R. v. Khosa (S.S.) et al.,

• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Judge: Finch, C.J.B.C., Rowles and Huddart, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2003 BCCA 645
• Citation: (2003), 190 B.C.A.C. 42 (CA),2003 BCCA 645,180 CCC (3d) 225,190 BCAC 42,[2003] BCJ No 2695 (QL),61 WCB (2d) 500,[2003] B.C.J. No 2695 (QL),(2003), 190 BCAC 42 (CA),190 B.C.A.C. 42
• Date: 01 October 2003
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)

R. v. Khosa (S.S.) (2003), 190 B.C.A.C. 42 (CA);

    311 W.A.C. 42

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] B.C.A.C. TBEd. DE.008

Regina (appellant) v. Bahadur Singh Bhalru (respondent)

(CA30561)

Regina (appellant) v. Sukhvir Singh Khosa (respondent)

(CA30562) (2003 BCCA 645)

Indexed As: R. v. Khosa (S.S.) et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Finch, C.J.B.C., Rowles and Huddart, JJ.A.

November 28, 2003.

Summary:

The two accused were convicted of criminal negligence causing death. See [2003] B.C.T.C. 1852. Both accused appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported in 190 B.C.A.C. 23; 311 W.A.C. 23, dismissed the appeals.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2003] B.C.T.C. 221, sentenced both the accused to serve conditional sentences of two years less a day, plus three years' probation. The terms of the conditional sentence included house arrest with limited exceptions and 240 hours of community service. A five year driving prohibition was also imposed. The Crown appealed the sentence.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in the following decision, dismissed the sentence appeal.

Editor's Note: see also a related case at [2003] B.C.T.C. Uned. 142.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - The British Columbia Court of Appeal referred to the four prerequisites to the imposition of a conditional sentence - See paragraph 67.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - The British Columbia Court of Appeal discussed the appropriateness of a conditional sentence for a conviction for criminal negligence causing death, in a case involving street racing - See paragraphs 70 to 77.

Criminal Law - Topic 5762

Punishments (sentence) - Particular offences - Motor vehicle offences - Street racing - The British Columbia Court of Appeal discussed the considerations in sentencing for accused involved in street racing - See paragraphs 48 to 57.

Criminal Law - Topic 5798

Punishments (sentence) - Prohibition orders - Respecting driving of motor vehicle - Khosa (age 18) and Bhalru (age 21), both landed immigrants from India, were street racing - Khosa lost control and struck and killed a pedestrian - Both remorseful first offenders unlikely to re-offend - Although the race caused severe harm and showed a wanton or reckless disregard for others, it was spontaneous, did not involve modified vehicles, was of short duration and did not involve alcohol - The accused obeyed the traffic signals - Supportive families - Prepared to pursue educational and employment options - Convicted of criminal negligence causing death - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that a five year driving prohibition, in addition to the two years' prohibition which was a condition of their bail, was not demonstrably unfit - See paragraphs 78 to 79.

Criminal Law - Topic 5798

Punishments (sentence) - Prohibition orders - Respecting driving of motor vehicle - Two accused were street racing - One driver lost control and struck and killed a pedestrian - Both were convicted of criminal negligence causing death and sentenced to two years less a day, conditional, plus three years' probation - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that a sentencing judge had the discretion to order a driving prohibition as a term of the conditional sentence and subsequent probation order - See paragraphs 80 to 84.

Criminal Law - Topic 5833

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Deterrence - The British Columbia Court of Appeal discussed the principle of deterrence in sentencing - See paragraphs 43 to 44.

Criminal Law - Topic 5848.7

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Denunciation or repudiation of conduct - The British Columbia Court of Appeal discussed denunciation in sentencing - See paragraph 45.

Criminal Law - Topic 5863.1

Sentence - Criminal negligence causing death - Khosa (age 18) and Bhalru (age 21), both landed immigrants from India, were street racing - Khosa lost control, striking and killing a pedestrian - Both remorseful first offenders unlikely to re-offend - Alcohol uninvolved - Although the race caused severe harm and showed a wanton or reckless disregard for others, it was spontaneous, did not involve modified vehicles, was of short duration and traffic signals were obeyed - Supportive families - Prepared to pursue educational and employment options - The British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled that their moral culpability was at the lower end of the scale; this was a reckless error in judgment - The court affirmed conditional sentences of two years less a day, plus three years' probation and a five-year driving prohibition - See paragraphs 26 to 85.

Criminal Law - Topic 6201

Sentencing - Appeals - Variation of sentence - Powers of appeal court - The British Columbia Court of Appeal referred to the standard of review of the decision of a sentencing judge - See paragraph 25.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Gladue (J.T.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688; 238 N.R. 1; 121 B.C.A.C. 161; 198 W.A.C. 161; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 19].

