R. v. Scott (J.J.), 2012 NSPC 6

• Judge: Tufts, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: January 10, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2012 NSPC 6;(2012), 313 N.S.R.(2d) 68 (PC)

R. v. Scott (J.J.) (2012), 313 N.S.R.(2d) 68 (PC);

    990 A.P.R. 68

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.039

Her Majesty The Queen v. Jeremy James Scott

(2271033; 2271034; 2012 NSPC 6)

Indexed As: R. v. Scott (J.J.)

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Tufts, P.C.J.

February 1, 2012.

Summary:

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of marijuana. The Crown sought a sentence of 30 months' imprisonment. The accused sought a conditional sentence.

The Nova Scotia Provincial Court sentenced the accused to a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by one year's probation, for cocaine trafficking and a $150 fine for possession of marijuana.

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5850 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.5

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - Conditions of - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5850 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5800

Sentencing - General - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court stated that: "1. The purpose of sentencing is to contribute to the protection of society and respect for the law, but it is not the sole method to achieve these ends. Parliament recognizes that crime prevention measures play a role as well. The responsibility for protecting society does not fall entirely on the sentencing process. It is part of a larger societal effort at crime prevention. 2. The sanctions imposed - fines, probation, imprisonment, whether in the community or in an institution must be 'just sanctions', that is imposed using a measure of proportionality and restraint. 3. There is an array of sentencing objectives - there is not just one sentencing objective. No one objective trumps the others. 4. Proportionality is a fundamental principle, but secondary principles of parity and restraint apply as well. 5. A sentence which falls outside the 'regular range' is not necessarily unfit provided it meets the principles and objectives of sentencing." - See paragraph 14.

Criminal Law - Topic 5830.8

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Drug and narcotic offences - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5850 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5846.5

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Sentence precedents (incl. starting point principle and sentencing ranges) - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court, in sentencing an accused convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking to a conditional sentence, stated that "a sentence which falls outside the 'regular range' is not necessarily unfit provided it meets the principles and objectives of sentencing" - See paragraph 14.

Criminal Law - Topic 5850

Sentence - Trafficking in a narcotic or a controlled drug or substance (incl. possession of the purpose of trafficking) - The 23 year old accused drug addict pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking - He possessed 30 grams of cocaine having a street value up to $3,000 - The Crown sought 30 months' imprisonment - The accused sought a conditional sentence - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court determined that while a penitentiary sentence was the "norm" or "typical" for a cocaine trafficker, and the starting point sentence for a "higher level" retailer trafficking in cocaine was two years' imprisonment (absent "special circumstances"), a conditional sentence was not precluded and could have sufficiently restrictive conditions to meet the need for denunciation and deterrence - There was no evidence that the accused, who had no criminal record, was employed, and was expecting a child with his spouse, was other than a low level petty retailer who was selling not for profit, but to fund his own addiction - There was no evidence of what portion of the 30 grams was for sale and how much was for personal use - There was no evidence of the accused's level of drug activity or a history of involvement in the drug trade - He had no prior criminal record and there was a positive pre-sentence report - The accused voluntarily sought treatment and had not used drugs since the offence - He was apparently motivated to finally deal with his addiction by the impending birth of his child - The court sentenced the accused to a conditional sentence of two years less a day followed by one year's probation - The first nine months were to be served under house arrest followed by nine months under a curfew - A conditional sentence was not inconsistent with the principles of sentencing and was not contrary to the safety of the public.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Nasogaluak (L.M.) (2010), 398 N.R. 107; 474 A.R. 88; 479 W.A.C. 88; 2010 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 13].

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. 16].

