R. v. Stoney (R.C.), (2004) 352 A.R. 94 (PC)

• Judge: Allen, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 26, 2004
• Citations: (2004), 352 A.R. 94 (PC);2004 ABPC 3

R. v. Stoney (R.C.) (2004), 352 A.R. 94 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. MR.022

Her Majesty The Queen v. Robin Cameron Stoney

(030013270P101001; 030013270P101006; 030052849P101001; 2004 ABPC 3)

Indexed As: R. v. Stoney (R.C.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Allen, P.C.J.

January 26, 2004.

Summary:

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault and one count of attempted sexual assault. Counsel made a joint submission for a sentence of 7.5 years' imprisonment, agreeing that the accused should be declared a long-term offender subject to a 10 year supervision order.

The Alberta Provincial Court rejected the sentencing submission as it was contrary to the public interest, unreasonable and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Although the court was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to support a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community (i.e. criteria for long-term offender met), a sentence of 7.5 years' imprisonment, with double credit for pre-trial custody, was not sufficient. The court declared the accused to be a long-term offender subject to a 10 year supervision order and sentenced him to 10 years' imprisonment, less two years' credit for one year of pre-trial custody. The court also ordered that the accused serve at least one-half of his sentence before being eligible for parole.

Criminal Law - Topic 5670

Punishments (sentence) - Imprisonment and parole - Parole - Period of ineligibility - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5932 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5801.1

Sentencing - General - Proportionality - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5842 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5813

Sentencing - Sentencing procedure and rights of accused - Plea bargain or joint submission - Effect of - The Alberta Provincial Court stated that "the responsibility for imposing a fit sentence rests with the sentencing judge. Joint sentencing submissions of counsel, especially experienced counsel, must be given serious consideration. ... Both counsel are extremely experienced. I have seriously considered their submission. Despite the able manner it was presented, I find that to accept their submission would be contrary to public interest, unreasonable, and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute." - The court imposed a longer period of imprisonment and made an order that the accused serve at least one-half of his sentence before being eligible for parole - See paragraphs 3 to 4.

Criminal Law - Topic 5842

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Previous criminal offences (incl. repeat, dangerous or long-term offenders) - The Alberta Provincial Court held that although an accused's criminal record was to be considered by a sentencing judge as indicative of a lack of response to rehabilitation, persistence in a life of crime and lack of respect for others, it did not entitle the imposition of a sentence beyond what would otherwise be fit in the circumstances - This limitation on the use of a criminal record was consistent with a fundamental principle of sentencing (proportionality) - See paragraphs 17 to 18.

Criminal Law - Topic 5846.1

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Aboriginal offenders - Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code provided that "all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders" - The Alberta Provincial Court stated that the purpose of s. 718.2(e) was to ameliorate the overpopulation of aboriginals in prisons, recognizing the unique circumstances that contributed to the aboriginal being before the court - However, especially with more violent and serious offences, the resulting sentence in some cases will be, as a practical matter, the same - The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault and one count of attempted sexual assault - The court stated that "denunciation, deterrence and protection of society are very important principles here. These principles require that [the accused] be treated in a similar way as any offender armed with dangerous sexual fantasies who committed similar offences." - See paragraphs 20 to 31.

Criminal Law - Topic 5849.10

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - When maximum sentence available - The Alberta Provincial Court stated that "a maximum sentence is not only justified where the most serious offence is committed by the worst type of offender. A maximum penalty can be given where the circumstances of the offence are serious." - See paragraph 191.