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; 140 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Linden (J.) (2000), 135 O.A.C. 193; 147 C.C.C.(3d) 299 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Sweeney (1992), 7 B.C.A.C. 1; 15 W.A.C. 1; 11 C.R.(4th) 1; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 82 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. McNeil (1992), 7 B.C.A.C. 25; 15 W.A.C. 25; 11 C.R.(4th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Sandreswaren (2001), 50 C.R.(5th) 162; 23 M.V.R.(4th) 77 (Ont. C.J.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Tang, 2001 BCPC 62, consd. [para. 20].

R. v. Boyd (R.) (1998), 53 O.T.C. 185; 33 M.V.R.(3d) 37 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 21].

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; 102 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 25].

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; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 327, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Johnson (D.K.) (1996), 84 B.C.A.C. 261; 137 W.A.C. 261; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Thuma (R.J.) (1997), 90 B.C.A.C. 314; 147 W.A.C. 314; 27 M.V.R.(3d) 157 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Reed (R.R.) (1998), 107 B.C.A.C. 50; 174 W.A.C. 50; 34 M.V.R.(3d) 20 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Broomfield (D.T.) (1995), 56 B.C.A.C. 220; 92 W.A.C. 220 (C.A.), dist. [para. 34].

R. v. Newman (G.E.) (1998), 108 B.C.A.C. 239; 176 W.A.C. 239 (C.A.), dist. [para. 34].

R. v. Anderson (R.J.) (1992), 16 B.C.A.C. 14; 28 W.A.C. 14; 39 M.V.R.(2d) 270; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 523 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. LeBeau (S.) (2001), 148 O.A.C. 256; 14 M.V.R.(4th) 166 (C.A.), dist. [para. 35].

R. v. Desjardins (R.A.) (1998), 116 B.C.A.C. 159; 190 W.A.C. 159 (C.A.), dist. [para. 35].

R. v. Mascarenhas (R.) (2002), 162 O.A.C. 331; 60 O.R.(3d) 465 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. J.W. (1997), 99 O.A.C. 161; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 18; 33 O.R.(3d) 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Biancofiore (N.F.) (1997), 103 O.A.C. 292; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 344; 35 O.R.(3d) 782 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Ursel (D.A.) et al. (1997), 96 B.C.A.C. 241; 155 W.A.C. 241; 117 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Kennedy (A.G.) (1999), 126 O.A.C. 307; 140 C.C.C.(3d) 378 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Bernier (D.C.) (2003), 179 B.C.A.C. 218; 295 W.A.C. 218 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Woodley (M.D.) (1993), 24 B.C.A.C. 153; 40 W.A.C. 153; 44 M.V.R.(2d) 51 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Persaud (D.R.) (2002), 159 O.A.C. 134; 26 M.V.R.(4th) 41 (C.A.), consd. [para. 62].

R. v. Lam (P.P.T.) (2003), 178 O.A.C. 275 (C.A.), consd. [para. 62].

R. v. Caprarie-Melville (K.C.) (2000), 147 B.C.A.C. 168; 241 W.A.C. 168 (Yuk. C.A.), consd. [para. 62].

R. v. Silbernagel (L.M.), [2001] B.C.T.C. 1846 (S.C.), consd. [para. 63].

R. v. Heaslip (L.) (2001), 144 O.A.C. 107; 10 M.V.R.(4th) 220 (C.A.), consd. [para. 63].

R. v. Casimir (J.G.T.) (2001), 156 B.C.A.C. 205; 255 W.A.C. 205; 11 M.V.R.(4th) 38 (C.A.), consd. [para. 63].

R. v. Homer (L.) (2003), 179 B.C.A.C. 195; 295 W.A.C. 195; 33 M.V.R.(4th) 220 (C.A.), consd. [para. 63].

R. v. Forward (D.M.) (2000), 136 B.C.A.C. 274; 222 W.A.C. 274; 50 M.V.R.(3d) 300 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Chapman (N.T.) (2000), 135 B.C.A.C. 147; 221 W.A.C. 147; 3 M.V.R.(4th) 57 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Pawa (J.L.) (1998), 106 B.C.A.C. 296; 172 W.A.C. 296 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

Counsel:

G.J. Fitch and E.Z. Poll, for the appellant;

J.M. Doyle, for the respondent, Bhalru;

D.B. Geller, for the respondent, Khosa.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on September 30 and October 1, 2003, before Finch, C.J.B.C., Rowles and Huddart, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Finch, C.J.B.C., delivered the following judgment for the court on November 28, 2003.