R. v. Shrubsall (W.C.), 2001 NSSC 197

• Judge: Cacchione, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: November 06, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2001 NSSC 197;(2001), 199 N.S.R.(2d) 314 (SC)

R. v. Shrubsall (W.C.) (2001), 199 N.S.R.(2d) 314 (SC);

 623 A.P.R. 314

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.001

Her Majesty The Queen v. William Chandler Shrubsall

(CR 162262, 162264; 2001 NSSC 197)

Indexed As: R. v. Shrubsall (W.C.)

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Cacchione, J.

December 21, 2001.

Summary:

Following separate jury trials, the accused was convicted of two counts of robbery, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated assault endangering life and possession of a weapon for the purpose of committing a robbery. At the conclusion of both trials, the Crown gave notice under s. 753(2) of the Criminal Code of its intention to have the accused declared to be a dangerous offender. At issue was whether the accused should be declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an inde­terminate sentence, or whether he should be declared a long term offender and sen­tenced to a determinate sentence with a long term supervision order.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court declared the accused to be a dangerous offender and sentenced him to an indeterminate period of imprisonment.

Criminal Law - Topic 6512

Dangerous or long-term offenders - Deten­tion - General - Evidence - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court stated that the greatest possible range of information must be used in a dangerous offender appli­cation - Evidence was criminal behaviour not the subject of criminal charges was admissible if relevant - Untried criminal offences introduced to establish a pattern of repetitive behaviour must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt - Hearsay evi­dence was admissible if credible and trust­worthy - The court stated that "hearsay evidence is admissible to show the infor­mation on which the expert opinion is based and not as evidence going to the existence of the facts on which the opinion is based. Before any weight can be given to an expert's opinion, the facts upon which the opinion is based must be found to exist." - On a dangerous offender appli­cation, the following three areas of evi­dence were to be considered: past criminal acts and criminal record, extrinsic evidence relevant to those acts and the circum­stances surrounding them, and psychiatric reports on that conduct - Character evi­dence was admissible, but of limited value - No adverse inference could be drawn from an accused's failure to be interviewed by Crown expert witnesses - See para­graphs 16 to 39.

Criminal Law - Topic 6552

Dangerous or long-term offenders - Deten­tion - Protection of the public - Pattern of repetitive behaviour - The 30 year old accused, following separate jury trials, was convicted of two counts of robbery, aggra­vated sexual assault, aggravated assault endangering life and possession of a weapon for the purpose of committing a robbery - The Crown applied to have the accused declared to be a dangerous of­fender - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court declared the accused to be a dangerous offender under ss. 753(1)(a)(i), (ii), (iii) and 753(1)(b) and sentenced him to an indeterminate period of detention - The evidence established a pattern of repetitive behaviour, persistent aggressive behaviour, an inability to control sexual impulses and an inability to control his brutal behaviour by normal standards of behavioural restraint - The court stated that "the of­fender ... is at a high risk of re-offend­ing, both violently and sexually. He has ... a severe narcissistic and antisocial per­sonali­ty disorder. He also has sexual deviancy which is fuelled by his personali­ty dis­order. He has offended both violently and sexually in the past. His violence and lack of control have led to the death of his mother, the near death of Ms. T.D. and serious physical injuries to his other vic­tims. His behaviour has caused severe psychological trauma to all of his victims. ... The escalation in the frequency and severity of his offending is frightening. The offender is a very intelligent man. ... He is someone who could have achieved a great deal in any chosen profession. Un­fortunately, he is also manipulative, ex­tremely violent, sexually deviant and lack­ing a conscience. The offender has led a life of deception, marked by acts of theft, fraud, serious physical and emotional violence, sexual perversion and death. ... He has repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of empathy for his victims and remorse for his actions. ... The offender's conduct and the expert evidence satisfies me beyond a reasonable doubt that his behaviour is pathologically intractable." - See paragraphs 41 to 272.

Criminal Law - Topic 6556

Dangerous or long-term offenders - Deten­tion - Protection of the public - Incurable personality disorder - [See Criminal Law - Topic 6552 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 6558

Dangerous or long-term offenders - Protec­tion of the public - Dangerous sexual offender - [See Criminal Law - Topic 6552 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 6562

Dangerous or long-term offenders - Protec­tion of the public - Persistent aggressive behaviour - [See Criminal Law - Topic 6552 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Jones (S.) (1994), 166 N.R. 321; 43 B.C.A.C. 241; 69 W.A.C. 241; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Jack (T.P.) (1998), 104 B.C.A.C. 175; 170 W.A.C. 175 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Currie (R.O.R.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 260; 211 N.R. 321; 100 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Wilband, [1967] S.C.R. 14, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Lewis (1984), 4 O.A.C. 98; 12 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Dicks (D.E.) (1995), 143 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 411 A.P.R. 81 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Neve (L.C.) (1999), 237 A.R. 201; 197 W.A.C. 201; 137 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Sharrow (C.L.) (1999), 117 O.A.C. 267; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 467 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Corbière (H.E.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 222 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Newman (1994), 115 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 197; 360 A.P.R. 197 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Jackson (1981), 46 N.S.R.(2d) 92; 89 A.P.R. 92; 61 C.C.C.(2d) 540 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Gardiner (1982), 43 N.R. 361; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 477 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Lavallee (1990), 108 N.R. 321; 67 Man.R.(2d) 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Carleton (1981), 32 A.R. 181; 69 C.C.C.(2d) 1 (C.A.), affd. (1983), 52 N.R. 293; 47 A.R. 160; 6 C.C.C.(3d) 480 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Langevin (1984), 3 O.A.C. 110; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 336 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Dow (D.R.) (1999), 120 B.C.A.C. 16; 196 W.A.C. 16; 134 C.C.C.(3d) 323 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Knight (1975), 27 C.C.C.(2d) 343 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Brown (W.G.) (1999), 24 B.C.T.C. 221 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. J.Y. (1996), 141 Sask.R. 132; 114 W.A.C. 132; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 512 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 228].

R. v. Moore (1985), 7 O.A.C. 33; 16 C.C.C.(3d) 328 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 253].

R. v. D.M. (1995), 136 Sask.R. 135 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 253].

R. v. Deckert (L.C.) (2001), 201 Sask.R. 161 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 255].

R. v. Hart (W.A.) (2001), 196 N.S.R.(2d) 350; 613 A.P.R. 350 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 262].

R. v. Payne (L.M.), [2001] O.T.C. 15 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 262].

R. v. Tremblay (J.G.) (2000), 274 A.R. 203 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 262].

R. v. Carter (G.) (2001), 205 Sask.R. 161 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 262].

R. v. Muir (J.S.), [2001] B.C.T.C. 763 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 262].

R. v. Kim (F.), [2000] B.C.T.C. 320 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 263].

R. v. Weatherbee (D.M.) (2001), 194 N.S.R.(2d) 393; 606 A.P.R. 393 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 263].

R. v. Nepoose (R.J.) (1997), 200 A.R. 273; 146 W.A.C. 273; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 570 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 263].

R. v. Poutsoungas (1989), 49 C.C.C.(3d) 388 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 276].

Counsel:

Paul Carver and Robert Fetterly, for the Crown;

Lonny Queripel, Cecil Woon and Suzanne Kennedy, for the accused.

This application was heard between February 26 and November 6, 2001, at Halifax, N.S., before Cacchione, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment on December 21, 2001.