R. v. Scott (J.J.), (2013) 327 N.S.R.(2d) 256 (CA)

• Judge: MacDonald, C.J.N.S., Saunders and Beveridge, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: February 27, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2013), 327 N.S.R.(2d) 256 (CA);2013 NSCA 28

R. v. Scott (J.J.) (2013), 327 N.S.R.(2d) 256 (CA);

    1036 A.P.R. 256

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.051

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Jeremy James Scott (respondent)

(CA 379239; 2013 NSCA 28)

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

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

MacDonald, C.J.N.S., Saunders and Beveridge, JJ.A.

February 27, 2013.

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, in a judgment reported (2012), 313 N.S.R.(2d) 68; 990 A.P.R. 68, 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. The Crown appealed. The sole issue was "can a sentence of under two years be imposed for anyone convicted of trafficking or possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine, absent a sustainable finding that exceptional circumstances exist?".

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. There was no principle or caselaw requiring that a sentence of at least two years' imprisonment be imposed unless an accused established "exceptional circumstances". The court stated that "a sentence of less than two years incarceration is, for this offender and in the circumstances of this offence, not outside the range of sentence". Saunders, J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal, stating that "the blunt message which should be clearly understood by all those who seek to profit from the sale of cocaine, or who possess cocaine with the intention of selling it, is that such persons will, upon conviction, be guaranteed incarceration in a federal penitentiary unless exceptional circumstances can be shown to exist. Such a case will be rare".

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

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

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) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5850 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5850

Sentence - Trafficking in a narcotic or a controlled drug or substance (incl. possession for 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 sentencing judge 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 judge sentenced the accused to a conditional sentence of two years less a day followed by one year's probation - A conditional sentence was not inconsistent with the principles of sentencing and was not contrary to the safety of the public - The Crown appealed solely on the ground that the two year starting point sentence applied where there were no exceptional circumstances warranting a lesser sentence - The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, in dismissing the Crown's appeal, held that a sentence of less than two years' imprisonment was not limited to "exceptional circumstances" - "A sentence of less than two years incarceration is, for this offender and in the circumstances of this offence, not outside the range of sentence" - Since the Crown appealed solely on that ground, the court stated that "I say nothing about whether a conditional sentence could or should have been ordered" - Saunders, J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal, because "the blunt message which should be clearly understood by all those who seek to profit from the sale of cocaine, or who possess cocaine with the intention of selling it, is that such persons will, upon conviction, be guaranteed incarceration in a federal penitentiary unless exceptional circumstances can be shown to exist. Such a case will be rare".

Cases Noticed:

R. v. L.M. (2008), 374 N.R. 351; 2008 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 8].

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. 10].

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

R. v. Robins (B.J.) (1993), 121 N.S.R.(2d) 254; 335 A.P.R. 254 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Byers (1989), 90 N.S.R.(2d) 263; 230 A.P.R. 263 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Huskins (1990), 95 N.S.R.(2d) 109; 251 A.P.R. 109 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Carvery (1991), 108 N.S.R.(2d) 284; 294 A.P.R. 284 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Clarke (E.) (1994), 137 N.S.R.(2d) 249; 391 A.P.R. 249 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Melvin (J.B.) (2003), 219 N.S.R.(2d) 172; 692 A.P.R. 172; 2003 NSCA 142, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Calder (A.) (2012), 312 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 987 A.P.R. 1; 2012 NSCA 3, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Kosanouvong (L.) (2002), 170 Man.R.(2d) 287; 285 W.A.C. 287; 2002 MBCA 144, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Ramos (Z.M.) (2007), 214 Man.R.(2d) 280; 395 W.A.C. 280; 2007 MBCA 87, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Byrne (M.E.) (2009), 281 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 353; 863 A.P.R. 353; 2009 NLCA 3, refd to. [para. 24].

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. 24].

