R. v. L.A.W., (2006) 287 Sask.R. 84 (PC)

• Judge: Dyck, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: October 03, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2006), 287 Sask.R. 84 (PC);2006 SKPC 91

R. v. L.A.W. (2006), 287 Sask.R. 84 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] Sask.R. TBEd. NO.021

Her Majesty the Queen v. L.A.W.

(Information No. 24229918; 2006 SKPC 91)

Indexed As: R. v. L.A.W.

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Dyck, P.C.J.

October 3, 2006.

Summary:

The accused pled guilty to making child pornography (count 1), distributing child pornography (count 2) and committing a sexual assault (count 4). A disagreement arose regarding what facts could be adduced on counts 1 and 4 at the sentencing. The Crown argued that the court should be able to consider facts with respect to two separate incidents and dates on each of count 1 and count 4. The defence argued that because of the way the Information was drafted, the Crown was restricted to one incident on each count only.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that the Crown would be allowed to provide facts to the court regarding both incidents and dates and those facts would be used in determining an appropriate sentence.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Criminal Law - Topic 4731

Procedure - Information or indictment - Charge or count - Indictable offences - Form and content - Date and description of offence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5811 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5811

Sentencing - Sentencing procedure and rights of the accused - Evidence of circumstances of crime - The accused pled guilty to, inter alia, making child pornography (count 1) and committing a sexual assault (count 4) - A disagreement arose regarding what facts could be adduced at the sentencing - The Crown argued that the court should be able to consider facts with respect to two separate incidents and dates on each of count 1 and count 4 - The defence argued that because of the way the Information was drafted, the Crown was restricted to one incident on each count only - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that although the Crown could have taken more care in drafting the Information by more precisely defining the offence dates, and by referring to the fact that the conduct occurred on two occasions, the Crown would be allowed to provide facts to the court regarding both incidents and dates - The accused was not prejudiced by the ruling - She had full disclosure, she was aware of the allegations against her and she admitted the activities in question.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Hulan (1969), 6 C.R.N.S. 296 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 6].

R. v. Bagnall (1987), 57 Sask.R. 228 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. German (1989), 77 Sask.R. 310 (C.A.), consd. [para. 6].

R. v. J.L. (1987), 59 Sask.R. 270 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Leibel (R.J.) (2000), 202 Sask.R. 206 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

A.J.B. v. R. (2001), 205 Sask.R. 281 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. R.I.C. (1986), 17 O.A.C. 354 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Counsel:

T. Healey, for the Crown;

B. Treacy, Q.C., for the defence.

This matter was heard before Dyck, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following interim ruling on October 3, 2006.