R. v. Pechawis (S.A.), (2005) 260 Sask.R. 73 (PC)

• Judge: Whelan, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: March 17, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2005), 260 Sask.R. 73 (PC);2005 SKPC 25

R. v. Pechawis (S.A.) (2005), 260 Sask.R. 73 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.081

Her Majesty the Queen v. Sharlene Anne Pechawis

(Information No. 32777740; 2005 SKPC 25)

Indexed As: R. v. Pechawis (S.A.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Whelan, P.C.J.

March 17, 2005.

Summary:

An aboriginal woman pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in cocaine and one count of trafficking in ritalin.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court imposed a conditional sentence of 18 months with strict conditions including six months of electronic monitoring.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - See Criminal Law - Topic 5846.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5831.2

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Delay - The accused pleaded guilty to selling small amounts of cocaine and ritalin - The offences occurred in November 1999 - The accused was not charged until October 2003 when she was placed on an undertaking with strict conditions - The sentencing took place in March 2005 - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence were of reduced importance as the Crown waited four years to charge the accused - See paragraphs 22 to 25 and 39 to 41.

Criminal Law - Topic 5833

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Deterrence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5831.2 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5846.1

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Aboriginal offenders - An aboriginal woman with a minor criminal record and a history of drug and alcohol abuse pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in cocaine and one count of trafficking in ritalin - The accused's family had a history of substance abuse - The accused had been physically and sexually abused as a child - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court imposed a conditional sentence of 18 months with strict conditions - The court in imposing sentence considered the Gladue principles, the four year delay in charging the accused, that the accused had sold the drugs to support her own habit, that the accused in the more than five years since the offence had made changes to her lifestyle and no longer used drugs, the accused had been subjected to an undertaking with stringent conditions for 17 months as of the sentencing date and as the accused posed no threat to the community there was no need to separate her from the community - See paragraphs 22 to 49.

Criminal Law - Topic 5848.7

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Denunciation or repudiation of conduct - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5831.2 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5850

Sentence - Trafficking in a narcotic or a controlled drug or substance (incl. possession for the purpose of trafficking) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5846.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Gaveronski - see R. v. Pankewich (K.J.) et al.

R. v. Pankewich (K.J.) et al. (2002), 217 Sask.R. 111; 265 W.A.C. 111; 2002 SKCA 7, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Patryluk (S.T.) (2002), 217 Sask.R. 309; 265 W.A.C. 309; 2002 SKCA 33, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Englesman (C.G.) (1999), 180 Sask.R. 108; 205 W.A.C. 108 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Faubert (V.) (1997), 152 Sask.R. 228; 140 W.A.C. 228 (C.A.), dist. [para. 15].

R. v. Laliberte (M.R.) (2000), 189 Sask.R. 190; 216 W.A.C. 190; 2000 SKCA 27, folld. [para. 15].

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; 2000 SCC 5, folld. [para. 15].

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, folld. [para. 15].

R. v. Holowenko (B.L.) (2004), 241 Sask.R. 107; 313 W.A.C. 107; 2004 SKCA 7, dist. [para. 15].

R. v. Keepness (S.F.) (2000), 189 Sask.R. 173; 216 W.A.C. 173, 2000 SKCA 28, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. MacDougall (P.A.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 45; 231 N.R. 147; 168 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 83; 517 A.P.R. 83, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Kakakaway, [1980] S.J. No. 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. K.R.T., [1988] B.C.J. No. 2589 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Castro (J.F.) et al. (2001), 157 B.C.A.C. 97; 256 W.A.C. 97; 157 C.C.C.(3d) 255 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Cooper (No. 2) (1977), 35 C.C.C.(2d) 35 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. G.W.R., [1998] O.J. No. 6281 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Hughes, [1998] S.J. No. 420 (Prov. Ct.), folld. [para. 15].

R. v. C.E.N. (2004), 357 A.R. 255; 334 W.A.C. 255; 191 C.C.C.(3d) 26; 2004 ABCA 310, refd to. [para. 22].

Counsel:

D. Blais, for the Crown;

J. Armitage, for the accused.

This matter was heard by Whelan, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on March 17, 2005.