R. v. Mills (D.J.),

• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Judge: Lambert, Macfarlane, Esson, Finch and Donald, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 1999 BCCA 159
• Citation: (1999), 119 B.C.A.C. 284 (CA),1999 BCCA 159,133 CCC (3d) 451,23 CR (5th) 384,119 BCAC 284,[1999] BCJ No 566 (QL),194 WAC 284,65 CRR (2d) 1,194 W.A.C. 284,[1999] B.C.J. No 566 (QL),(1999), 119 BCAC 284 (CA),119 B.C.A.C. 284
• Date: 12 March 1999
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)

R. v. Mills (D.J.) (1999), 119 B.C.A.C. 284 (CA);

   194 W.A.C. 284

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AP.012

Regina (appellant) v. Darren James Mills (respondent)

(CA024135; 1999 BCCA 159)

Indexed As: R. v. Mills (D.J.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Lambert, Macfarlane, Esson, Finch and Donald, JJ.A.

March 12, 1999.

Summary:

The accused pleaded guilty to kidnapping for ransom with a weapon. The accused was sentenced to two years less a day. See [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. J67. The Crown appealed the sentence.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Editor's Note: For a prior decision in this matter see 112 B.C.A.C. 283; 182 W.A.C. 283.

Criminal Law - Topic 5848.2

Sentencing - Considerations - Time already served - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that credit for predisposition time in custody could reduce a sentence below the minimum prescribed by statute - The court discussed when credit for time served should be given - The appropriate test was found in s. 719(3) of the Criminal Code, i.e., if the custody resulted from the offence, then credit may be given - The court discussed how pretrial custody should be calculated - "Doubling" the time served was a guideline rather than a rule - It was not an error in principle to give credit for double the time in predisposi­tion custody, but it might well be an error for a judge not to give any credit without good reason - See paragraphs 11 to 49.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Wust (L.W.) et al. (1998), 107 B.C.A.C. 130; 174 W.A.C. 130; 125 C.C.C.(3d) 43 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted (1998), 235 N.R. 400; 119 B.C.A.C. 206; 194 W.A.C. 206 (S.C.C.), not folld. [para. 4].

R. v. McDonald (C.) (1998), 111 O.A.C. 25; 127 C.C.C.(3d) 57 (C.A.), folld. [para. 4].

R. v. LaPierre (1998), 123 C.C.C.(3d) 332 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Morrisey (M.L.) (No. 2) (1998), 167 N.S.R.(2d) 43; 502 A.P.R. 43; 124 C.C.C.(3d) 38 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted (1998), 235 N.R. 195; 172 N.S.R.(2d) 200; 524 A.P.R. 200 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. McIntosh (B.B.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 686; 178 N.R. 161; 79 O.A.C. 81; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Ubbi (J.S.) (1996), 77 B.C.A.C. 19; 126 W.A.C. 19; 109 C.C.C.(3d) 379 (C.A.), consd. [para. 27].

R. v. Rezaie (M.) (1996), 96 O.A.C. 268; 31 O.R.(3d) 713; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Fuentes (R.) (1994), 51 B.C.A.C. 164; 84 W.A.C. 164 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Regan (1975), 24 C.C.C.(2d) 225 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Tallman, Tallman, Laboucan and Auger (1989), 94 A.R. 251; 65 Alta. L.R.(2d) 75; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Chiechie (1983), 21 Man.R.(2d) 211 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Gregory (P.D.) (1995), 132 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 169; 410 A.P.R. 169 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Cooper (G.) (1997), 153 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 106; 475 A.P.R. 106; 117 C.C.C.(3d) 249 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 279(1), sect. 279(1.1), sect. 279(2), sect. 279(3) [para. 11]; sect. 719 [para. 12]; sect. 719(3) [para. 13].

Counsel:

G. Gaul, for the appellant;

C. Stolte, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;

J. Ray, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on December 7, 1998, before Lambert, Macfarlane, Esson, Finch and Donald, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

On March 12, 1999, Donald, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.