R. v. Janzen (L.R.), 2015 SKCA 97

• Judge: Jackson, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: September 01, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2015 SKCA 97;(2015), 465 Sask.R. 261 (CA)

R. v. Janzen (L.R.) (2015), 465 Sask.R. 261 (CA);

    649 W.A.C. 261

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. SE.030

Larry R. Janzen (applicant/appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent/respondent)

(CACR2653; 2015 SKCA 97)

Indexed As: R. v. Janzen (L.R.)

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Jackson, J.A.

September 2, 2015.

Summary:

Janzen was convicted of assault with a weapon (motor vehicle) and operating a motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public and thereby causing bodily harm. The victim was Janzen's former spouse. On June 19, 2015, Janzen was sentenced to six months' imprisonment followed by 18 months of probation. Janzen appealed from the convictions and from the sentence. He applied for judicial interim release, pending the appeals.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Jackson, J.A., dismissed the application. The Registrar was directed to set the appeals for hearing on September 10, 2015.

Criminal Law - Topic 3304

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Interim release or detention of accused pending trial or appeal - Detention necessary in the public interest - Janzen was convicted of assault with a weapon (motor vehicle) and operating a motor vehicle in a dangerous manner, causing bodily harm - The victim was Janzen's former spouse - On June 19, 2015, Janzen was sentenced to six months' imprisonment followed by 18 months of probation - He appealed from the convictions and from the sentence and applied for judicial interim release, pending the appeals - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Jackson, J.A., dismissed the application - Janzen's grounds of appeal from conviction lacked merit - In light of the domestic violence and the appeal's weakness, releasing Janzen was not in the public's interest and would affect the public's confidence in the administration of justice - Given his grounds of appeal from sentence and the lesser test of merit, Janzen's appeal from sentence was not frivolous - It was at least arguable that the sentence was demonstrably unfit - Further, the custodial portion was short - However, the offences' seriousness, the link with family violence and the highly deferential standard of review meant releasing Janzen pending his sentence appeal was not in the public's interest - The better approach to balancing enforceability and reviewability of the sentence was to move as quickly as possible to a hearing - The Registrar was directed to set the appeals for hearing on September 10, 2015.

Criminal Law - Topic 3304.1

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Interim release or detention of accused pending trial or appeal - Detention necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice (i.e., tertiary ground) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3304 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3310

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Interim release or detention of accused pending trial or appeal - Release pending appeal - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3304 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3310.1

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Interim release or detention of accused pending trial or appeal - Release pending sentence appeal - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3304 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Agecoutay (L.H.) et al. (2008), 310 Sask.R. 224; 423 W.A.C. 224; 2008 SKCA 68, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. S.F.L., [2008] Sask.R. Uned. 39; 2008 SKCA 93, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Dawydiuk (M.N.) (2008), 256 B.C.A.C. 233; 431 W.A.C. 233; 2008 BCCA 243, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Farinacci (L.W.) et al. (1993), 67 O.A.C. 197; 109 D.L.R.(4th) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

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

Counsel:

Larry Janzen, for himself;

Erin Bartsch, for the respondent.

This application was heard in chambers on August 25 and September 1, 2015, by Jackson, J.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, who delivered the following judgment on September 2, 2015.