R. v. Sadler (M.), 2009 BCCA 386

• Judge: Ryan, Saunders and Tysoe, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: February 06, 2009
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2009 BCCA 386;(2009), 274 B.C.A.C. 308 (CA)

R. v. Sadler (M.) (2009), 274 B.C.A.C. 308 (CA);

    463 W.A.C. 308

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] B.C.A.C. TBEd. SE.004

Regina (respondent) v. Martin Sadler (appellant)

(CA035123; 2009 BCCA 386)

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

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Ryan, Saunders and Tysoe, JJ.A.

September 9, 2009.

Summary:

The accused was sentenced to two concurrent sentences of 30 months' incarceration on two counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm. He appealed the sentence.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 5833

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Deterrence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5865.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5848.5

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Proper considerations - Civil consequences of conviction - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5865.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5865.1

Sentence - Dangerous driving causing bodily harm - The accused drove his pick up truck and trailer in an erratic manner on the highway, swerved sideways and hit an oncoming vehicle, seriously injuring the occupants - Alcohol and sleep deprivation were factors - The accused was convicted of two counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm and sentenced to two concurrent sentences of 30 months' incarceration - He appealed the sentence, claiming that his substantial exposure to civil liability for damages arising from his convictions was a factor that rendered the sentences excessive - The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The court held that civil liability could be considered in a limited way in the criminal courts as part of the offender's circumstances (i.e., civil liability was a proper factor to consider in imposing sentence) - However in this case, where the driving at issue was prolonged and flagrantly dangerous, the impact of this factor on sentence would be at most modest - Therefore, the trial judge did not err in principle in failing to avert to the potential of civil liability in his reasons for sentence in the circumstances of this case - The court noted also that this was an offence where the principle of general deterrence had primacy - See paragraphs 17 to 38.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Angelillo (G.), [2006] 2 S.C.R. 728; 355 N.R. 226; 2006 SCC 55, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Palmer, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759; 30 N.R. 181; 50 C.C.C.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Lévesque (R.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 487; 260 N.R. 165; 2000 SCC 47, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Stone (M.F.) (2001), 161 B.C.A.C. 181; 263 W.A.C. 181; 2001 BCCA 728, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; 194 N.R. 321; 73 B.C.A.C. 81; 120 W.A.C. 81; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 327, refd to. [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; 2000 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Rai (S.S.) (1996), 84 B.C.A.C. 90; 137 W.A.C. 90; 26 M.V.R.(2d) 32 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Pawa (J.L.) (1998), 106 B.C.A.C. 296; 172 W.A.C. 296 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Reed (R.R.) (1998), 107 B.C.A.C. 50; 174 W.A.C. 50; 34 M.V.R.(3d) 20 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Chapman (N.T.) (2000), 135 B.C.A.C. 147; 221 W.A.C. 147; 2000 BCCA 152, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Bhalru - see R. v. Khosa (S.S.) et al.

R. v. Khosa (S.S.) et al. (2003), 190 B.C.A.C. 42; 311 W.A.C. 42; 180 C.C.C.(3d) 225; 2003 BCCA 645, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Howey (J.W.) (2007), 244 B.C.A.C. 110; 403 W.A.C. 110; 2007 BCCA 323, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Scott (R.G.) (2008), 257 B.C.A.C. 295; 432 W.A.C. 295; 2008 BCCA 307, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. McCaskie (S.B.) (2006), 230 B.C.A.C. 74; 380 W.A.C. 74; 2006 BCCA 382, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Budge (B.K.) (2001), 154 B.C.A.C. 176; 252 W.A.C. 176; 2001 BCCA 223, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Macska (J.) (1992), 18 B.C.A.C. 306; 31 W.A.C. 306; 41 M.V.R.(2d) 75 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Prasad (R.) (2006), 231 B.C.A.C. 150; 381 W.A.C. 150; 2006 BCCA 470, refd to. [para. 34].

Counsel:

M. Jetté, for the appellant;

B. MacLean, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on February 6, 2009, by Ryan, Saunders and Tysoe, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered by the court on September 9, 2009.