R. v. Sanghera (A.S.), (2016) 389 B.C.A.C. 111 (CA)

• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Judge: Groberman, Goepel and Fenlon, JJ.A.
• Citation: (2016), 389 B.C.A.C. 111 (CA),2016 BCCA 251
• Date: 13 June 2016

R. v. Sanghera (A.S.) (2016), 389 B.C.A.C. 111 (CA);

    671 W.A.C. 111

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JN.025

Regina (respondent) v. Amarjit Singh Sanghera (appellant)

(CA41657; 2016 BCCA 251)

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

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Groberman, Goepel and Fenlon, JJ.A.

June 13, 2016.

Summary:

The 51 year old accused and the victim (co-workers) had a dispute over whether the accused owed the victim money. The accused secured the assistance of the two co-accused to meet the victim in a park and commit an unprovoked assault on him. The victim was stabbed. The accused was convicted of aggravated assault. Although it was unnecessary to determine who stabbed the accused, the trial judge inferred that it was the accused and treated this as an aggravating factor on sentencing. The accused came from India and had been in Canada for 17 years without obtaining citizenship. The accused had no prior criminal record, had been steadily employed, supported his family, and had serious health issues. The Crown sought 3-5 years' imprisonment. The accused sought a sentence of six months' imprisonment less a day, which would preclude him from being deported when his sentence was served. The accused was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. The co-accused were sentenced to 7.5 and 9.5 months' imprisonment for the lesser offence of assault causing bodily harm. The accused appealed his sentence on the grounds that the trial judge erred in finding that he stabbed the victim and treating it as an aggravating factor, and in failing to impose a sentence of less than six months to avoid the collateral consequences of deportation.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The trial judge erred in considering, as an aggravating factor, that the circumstantial evidence supported the finding that the only reasonable inference was that the accused stabbed the victim. However, that factual error did not render the three year sentence demonstrably unfit. Who stabbed the victim was only one of several aggravating factors. The principle of sentence parity did not warrant a sentence in the range of that received by the co-accused. They were charged with a lesser offence, their circumstances were different, and the accused was the instigator of this premeditated act. Finally, although adverse immigration consequences could be taken into account, a sentence of less than six months' imprisonment to avoid deportation would result in an unfit sentence for this aggravated assault.

Criminal Law - Topic 5806

Sentencing - General - Co-accused - Sentence parity - See paragraphs 24 to 64.

Criminal Law - Topic 5808

Sentencing - General - Questions of fact - See paragraphs 24 to 64.

Criminal Law - Topic 5817

Sentencing - Sentencing procedure and rights of the accused - Evidence - General - See paragraphs 24 to 64.

Criminal Law - Topic 5834.8

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Effect on citizenship or immigration application, status, etc. - See paragraphs 24 to 64.

Criminal Law - Topic 5938

Sentence - Aggravated assault - See paragraphs 24 to 64.

Counsel:

R. Peck, Q.C., and M. Shah, for the appellant;

M. Sheardown, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 27, 2016, at Vancouver, B.C., before Groberman, Goepel and Fenlon, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

On June 13, 2016, Fenlon, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.