R. v. Rumsey (S.M.), (2015) 362 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 297 (NLPC)

• Judge: Skanes, P.C.J.
• Court: Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 16, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2015), 362 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 297 (NLPC)

R. v. Rumsey (S.M.) (2015), 362 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 297 (NLPC);

    1125 A.P.R. 297

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. FE.023

Her Majesty the Queen v. Steven Michael Rumsey

(Docket: 0113A02082, 0113A02508, 0113A03452, 0113A00239, 0114A00442, 0114A00443, 0114A00657, 0114A01703, 0114A00449)

Indexed As: R. v. Rumsey (S.M.)

Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court

Skanes, P.C.J.

February 16, 2015.

Summary:

The 32 year old accused pled guilty to seven thefts under $5,000, one break and enter, one uttering threats, one failure to attend court, 10 breaches of probation and six breaches of undertakings.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court sentenced the accused to 965 days' (approximately 2.6 years) imprisonment, reduced by 543 days of credit on a 1.5:1 basis for remand time, leaving a term to be served of 422 days.

Criminal Law - Topic 5802

Sentencing - General - Concurrent sentences - The 32 year old accused pled guilty to seven thefts under $5,000, one break and enter, one uttering threats, one failure to attend court, 10 breaches of probation and six breaches of undertakings - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court sentenced the accused to 965 days' (approximately 2.6 years) imprisonment, reduced by 543 days of credit on a 1.5:1 basis for remand time, leaving a term to be served of 422 days - The accused had a lengthy criminal record dating to 2003 - Given the accused's age and criminal history, rehabilitation was less of a factor here than denunciation and deterrence - A proper sentence for the break and enter would be 365 days and 60 days for uttering threats - The sentence for each breach of probation or undertaking/recognizance where the Crown proceeded by indictment would be 90 days and 30 days for the seven summary breaches and failure to appear - This would have resulted in a sentence of 2,105 days (5.8 years) - While concurrent sentences might be appropriate for the breaches, the court preferred to treat the offences separately, subject to the totality and jump principles - Under the totality principle, a sentence of 5.8 years was unduly long and harsh - Regarding the jump principle, the accused's longest previous sentence was 18 months for fraud - His longest previous period of imprisonment was 23 months - A sentence of 5.8 years would be too large a jump - The sentence was adjusted accordingly - The Crown had sought a sentence of two years - That did not properly reflect the sentencing principles - See paragraphs 21 to 30.

Criminal Law - Topic 5804

Sentencing - General - Consecutive sentences - Reduced total term (totality principle) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5802 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5807

Sentencing - General - Imposing sentences respecting multiple convictions - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5802 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5830

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - General (incl. step or jump principle) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5802 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5832

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Rehabilitation - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5802 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5848.2

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Time already served (incl. bail) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5802 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5851

Sentence - Break and enter - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5802 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5854

Sentence - Theft - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5802 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5892

Sentence - Breach of restraining order, recognizance or undertaking - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5802 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5895

Sentence - Threats - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5802 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5898

Sentence - Breach of probation - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5802 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5921

Sentence - Being at large or failing to appear - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5802 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Strickland-Murphy (C.) (2012), 324 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 36; 1007 A.P.R. 36 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Nasogaluak (L.M.), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206; 398 N.R. 107; 474 A.R. 88; 479 W.A.C. 88, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Glasco, 2009 CanLII 2685 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Drodge (P.J.) (2015), 360 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 262; 1118 A.P.R. 262 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Cowan, [2011] N.J. No. 128 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. C.M. (2013), 339 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 14; 1054 A.P.R. 14 (N.L.T.D.(G)), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Hutchings (R.) (2012), 316 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 211; 982 A.P.R. 211 (N.L.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Counsel:

E. Matthews, for Her Majesty the Queen;

S. Orr, for the accused.

This matter was heard at St. John's, N.L., on February 5 and 16, 2015, by Skanes, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court, who delivered the following reasons for decision on February 16, 2015.