R. v. MacKinnon (R.) (2009), 283 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 61; 873 A.P.R. 61; 2009 PECA 3, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Steeves (M.W.) (2007), 261 N.S.R.(2d) 76; 835 A.P.R. 76; 2007 NSCA 130, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Knickle (N.A.) (2009), 277 N.S.R.(2d) 392; 882 A.P.R. 392; 2009 NSCA 59, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Conway (M.F.) (2009), 282 N.S.R.(2d) 154; 895 A.P.R. 154; 2009 NSCA 95, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Butt (R.J.) (2010), 291 N.S.R.(2d) 376; 922 A.P.R. 376; 2010 NSCA 56, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Jamieson (F.O.) (2011), 310 N.S.R.(2d) 392; 983 A.P.R. 392; 2011 NSCA 122, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. S.P.C. (1999), 175 N.S.R.(2d) 158; 534 A.P.R. 158 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Longaphy (J.F.) (2000), 189 N.S.R.(2d) 102; 590 A.P.R. 102 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Bratzer (J.T.) (2001), 198 N.S.R.(2d) 303; 621 A.P.R. 303; 2001 NSCA 166, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Dawe (G.M.) (2002), 210 N.S.R.(2d) 212; 659 A.P.R. 212; 2002 NSCA 147, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Cromwell (Y.M.) (2005), 238 N.S.R.(2d) 17; 757 A.P.R. 17; 2005 NSCA 137, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. G.W.C. (2000), 277 A.R. 20; 242 W.A.C. 20; 2000 ABCA 333, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. McDonnell (T.E.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 948; 210 N.R. 241; 196 A.R. 321; 141 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Cormier (1975), 9 N.S.R.(2d) 687 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 79].

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. 79].

R. v. Knockwood (S.J.) (2009), 283 N.S.R.(2d) 156; 900 A.P.R. 156; 2009 NSCA 98, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Adams (P.F.) (2010), 291 N.S.R.(2d) 206; 922 A.P.R. 206; 2010 NSCA 42, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Bernard (A.) (2011), 303 N.S.R.(2d) 384; 957 A.P.R. 384; 2011 NSCA 53, refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Hawkins (H.J.) (2011), 298 N.S.R.(2d) 53; 945 A.P.R. 53; 2011 NSCA 7, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Brunet (R.) (2010), 271 O.A.C. 25; 2010 ONCA 781, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. MacDonald (K.) (2009), 236 Man.R.(2d) 239; 448 W.A.C. 239; 2009 MBCA 36, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Provost (C.J.) (2006), 256 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 205; 773 A.P.R. 205; 2006 NLCA 30, refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Rezaie (M.) (1996), 96 O.A.C. 268; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Fifield (1978), 25 N.S.R.(2d) 407; 36 A.P.R. 407 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Foster (R.J.) (1997), 161 N.S.R.(2d) 371; 477 A.P.R. 371 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Best (C.A.) (2012), 315 N.S.R.(2d) 243; 998 A.P.R. 243; 2012 NSCA 34, refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Butler (D.A.) (2008), 270 N.S.R.(2d) 225; 865 A.P.R. 225; 2008 NSCA 102, refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. Bartkow (1978), 24 N.S.R.(2d) 518; 35 A.P.R. 518 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Fitzgerald, Surette and Campbell (1985), 72 N.S.R.(2d) 176; 173 A.P.R. 176 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].

R. v. Sinclair (T.) et al. (2012), 280 Man.R.(2d) 31; 548 W.A.C. 31; 2012 MBCA 24, refd to. [para. 116].

R. v. Veysey (J.M.) (2006), 303 N.B.R.(2d) 290; 787 A.P.R. 290; 2006 NBCA 55, refd to. [para. 117].

R. v. G.C.F. (2004), 189 O.A.C. 29 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 118].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Reanud, Gilles, The Sentencing Code of Canada: Principles and Objectives (2009), pp. 5.96, 5.97, 5.100 to 5.105, 5.114 [para. 116].

Counsel:

Monica McQueen, for the appellant;

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

This appeal was heard on September 17, 2012, before MacDonald, C.J.N.S., Saunders and Beveridge, JJ.A., of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

On February 27, 2013, the judgment of the Court was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Beveridge, J.A. (MacDonald, C.J.N.S. concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 64;

Saunders, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 65 to 133.