R. v. Sagoo (I.S.), (2010) 474 A.R. 190 (CA)

• Judge: Ritter, Slatter and Rowbotham, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: January 19, 2010
• Citations: (2010), 474 A.R. 190 (CA);2010 ABCA 29

R. v. Sagoo (I.S.) (2010), 474 A.R. 190 (CA);

      479 W.A.C. 190

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] A.R. TBEd. FE.004

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Inderjeet Singh Sagoo (appellant)

(0903-0273-A; 2010 ABCA 29)

Indexed As: R. v. Sagoo (I.S.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Ritter, Slatter and Rowbotham, JJ.A.

February 1, 2010.

Summary:

The accused pleaded guilty to 23 charges: 2 counts of possessing proceeds of crime; 1 count of being disguised with intent; 2 counts of unlawfully possessing credit card data; and 17 counts of possessing forged or falsified bank or credit cards. The Crown sought a two-year sentence of actual incarceration, arguing that a conditional sentence order would not properly reflect the principles of denunciation and deterrence. The accused sought a conditional sentence. The sentencing judge sentenced the accused to two years' imprisonment. The accused appealed his sentence and applied for bail pending his sentence appeal pursuant to s. 679 of the Criminal Code.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Ritter, J.A., allowed the application. See 464 A.R. 258; 467 W.A.C. 258.

The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, reducing the term of incarceration to 15 months.

Criminal Law - Topic 4970

Appeals - Indictable offences - Powers of Court of Appeal - Receiving fresh evidence - General - The accused pleaded guilty to 23 property related offences - He sought a conditional sentence - The sentencing judge held that a conditional sentence was inconsistent with the purpose and principles of sentencing, in particular denunciation and deterrence, and imposed a two year sentence - On appeal, the accused applied to admit fresh evidence, namely a psychologist's report prepared after he obtained judicial interim release pending his appeal - The accused submitted that the report was responsive to an incomplete and inaccurate pre-sentence report, which was entered in evidence during the sentencing process on April 8, 2009 - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the application - On April 8, 2009, the accused obtained an adjournment to May 26, 2009, so he could explore issues raised in the report and perhaps have an additional report prepared - On May 26, 2009, sentencing was adjourned again because of a fire alarm - Sentence was spoken to on August 21, 2009 - During submissions, the only issue the accused raised respecting the pre-sentence report had to do with whether he was remorseful - The sentencing judge ultimately found that he was significantly remorseful - The court found that the evidence could, by due diligence, have been admitted at trial - The court held that while that was not necessarily fatal, the report was inadmissible because it was of minimal importance to the proceedings because it did not speak to the trial judge's reasons for imposing a custodial sentence - See paragraphs 10 to 15.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - The accused pleaded guilty to 23 charges: 2 counts of possessing proceeds of crime; 1 count of being disguised with intent; 2 counts of unlawfully possessing credit card data; and 17 counts of possessing forged or falsified bank or credit cards - The accused sought a conditional sentence - The sentencing judge considered as aggravating factors the group-based nature of the activity, which involved organization, planning, and working in concert with somebody in a position of trust (a co-accused employed at one of the sites used for the skimming operation), and the accused's significant involvement in the scheme - Mitigating factors were his lack of a criminal record, guilty plea, youth and good prospects for rehabilitation, no evidence of breaches of bail conditions, family support and significant remorse - The sentencing judge held that a conditional sentence was inconsistent with the purpose and principles of sentencing, in particular denunciation and deterrence, and imposed a two year sentence - The Alberta Court of Appeal agreed that a conditional sentence was not appropriate, but reduced the period of incarceration to 15 months.

Criminal Law - Topic 5876

Sentence - Forgery - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5899

Sentence - Debit and credit card offences (incl. fraud, theft, etc.) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5935

Sentence - Disguise with intent - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5972

Sentence - Money laundering or proceeds of crime - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 6218

Sentencing - Appeals - Variation of sentence - Evidence on appeal (incl. fresh evidence) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4970 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Dhillon (J.S.) (2010), 474 A.R. 196; 479 W.A.C. 196; 2010 ABCA 28, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Shropshire (M.T.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 227; 188 N.R. 284; 65 B.C.A.C. 37; 106 W.A.C. 37, refd to. [para. 9].

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, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Lévesque (R.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 487; 260 N.R. 165; 2000 SCC 47, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Palmer, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759; 30 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. McKinnon (V.A.) (2005), 361 A.R. 271; 339 W.A.C. 271; 2005 ABCA 8, refd to. [para. 18].

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, appld. [para. 20].

Counsel:

M.J. McGuire, for the respondent;

B.A. Beresh, Q.C., for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on January 19, 2010, by Ritter, Slatter and Rowbotham, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal, who delivered the following memorandum of judgment on February 1, 2010.