R. v. Snow (D.A.), 2000 BCCA 113

• Judge: Cumming, Finch and Mackenzie, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: Friday February 04, 2000
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: 2000 BCCA 113;(2000), 137 B.C.A.C. 109 (CA)

R. v. Snow (D.A.) (2000), 137 B.C.A.C. 109 (CA);

    223 W.A.C. 109

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MY.049

Regina (respondent) v. David Alexander Snow (appellant)

(CA017622; 2000 BCCA 113)

Indexed As: R. v. Snow (D.A.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Cumming, Finch and Mackenzie, JJ.A.

February 4, 2000.

Summary:

The accused was convicted on 15 counts involving five complainants, including five counts of robbery, three counts of kid­napping or unlawful confinement and four counts of sexual assault. A dangerous offender application was made by the Crown. At the time, the accused was also charged in connection with two homicides in Ontario. The accused applied to adjourn the dangerous offender hearing pending the outcome of the Ontario charges. The trial judge refused the adjournment. The accused was found to be a dangerous offender and sentenced to serve an indeterminate sentence. The accused appealed the dangerous offender determination and sought to introduce fresh evidence on the appeal.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the application and the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 6504

Dangerous or long-term offenders - De­tention - General - Pro­cedure - Adjourn­ment - At the time of a 1993 dangerous offender hearing in B.C., the accused was charged in connection with two homicides in Ontario - An ap­plication to adjourn the dangerous offender hearing pending the outcome of the matter in Ontario was refused by the trial judge - The Ontario trial was not concluded until July 1997 and an appeal was still pending - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err in refusing the ad­journment - To delay the B.C. sentencing would entirely frustrate the social objec­tives of prompt sentencing - See para­graphs 2 to 3, 9 to 14.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. MacDougall (P.A.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 45; 231 N.R. 147; 168 Nfld. & P.E.I.R 83; 517 A.P.R. 83, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Harrison (1977), 8 N.R. 47; 28 C.C.C.(2d) 279 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Singh (G.), [1997] B.C.A.C. Uned.162 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 753 [para. 4].

Counsel:

S. Goldberg, for the appellant;

W.F. Ehrcke, Q.C., for the Crown, respon­dent.

This appeal was heard before Cumming, Finch and Mackenzie, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, at Vancouver, British Columbia, on February 4, 2000, when the following decision was delivered orally for the court by Mackenzie, J.A.