R. v. Murdoch (M.), 2015 NBCA 38

• Judge: Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Deschênes and Green, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (New Brunswick)
• Case Date: June 23, 2015
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: 2015 NBCA 38;(2015), 440 N.B.R.(2d) 7 (CA)

R. v. Murdoch (M.) (2015), 440 N.B.R.(2d) 7 (CA);

    440 R.N.-B.(2e) 7; 1148 A.P.R. 7

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2015] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.004

Renvoi temp.: [2015] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. OC.004

Michele Murdoch (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(8-15-CA; 2015 NBCA 38)

Indexed As: R. v. Murdoch (M.)

Répertorié: R. v. Murdoch (M.)

New Brunswick Court of Appeal

Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Deschênes and Green, JJ.A.

June 23, 2015.

Summary:

Résumé:

The accused pled guilty to defrauding her employer of $1,555.55 over a six week period (Criminal Code, s. 380(1)(b)(i)). She was sentenced to six months' imprisonment followed by six months of unsupervised probation. The accused appealed the sentence. She spent 17 days in jail prior to being released on bail pending the appeal.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to consider an intermittent sentence. The court accepted a joint recommendation which included 73 days of jail to be served intermittently.

Criminal Law - Topic 5664

Punishments (sentence) - Imprisonment and parole - Intermittent imprisonment - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5859 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 5831.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5831.1

Sentencing - Considerations - Offences involving breach of trust - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal discussed the "abuse-of-trust sentencing guideline" which applied to thefts or frauds committed by employees who abused a position of trust in relation to their employers - Barring "exceptional circumstances", the need for denunciation and deterrence arising from the abuse of trust overwhelmed the typically numerous mitigating circumstances and led inexorably to the conclusion that a jail term was the only just sanction that would achieve the fundamental purpose of sentencing - The abuse-of-trust sentencing guideline applied to large-scale thefts or frauds, and also to cases where the value of the subject-matter of the offence was relatively modest but the thefts or frauds were repeated over a significant timeframe - The guideline was not engaged in cases of employee theft simpliciter or summary conviction offences - However, the inapplicability of the guideline did not necessarily mean that an offender would avoid jail - In proceedings by indictment, Crown counsel could effectively withdraw the guideline's jail requirement by, for example, recommending a conditional sentence or admitting to the existence of "exceptional circumstances" - See paragraphs 23 to 40.

Criminal Law - Topic 5831.1

Sentencing - Considerations - Offences involving breach of trust - Murdoch, a 29 year old cashier, defrauded her employer of $1,555.55 over a six week period by registering bogus return-of-merchandise claims and forwarding the resulting refunds to her own debit card on 12 separate occasions - She pled guilty to fraud and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment followed by six months of unsupervised probation - Murdoch appealed, arguing that the sentencing judge erred by failing to find that there were "exceptional circumstances" that justified the imposition of a non-custodial sentence - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal rejected this argument - This was a run-of-the-mill case involving a relatively mature first-offender who (1) lived beyond her means and chose to bridge the gap by defrauding her employer and abusing a position of trust; and (2) expressed remorse yet offered no restitution, whether immediate or by instalments - The evidence did not support Murdoch's assertion that she committed the crime out of need as opposed to greed - Although Murdoch had suffered from eating disorders since adolescence, the record showed that she was not suffering from any mental illness when she committed the offences - See paragraphs 44 to 61.

Criminal Law - Topic 5846

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Economic or family status of the accused - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5859 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5849.27

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Effect of incarceration on accused's family - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5859 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5859

Sentence - Fraud - Murdoch, a 29 year old cashier, defrauded her employer of $1,555.55 over a six week period by registering bogus return-of-merchandise claims and forwarding the resulting refunds to her own debit card on 12 separate occasions - She pled guilty to fraud and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment followed by six months of unsupervised probation - Murdoch appealed the sentence - The New Brunswick Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to consider an intermittent sentence - Once the sentencing judge determined that a jail term was required, he had a duty to tailor the jail term to Murdoch's particular circumstances - Murdoch was the primary caregiver for her daughter who was 11 months old at the time of sentencing - Taking into account the 17 days that Murdoch spent in jail prior to being released on bail pending the appeal, the court accepted a joint recommendation which included 73 days of jail to be served intermittently (on weekends) - This sentence conformed to the abuse-of-trust sentencing guideline and the jail component was tailored to Murdoch's personal and familial situation - See paragraphs 63 to 65.

