - The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal reviewed conflicting case law respecting the totality principle - The court discussed (i) under what circumstances considerations of totality would be engaged; and (ii) what was the test for determining whether a sentence should be actually reduced on the basis of totality? - The court noted that s. 718.2(c) of the Criminal Code required consideration of whether a combined sentence was unduly long or harsh "where consecutive sentences are imposed" - On its plain reading, this meant that totality considerations were engaged in all cases involving the potential imposition of consecutive sentences - That answered the first question - Regarding the second question, the fact that the Ruby formulation which was referred to in R. v. C.A.M. (1996 SCC), pre-dated ss. 718.1 and 718.2(c) of the Code, required a restatement of the applicable approach - The court formulated new analytical guidelines for determining whether a sentence should be actually reduced on the basis of totality - See paragraphs 60 to 84.

Criminal Law - Topic 5855

Sentence - Robbery - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 5802 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5914

Sentence - Attempt to commit offence - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 5802 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5935

Sentence - Disguise with intent - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 5802 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Perrier (P.C.) (2009), 293 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 92; 906 A.P.R. 92; 2009 NLCA 61, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Crocker (B.J.) (1991), 93 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 222; 292 A.P.R. 222 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

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, consd. [para. 17].

R. v. Spellacy (R.A.) (1995), 131 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 127; 408 A.P.R. 127 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. E.W. (2002), 216 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 89; 647 A.P.R. 89; 2002 NFCA 49, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. A.T.S. (2004), 232 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 283; 690 A.P.R. 283; 2004 NLCA 1, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Arbuthnot (S.M.) (2009), 245 Man.R.(2d) 244; 466 W.A.C. 244; 2009 MBCA 106, agreed with [para. 22].

R. v. Wozny (C.P.) (2010), 262 Man.R.(2d) 75; 507 W.A.C. 75; 2010 MBCA 115, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. McDonnell (T.E.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 948; 210 N.R. 241; 196 A.R. 321; 141 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Traverse (L.) et al. (2008), 231 Man.R.(2d) 123; 437 W.A.C. 123; 2008 MBCA 110, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Murphy (D.) (2011), 304 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 266; 944 A.P.R. 266; 2011 NLCA 16, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Hennebury (P.) (1996), 138 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 56; 431 A.P.R. 56 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Reader (M.) (2008), 225 Man.R.(2d) 118; 419 W.A.C. 118; 2008 MBCA 42, consd. [para. 26].

R. v. Adams (P.F.) (2010), 291 N.S.R.(2d) 206; 922 A.P.R. 206; 2010 NSCA 42, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. English (E.) (1994), 122 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 15; 379 A.P.R. 15 (Nfld. C.A.), consd. [para. 26].

R. v. Hatch (1979), 31 N.S.R.(2d) 110; 52 A.P.R. 110 (C.A.), disagreed with [para. 26].

R. v. Cooper (G.) (1997), 153 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 106; 475 A.P.R. 106 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Oxford (M.) (2010), 299 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 327; 926 A.P.R. 327; 2010 NLCA 45, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Hicks (C.R.) (2007), 268 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 125; 813 A.P.R. 125; 2007 NLCA 41, consd. [para. 30].

R. v. Rowe (D.) (2008), 273 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 38; 833 A.P.R. 38, (N.L.C.A.), consd. [para. 32].

R. v. Newhook (A.C.) (2008), 276 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 190; 846 A.P.R. 190; 2008 NLCA 28, consd. [para. 35].

Posyiglione v. R. (1997), 189 C.L.R. 295 (N.S.W. Ct. of Crim. Appeal), refd to. [para. 46].

Seroka v. Western Australia (2006), 168 A. Crim.R. 469 (WASC), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. S.B.E. (2010), 490 A.R. 176; 497 W.A.C. 176; 2010 ABCA 298, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Daye (S.W.) (2010), 362 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 934 A.P.R. 1; 2010 NBCA 53, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Blaisdell (A.D.) (2007), 268 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 122; 813 A.P.R. 122; 2007 PESCAD 14, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Hubley (A.H.) (2009), 289 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 174; 890 A.P.R. 174; 2009 PECA 21, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Rockett (S.J.) (2009), 283 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 247; 873 A.P.R. 247; 2009 PECA 7, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Edgett (B.L.) (2008), 336 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 862 A.P.R. 321; 2008 NBCA 65, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. L.D.H. (2009), 343 Sask.R. 235; 472 W.A.C. 235; 2009 SKCA 135, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Taylor (M.A.) (2010), 262 Man.R.(2d) 43; 507 W.A.C. 43; 2010 MBCA 103, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Louison (W.C.) (2008), 310 Sask.R. 217; 423 W.A.C. 217; 2008 SKCA 69, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Bernard (A.) (2011), 303 N.S.R.(2d) 384; 957 A.P.R. 384; 2011 NSCA 53, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Golden (B.R.) (2009), 245 Man.R.(2d) 254; 466 W.A.C. 254; 2009 MBCA 107, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Drouin (M.G.) (1994), 125 Sask.R. 49; 81 W.A.C. 49 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Abrosimo (B.E.) (2007), 245 B.C.A.C. 180; 405 W.A.C. 180; 225 C.C.C.(3d) 253; 2007 BCCA 406, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Wharry (W.E.) (2008), 437 A.R. 148; 433 W.A.C. 148; 2008 ABCA 293, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Li (P.S.) (2009), 267 B.C.A.C. 77; 450 W.A.C. 77; 2009 BCCA 85, agreed with [para. 55].

R. v. Tasew (G.A.) (2011), 513 A.R. 154; 2011 ABCA 241, refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Henry (D.B.) et al., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 609; 342 N.R. 259; 376 A.R. 1; 360 W.A.C. 1; 219 B.C.A.C. 1; 361 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 76, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Bambrick (R.) (2011), 315 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 202; 981 A.P.R. 202; 2011 NLCA 79, refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Provost (C.J.) (2006), 256 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 205; 773 A.P.R. 205; 2006 NLCA 30, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Johnston (H.E.) (2011), 311 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 129; 967 A.P.R. 129; 2011 NLCA 56, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. W.E. (2010), 293 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 52; 906 A.P.R. 52; 2010 NLCA 4, refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. Lin (Z.Z.) (2007), 263 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 273; 798 A.P.R. 273; 2007 NLCA 13, refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Sheppard (D.) (1997), 147 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 304; 459 A.P.R. 304 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Butt (G.L.) (1986), 59 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 89; 178 A.P.R. 89 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Pardy (A.A.) (1994), 126 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 218; 393 A.P.R. 218 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Power (J.) (2006), 262 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 30; 794 A.P.R. 30 (N.L.T.D.), refd to. [para. 98].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 718.1, sect. 718.2(c) [para. 66].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ruby, Clayton, Sentencing (4th Ed. 1994), pp. 44, 45 [para. 44].

Thomas, D.A., Principles of Sentencing (2nd Ed. 1979), pp. 57, 58 [para. 45].

Counsel:

Tony St. George, for the appellant;

Robin Fowler, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 7, 2011, by Green, C.J.N.L., Welsh, Rowe, White and Hoegg, JJ.A., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal. Green, C.J.N.L., delivered the following decision for the court on January 12, 2012.