Criminal Law - Topic 5932

Sentence - Sexual assault - The aboriginal accused pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault and one count of attempted sexual assault - Substantial criminal record for prior sexual assaults - No acts of degradation or gratuitous violence - Three offences committed on same day while accused intoxicated - There was a pattern of being released from prison, committing another sexual assault and being returned to prison - History of drug, solvent and alcohol abuse - Borderline intellectual functioning - The accused had continual sexual thoughts and fantasies that could only be controlled (not cured) by medication, which the accused refused to take - Attitude was that rape was acceptable - High risk of reoffending sexually because of poor impulse control - Suffered from mental disorders such as disorganized thought and delusions - The Alberta Provincial Court accepted psychiatric evidence that the risk to the community that the accused posed could be controlled upon release if the accused was required to take appropriate medication and psychiatric therapy - The court declared the accused to be a long-term offender - The court imposed consecutive sentences totalling 10 years' imprisonment (maximum sentence), less two years' credit for one year in pre-trial custody - A 10 year long-term supervision order was imposed - The court made an order under s. 743.6 of the Criminal Code that the accused serve at least one-half of his sentence before being eligible for parole - The court recommended conditions of parole, including mandatory drug treatment and therapy.

Criminal Law - Topic 6503.1

Dangerous or long-term offenders - Detention - General - Long-term offender defined - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5932 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 6577

Dangerous or long-term offenders - Detention - Sentencing - Community or long-term supervision order - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5932 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. G.W.C. (2000), 277 A.R. 20; 242 W.A.C. 20; 150 C.C.C.(3d) 513 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Brady (J.R.) (1998), 209 A.R. 321; 160 W.A.C. 321; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 504 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Bear, Bear and Tinker (1975), 13 C.C.C.(2d) 370 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. LeBlanc (M.J.) (2002), 303 A.R. 394; 273 W.A.C. 394 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Gladue (J.T.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688; 238 N.R. 1; 121 B.C.A.C. 161; 198 W.A.C. 161; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Wells (J.W.) (2000), 250 N.R. 364; 250 A.R. 273; 213 W.A.C. 273; 141 C.C.C.(3d) 368 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; 43 N.R. 30; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 394, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Neve (L.C.) (1999), 237 A.R. 201; 197 W.A.C. 201; 137 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 1999 ABCA 206, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Small (K.R.) (2000), 141 B.C.A.C. 126; 231 W.A.C. 126; 147 C.C.C.(3d) 302 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. McLeod (T.J.) (1999), 125 B.C.A.C. 59; 204 W.A.C. 59; 136 C.C.C.(3d) 492 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 81].

R. v. Johnson (J.J.) (2003), 308 N.R. 333; 186 B.C.A.C. 161; 306 W.A.C. 161; 177 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 2003 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Edgar (D.G.) (2003), 309 N.R. 1; 186 B.C.A.C. 199; 306 W.A.C. 199; 177 C.C.C.(3d) 122; 2003 SCC 47, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Smith (S.J.) (2003), 309 N.R. 5; 186 B.C.A.C. 208; 306 W.A.C. 208; 177 C.C.C.(3d) 133 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Mitchell (S.K.) (2003), 309 N.R. 8; 186 B.C.A.C. 205; 306 W.A.C. 205; 177 C.C.C.(3d) 130 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Kelly (M.E.) (2003), 309 N.R. 11; 186 B.C.A.C. 202; 306 W.A.C. 202; 177 C.C.C.(3d) 126; 2003 SCC 50, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Lyons, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 309; 80 N.R. 161; 82 N.S.R.(2d) 271; 207 A.P.R. 271; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Guilford (D.), [1999] O.T.C. 79 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Nikolovski (2002), 104 C.R.R.(2d) 126 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. H.P.W. (2001), 286 A.R. 350; 253 W.A.C. 350; 159 C.C.C.(3d) 91 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Langevin (1984), 3 O.A.C. 110; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 336 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 109].

R. v. Dow (D.R.) (1999), 120 B.C.A.C. 16; 196 W.A.C. 16; 134 C.C.C.(3d) 323, additional reasons at 126 B.C.A.C. 149; 206 W.A.C. 149 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1999), 248 N.R. 406; 135 B.C.A.C. 319; 221 W.A.C. 319; 137 C.C.C.(3d) vi (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 109].

R. v. McCraw (1991), 128 N.R. 299; 49 O.A.C. 47; 66 C.C.C.(3d) 517 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 117].

