R. v. Lequiere (R.J.), [2006] B.C.T.C. 668 (SC)
| Judge | Dillon, J. |
| Court | Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada) |
| Case Date | October 26, 2005 |
| Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
| Citations | [2006] B.C.T.C. 668 (SC);2006 BCSC 668 |
R. v. Lequiere (R.J.), [2006] B.C.T.C. 668 (SC)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2006] B.C.T.C. TBEd. MY.032
Regina (respondent) v. Robert James Lequiere (appellant)
(23514; 23515; 23516; 2006 BCSC 668)
Indexed As: R. v. Lequiere (R.J.)
British Columbia Supreme Court
Vancouver
Dillon, J.
April 27, 2006.
Summary:
This headnote contains no summary.
Criminal Law - Topic 5804
Sentencing - General - Consecutive sentences - Reduced total term (totality principle) - See paragraphs 82 to 83.
Criminal Law - Topic 5830
Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - General (incl. step or jump principle) - See paragraphs 82 to 83.
Criminal Law - Topic 5849.10
Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - When maximum sentence available - See paragraphs 14 to 56.
Criminal Law - Topic 5849.19
Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Summary conviction offences - See paragraphs 14 to 56.
Criminal Law - Topic 5932
Sentencing - Sentence - Particular offences - Sexual assault (incl. by multiple parties) - See paragraphs 14 to 83.
Counsel:
A. Ghatak, for the respondent;
D.E. Morrison, for the appellant.
This appeal was heard on October 26, 2005, January 23 and March 2, 2006, before Dillon, J., of the British Columbia Supreme Court, who delivered the following decision on April 27, 2006.
Please note: The following judgment has not been edited.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. v. Dumais (C.E.), (2008) 315 Sask.R. 268 (QB)
...(2005), 269 Sask.R. 51; 357 W.A.C. 51; 2005 SKCA 84, refd to. [para. 38]. R. v. Lequiere (R.J.), [2006] B.C.T.C. 668; 42 C.R.(6th) 270; 2006 BCSC 668, refd to. [para. James T.D. Scott, for the appellant; Jennifer S. Robertson, for the Crown. This conviction and sentence appeal were heard by......
-
R. v. H.T., (2010) 250 Man.R.(2d) 86 (PC)
...(1996), 172 N.B.R.(2d) 67; 439 A.P.R. 67; 1996 CanLII 4781 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11]. R. v. Lequiere (R.J.), [2006] B.C.T.C. 668; 2006 BCSC 668, refd to. [para. R. v. Bell (S.J.) (2008), 233 Man.R.(2d) 12; 2008 MBQB 117, refd to. [para. 17]. R. v. Sanatkar (1981), 64 C.C.C.(2d) 325 (Ont. ......
-
R. v. Gill (H.S.), 2007 BCSC 1216
...proposition that I do not accept. This concept has been rejected by Ehrcke J. in R.v. Ng 2006 BCSC 321 and by Dillon J. in R. v. Lequire 2006 BCSC 668. However, Dillon J. concluded that the Crown's election to proceed summarily is a significant factor which affects the range. She also state......
-
R. v. C.T.P.,
...imposed in summary convictions for the same or similar offences. The appellant cites the decision of this Court in R. v. Lequiere, 2006 BCSC 668, where it was [61] Based upon the foregoing review, the decision to proceed summarily is a significant one and is a ......
-
R. v. Dumais (C.E.), (2008) 315 Sask.R. 268 (QB)
...(2005), 269 Sask.R. 51; 357 W.A.C. 51; 2005 SKCA 84, refd to. [para. 38]. R. v. Lequiere (R.J.), [2006] B.C.T.C. 668; 42 C.R.(6th) 270; 2006 BCSC 668, refd to. [para. James T.D. Scott, for the appellant; Jennifer S. Robertson, for the Crown. This conviction and sentence appeal were heard by......
-
R. v. H.T., (2010) 250 Man.R.(2d) 86 (PC)
...(1996), 172 N.B.R.(2d) 67; 439 A.P.R. 67; 1996 CanLII 4781 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11]. R. v. Lequiere (R.J.), [2006] B.C.T.C. 668; 2006 BCSC 668, refd to. [para. R. v. Bell (S.J.) (2008), 233 Man.R.(2d) 12; 2008 MBQB 117, refd to. [para. 17]. R. v. Sanatkar (1981), 64 C.C.C.(2d) 325 (Ont. ......
-
R. v. Gill (H.S.), 2007 BCSC 1216
...proposition that I do not accept. This concept has been rejected by Ehrcke J. in R.v. Ng 2006 BCSC 321 and by Dillon J. in R. v. Lequire 2006 BCSC 668. However, Dillon J. concluded that the Crown's election to proceed summarily is a significant factor which affects the range. She also state......
-
R. v. C.T.P.,
...imposed in summary convictions for the same or similar offences. The appellant cites the decision of this Court in R. v. Lequiere, 2006 BCSC 668, where it was [61] Based upon the foregoing review, the decision to proceed summarily is a significant one and is a ......