Criminal Law - Topic 6203

Sentencing - Appeals - Variation of sentence - Grounds for varying sentence imposed by trial judge - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5859 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Steeves (C.E.) et al. (2005), 288 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 751 A.P.R. 1; 2005 NBCA 85, refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Chaulk (K.E.J.) (2005), 287 N.B.R.(2d) 375; 750 A.P.R. 375; 2005 NBCA 86, refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Steeves (T.) (2010), 360 N.B.R.(2d) 88; 930 A.P.R. 88; 2010 NBCA 57, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. McNamara (J.) (1992), 126 N.B.R.(2d) 298; 317 A.P.R. 298 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Pierce (M.) (1997), 97 O.A.C. 253 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Fulcher (J.J.) (2007), 422 A.R. 329; 415 W.A.C. 329; 2007 ABCA 381, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Hogan (M.A.) (2012), 320 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 84; 993 A.P.R. 84; 2012 PESC 11, refd to. [para. 23].

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; 2000 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Holmes (P.D.) (1999), 237 A.R. 146; 197 W.A.C. 146; 1999 ABCA 228, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Evans (S.C.), [2003] N.B.R.(2d) (Supp.) No. 13; 2003 NBQB 54, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Ouellette (D.) (2009), 346 N.B.R.(2d) 381; 892 A.P.R. 381; 2009 NBPC 32, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Tardif (G.J.) (2014), 429 N.B.R.(2d) 52; 1119 A.P.R. 52; 2014 NBQB 246, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Budden (M.) (2015), 436 N.B.R.(2d) 178; 1139 A.P.R. 178; 2015 NBQB 98, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Sharpe, [2000] All E.R. (D) 795, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Austin, [2001] EWCA Crim. 1972, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Lamb, [2004] EWCA Crim. 1492; [2002] All E.R. (D) 292, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Nield, [2005] EWCA Crim. 472, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Kefford, [2002] 2 Cr. App. Rep. (S) 495; [2002] All E.R. (D) 37, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Worthington, [2006] All E.R. (D) 49, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Johnson, [2007] All E.R. (D) 283; [2006] EWCA Crim. 3023, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Dobis (M.) (2002), 157 O.A.C. 83 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Clarke (D.) (2004), 189 O.A.C. 331 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Johnson (J.R.) (2010), 493 A.R. 74; 502 W.A.C. 74; 2010 ABCA 392, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Zentner (R.) (2012), 539 A.R. 1; 561 W.A.C. 1; 2012 ABCA 332, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. McKinnon (V.A.) (2005), 361 A.R. 271; 339 W.A.C. 271; 2005 ABCA 8, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Veno (J.N.) (2012), 384 N.B.R.(2d) 126; 995 A.P.R. 126; 2012 NBCA 15, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. MacLean (K.) (2006), 298 N.B.R.(2d) 378; 775 A.P.R. 378; 2006 NBPC 3, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Carmichael (A.A.), [2008] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 136; 2008 NBQB 369, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Nguyen (P.T.) (2011), 513 A.R. 399; 530 W.A.C. 399; 2011 ABCA 300, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Langille (L.) (2006), 307 N.B.R.(2d) 7; 795 A.P.R. 7; 2006 NBQB 375, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Zenari (R.) (2012), 536 A.R. 224; 559 W.A.C. 224; 2012 ABCA 279, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Douglas (A.) (2014), 572 A.R. 191; 609 W.A.C. 191; 2014 ABCA 113, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Burnley-Jones, [2006] O.J. No. 1861; 2006 ONCJ 160, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Miles (D.A.) (2011), 502 A.R. 270; 517 W.A.C. 270; 2011 ABCA 133, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Magas (D.L.) (2012), 524 A.R. 98; 545 W.A.C. 98; 2012 ABCA 61, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Ross (1985), 61 N.B.R.(2d) 65; 158 A.P.R. 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Peters (D.A.) (2000), 194 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 184; 584 A.P.R. 184; 2000 NFCA 55, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Edmunds (M.) (2012), 322 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 337; 1000 A.P.R. 337; 2012 NLCA 26, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Fraser (S.-A.E.) (2007), 425 A.R. 260; 418 W.A.C. 260; 2007 ABCA 386, refd to. [para. 59].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Ruby, Clayton C., Sentencing (8th Ed. 2012), generally [para. 64].

Counsel:

Avocats:

Thomas J. Burke, Q.C., and Rebecca J. Butler, for the appellant;

Kathryn Gregory, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on June 23, 2015, before Drapeau, C.J.N.B., Deschênes and Green, JJ.A., of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal. The court rendered judgment orally on June 23, 2015, and Drapeau, C.J.N.B., delivered the following reasons for the court on October 1, 2015, in both official languages.