R. v. Currie (R.O.R.) (1997), 211 N.R. 321; 100 O.A.C. 161; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 205 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Sullivan (1988), 20 O.A.C. 323; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 143 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 123].

R. v. Dwyer (1977), 3 A.R. 96; 34 C.C.C.(2d) 293 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 126].

Fleming v. Reid and Gallagher (1991), 48 O.A.C. 46; 4 O.R.(3d) 74 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 137].

R. v. Rogers (1990), 61 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 138].

R. v. J.J.L. (2001), 153 Man.R.(2d) 153; 238 W.A.C. 153; 152 C.C.C.(3d) 572 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 138].

R. v. Payne (L.M.), [2001] O.T.C. 15; 41 C.R.(5th) 156 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 143].

R. v. McGarroch (V.), [2003] O.T.C. 97; 2003 CarswellOnt 370 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 143].

R. v. Carleton (1981), 32 A.R. 181; 69 C.C.C.(2d) 1 (C.A.), affd. [1983] 2 S.C.R. 58; 52 N.R. 293; 47 A.R. 160; 6 C.C.C.(3d) 480, refd to. [para. 146].

R. v. Johnson (J.J.) (2001), 159 B.C.A.C. 255; 259 W.A.C. 255; 158 C.C.C.(3d) 155 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 149].

R. v. Guilford (D.), [1999] O.T.C. 79; 2002 CarswellOnt 4170 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 161].

R. v. Pruner (1979), 9 C.R.(3d) S-8 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 170].

R. v. Hill (1974), 15 C.C.C.(2d) 145 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 172].

R. v. Hill (No. 2) (1975), 7 N.R. 373; 25 C.C.C.(2d) 6 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 173].

R. v. Horvath (1982), 2 C.C.C.(3d) 196 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 174].

R. v. Edwards (S.) (2001), 147 O.A.C. 363; 155 C.C.C.(3d) 473 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 177].

R. v. Robinson (D.) (1997), 101 B.C.A.C. 81; 164 W.A.C. 81; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 240 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 178].

R. v. Kempton (1980), 21 A.R. 212; 53 C.C.C.(2d) 176 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 180].

R. v. Hastings (1985), 58 A.R. 108; 19 C.C.C.(3d) 86 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 181].

R. v. Nienhuis (1991), 117 A.R. 253 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 183].

R. v. Henderson (1990), 56 C.C.C.(3d) 413 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 184].

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; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 327; 46 C.R.(4th) 267, refd to. [para. 185].

R. v. Armbruster (J.E.) (1999), 126 B.C.A.C. 283; 206 W.A.C. 283; 138 C.C.C.(3d) 64 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 188].

R. v. Lapointe (D.E.) (1999), 244 A.R. 358; 209 W.A.C. 358 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 190].

R. v. Alexandruk (M.) (2003), 326 A.R. 322 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 193].

R. v. Delorme (1992), 125 A.R. 3; 14 W.A.C. 3 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 194].

R. v. Davis (G.N.) (1998), 165 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 355; 509 A.P.R. 355 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 195].

R. v. Mousseau (T.M.) (2003), 347 A.R. 119 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 204].

R. v. Goodwin (1974), 10 N.S.R.(2d) 240; 2 A.P.R. 240; 21 C.R.(3d) 263 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 212].

R. v. Gollop (1980), 28 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 443; 79 A.P.R. 443; 22 C.R.(3d) 297 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 213].

R. v. Chisholm, [1965] 4 C.C.C. 289 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 214].

R. v. Zinck (T.R.) (2003), 300 N.R. 201; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 674 A.P.R. 1; 171 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 232].

Statutes Noticed:

Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, sect. 88(1) [para. 134]; sect. 134.1(1) [para. 132].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 743.6 [para. 230]; sect. 753.1(2) [para. 80].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Federal/Provincial/Territorial Task Force on High-Risk Offenders, Report of (1995), pp. 17 [para. 65]; 18 [para. 67]; 19 [para. 66].

Counsel:

J. Hnidan, for the Crown;

D. Knisely, for the accused.

This matter was heard before Allen, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on January 26, 2004.