R. v. Merlin (1984), 63 N.S.R.(2d) 78; 141 A.P.R. 78 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Byers (1989), 90 N.S.R.(2d) 263; 230 A.P.R. 263 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Downey (1989), 94 N.S.R.(2d) 71; 247 A.P.R. 71 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Smith (B.H.) (1990), 95 N.S.R.(2d) 85; 251 A.P.R. 85 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Huskins (1990), 95 N.S.R.(2d) 109; 251 A.P.R. 109 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Carvery (1991), 108 N.S.R.(2d) 284; 294 A.P.R. 284 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Stokes (C.B.) (1993), 126 N.S.R.(2d) 66; 352 A.P.R. 66 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Robins (B.J.) (1993), 121 N.S.R.(2d) 254; 335 A.P.R. 254 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Sparks (C.A.) (1993), 126 N.S.R.(2d) 215; 352 A.P.R. 215 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Clarke (E.) (1994), 137 N.S.R.(2d) 249; 391 A.P.R. 249 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Downey (T.S.) (2000), 188 N.S.R.(2d) 59; 587 A.P.R. 59 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Dawe (G.M.) (2002), 210 N.S.R.(2d) 212; 659 A.P.R. 212 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Melvin (J.B.) (2003), 219 N.S.R.(2d) 172; 692 A.P.R. 172 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Steeves (M.W.) (2007), 261 N.S.R.(2d) 76; 835 A.P.R. 76; 2007 NSCA 130, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Knickle (N.A.) (2009), 277 N.S.R.(2d) 392; 882 A.P.R. 392; 2009 NSCA 59, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Dann (J.D.) (2002), 208 N.S.R.(2d) 114; 652 A.P.R. 114; 2002 NSSC 237, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Messervey (K.J.) (2004), 228 N.S.R.(2d) 5; 723 A.P.R. 5 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Coombs (M.T.) (2005), 233 N.S.R.(2d) 215; 739 A.P.R. 215; 2005 NSSC 90, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Talbot (T.R.) (1999), 176 N.S.R.(2d) 316; 538 A.P.R. 316 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Provo (B.) (2001), 199 N.S.R.(2d) 201; 623 A.P.R. 201; 2001 NSSC 189, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Conway (M.F.) (2009), 282 N.S.R.(2d) 154; 895 A.P.R. 154; 2009 NSCA 95, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Butt (R.J.) (2010), 291 N.S.R.(2d) 376; 922 A.P.R. 376; 2010 NSCA 56, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Aucoin (B.D.) (2011), 306 N.S.R.(2d) 20; 968 A.P.R. 20; 2011 NSCA 64, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Jamieson (F.O.) (2011), 310 N.S.R.(2d) 392; 983 A.P.R. 392; 2011 NSCA 122, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Calder (A.) (2012), 312 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 987 A.P.R. 1; 2012 NSCA 3, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Kosanouvong (L.) (2002), 170 Man.R.(2d) 287; 285 W.A.C. 287; 2002 MBCA 144, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Ramos (Z.M.) (2007), 214 Man.R.(2d) 280; 395 W.A.C. 280; 2007 MBCA 87, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Byrne (M.E.) (2009), 281 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 353; 863 A.P.R. 353; 2009 NLCA 3, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Brown (A.K.) (1997), 155 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 188; 481 A.P.R. 188; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 147 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. MacKinnon (R.) (2009), 283 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 61; 873 A.P.R. 61; 2009 PECA 3, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Murphy (M.P.) (2011), 270 Man.R.(2d) 214; 524 W.A.C. 214; 2011 MBCA 84, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. J.L.M.A. (2010), 499 A.R. 1; 514 W.A.C. 1; 264 C.C.C.(3d) 134; 2010 ABCA 363, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Sudsbury (L.J.) (2002), 202 N.S.R.(2d) 327; 632 A.P.R. 327 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Gray (T.G.) (2001), 200 N.S.R.(2d) 72; 627 A.P.R. 72 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Tokic (P.) (2002), 202 N.S.R.(2d) 150; 632 A.P.R. 150 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. David (T.C.) (2004), 228 N.S.R.(2d) 65; 723 A.P.R. 65; 2004 NSSC 241, refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Clarke (T.M.) (2005), 236 N.S.R.(2d) 73; 749 A.P.R. 73; 2005 NSSC 247, refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Boliver (W.L.) (2005), 247 N.S.R.(2d) 379; 785 A.P.R. 379 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Lively (M.C.) (2006), 250 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 796 A.P.R. 1; 2005 NSSC 274, refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Bonin (R.M.) (2008), 265 N.S.R.(2d) 161; 848 A.P.R. 161 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. MacIntosh (D.P.), [2009] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 17; 2009 NSSC 67, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Banfield (S.K.) (2011), 300 N.S.R.(2d) 126; 950 A.P.R. 126; 2011 NSSC 56, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Marriott (T.C.), [2012] N.S.R.(2d) Uned. 7; 2012 NSCA 16, refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Naugle (T.L.) (2011), 302 N.S.R.(2d) 68; 955 A.P.R. 68; 2011 NSCA 33, refd to. [para. 67, footnote 1].

R. v. Dunbar (R.) (2008), 269 N.S.R.(2d) 269; 860 A.P.R. 269; 2008 NSPC 57, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Conyers (R.), [2010] A.R. Uned. 610 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Rebello, 2010 ONCJ 43, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Carter (J.R.) (2005), 248 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 191; 741 A.P.R. 191; 2005 NLTD 108, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Klyne (D.L.) (2003), 235 Sask.R. 313 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Bouchard, 2009 ONCJ 264, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Walcott (D.), [2009] O.T.C. Uned. 274 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Richards (E.C.), [2007] O.T.C. Uned. 584 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Mundle, [2003] O.J. No. 4392, refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Imoro (A.), [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 1445 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 69].

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, refd to. [para. 86].

R. v. Biron (1991), 65 C.C.C.(3d) 221 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Quesnel and Smith (1984), 4 O.A.C. 393; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 254 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Bratzer (J.T.) (2001), 198 N.S.R.(2d) 303; 621 A.P.R. 303; 2001 NSCA 166, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Kerr (J.W.) (2001), 153 O.A.C. 159 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

Counsel:

Bill Watts, for the Crown;

Robert Stewart, Q.C., for the accused.

This matter was heard on January 10, 2012, at Kentville, N.S., before Tufts, P.C.J., of the Nova Scotia Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on February 1, 2012.