R. v. Pedden (B.A.), 2005 BCCA 121

• Judge: Rowles, Donald and Newbury, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: March 03, 2005
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2005 BCCA 121;(2005), 208 B.C.A.C. 303 (CA)

R. v. Pedden (B.A.) (2005), 208 B.C.A.C. 303 (CA);

    344 W.A.C. 303

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.022

Regina (respondent) v. Brian Allan Pedden (appellant)

(CA028968; 2005 BCCA 121)

Indexed As: R. v. Pedden (B.A.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Rowles, Donald and Newbury, JJ.A.

March 3, 2005.

Summary:

The accused was declared to be a dangerous offender following convictions on three counts of sexual assault, three counts of unlawful confinement and three counts of administering a drug for the purpose of committing an indictable offence. The accused appealed the dangerous offender designation. "Dangerousness" was not contested. The issue was whether treatment prospects should have led to a determinate sentence as a long-term offender.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Donald, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 6503.1

Dangerous or long-term offenders - Detention - General - Long-term offender defined - The accused was designated a dangerous offender and sentenced to indeterminate detention - The accused appealed, submitting that the Crown failed to prove that it was not possible to control, with treatment, the risk he posed to the community within the long-term offender provision time frame (i.e., accused should have been designated a long-term offender subject to a determinate sentence alone or together with a period of community supervision) - The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The trial judge's conclusion that it was "highly unlikely" that treatment would reduce the risk within the required time frame was reasonable and supported by the evidence - The court stated that "if, as in this case, there is a 'possibility' of future treatment, but it is unlikely that such treatment or control can be effected within the parameters of the appropriate fixed sentence and supervisory conditions in the community, a long-term offender designation is not appropriate" - The court rejected the submission that the inability of the Crown's psychiatric experts to reach a definitive opinion on treatment, because the accused refused to be examined by them, required a long-term offender finding - The Crown was not required to prove a particular psychiatric diagnosis or that the accused could never be treatable in his lifetime - See paragraphs 1 to 38.

Criminal Law - Topic 6513

Dangerous or long-term offenders - Detention - General - Psychiatric evidence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 6503.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Poole (S.) (2000), 142 B.C.A.C. 151; 233 W.A.C. 151; 2000 BCCA 481, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Johnson (J.J.) (2001), 159 B.C.A.C. 255; 259 W.A.C. 255; 158 C.C.C.(3d) 155 (C.A.), affd. [2003] 2 S.C.R. 357; 308 N.R. 333; 186 B.C.A.C. 161; 306 W.A.C. 161; 177 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Edgar (D.G.) (2001), 159 B.C.A.C. 312; 259 W.A.C. 312; 158 C.C.C.(3d) 212 (C.A.), affd. [2003] 2 S.C.R. 388; 309 N.R. 1; 186 B.C.A.C. 199; 306 W.A.C. 199, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Kelly (M.E.) (2002), 163 B.C.A.C. 287; 267 W.A.C. 287; 2002 BCCA 121, affd. [2003] 2 S.C.R. 400; 309 N.R. 11; 186 B.C.A.C. 202; 302 W.A.C. 202, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Mitchell (S.K.) (2002), 162 B.C.A.C. 247; 264 W.A.C. 247; 161 C.C.C.(3d) 508 (C.A.), affd. [2003] 2 S.C.R. 396; 309 N.R. 8; 186 B.C.A.C. 205; 306 W.A.C. 205, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Khan (M.A.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 823; 279 N.R. 79; 160 Man.R.(2d) 161; 262 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. P.L.S., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 909; 122 N.R. 321; 90 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 234; 280 A.P.R. 234, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Currie (R.O.R.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 260; 211 N.R. 321; 100 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Cooper (M.J.) (2002), 173 B.C.A.C. 54; 283 W.A.C. 54; 169 C.C.C.(3d) 283 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. W.G.B. (2004), 204 B.C.A.C. 3; 333 W.A.C. 3; 188 C.C.C.(3d) 56; 2004 BCCA 416, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Laboucan (A.F.) (2002), 170 B.C.A.C. 118; 279 W.A.C. 118; 166 C.C.C.(3d) 280; 2002 BCCA 376, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. B.R.B. (2002), 174 B.C.A.C. 243; 286 W.A.C. 243; 2002 BCCA 420, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Rindero (J.E.) (2002), 174 B.C.A.C. 262; 286 W.A.C. 262; 2002 BCCA 619, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Alexcee (A.P.) (2003), 184 B.C.A.C. 268; 302 W.A.C. 268; 2003 BCCA 376, refd to. [para. 28].

Counsel:

J.A. Oman, for the appellant;

K.D. Madsen, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 3, 2005, at Victoria, B.C., before Rowles, Donald and Newbury, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered on March 3, 2005, and the following opinions were filed:

Newbury, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 32;

Rowles, J.A. - see paragraphs 33 to 38;

Donald, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 39 to 46.