R. v. Watts (D.), [2016] A.R. TBEd. MY.027
| Judge | Wakeling, J.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Alberta) |
| Case Date | April 19, 2016 |
| Citations | [2016] A.R. TBEd. MY.027;2016 ABCA 139 |
R. v. Watts (D.), [2016] A.R. TBEd. MY.027
MLB being edited
Currently being edited for A.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.
Temp. Cite: [2016] A.R. TBEd. MY.027
Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. David Watts (appellant)
(1603-0077-A; 2016 ABCA 139)
Indexed As: R. v. Watts (D.)
Alberta Court of Appeal
Wakeling, J.A.
May 6, 2016.
Summary:
The accused pleaded guilty to distributing child pornography and possessing child pornography. He was sentenced to the mandatory minimum sentences of 12 months' imprisonment for distribution and six months' imprisonment for possession, to be served concurrently. The accused appealed against sentence, challenging the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentences. He applied under s. 679(4) of the Criminal Code for bail pending the hearing of his appeal.
The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Wakeling, J.A., dismissed the application. The appeal lacked sufficient merit and the accused failed to establish that his continued detention was not necessary in the public interest.
Criminal Law - Topic 3304
Compelling appearance, detention and release - Interim release or detention of accused pending trial or appeal - Detention necessary in the public interest - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3310.1 ].
Criminal Law - Topic 3310.1
Compelling appearance, detention and release - Interim release or detention of accused pending trial or appeal - Release pending sentence appeal - The 38 year old aboriginal accused pleaded guilty to distributing child pornography and possessing child pornography - There were 318 child pornography images and 99 videos on his computer and phone - He was sentenced to the mandatory minimum sentences of 12 months' imprisonment for distribution and six months' imprisonment for possession, to be served concurrently- The trial judge stated that the sentence would have been the same but for the mandatory statutory minimum - The accused appealed against sentence, challenging the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentences - He applied under s. 679(4) of the Criminal Code for bail pending the hearing of his appeal - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Wakeling, J.A., dismissed the application - The court stated that "the merit-based component for s. 679(4)(a) and (c) is the same. ... an applicant who is not a flight risk under s. 679(4)(b) or a threat to the safety of the community under s. 679(4)(c) is entitled to bail if his or her appeal has a moderate chance of success" - The appeal lacked sufficient merit and the accused failed to establish that his continued detention was not necessary in the public interest - The likelihood that the sentence imposed (which was within the acceptable range) was demonstrably unfit was not high enough to meet the merit-based component of ss. 679(4)(a) and (c).
Counsel:
C.A. Schlecker, for the respondent;
K.A. Quinlan, for the applicant.
This application was heard on April 19, 2016, before Wakeling, J.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal, who delivered the following judgment on May 6, 2016.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Table of Cases
...320–21 R v Warsing, [1998] 3 SCR 579 .......................................................................... 170 R v Watts, 2016 ABCA 139 .......................................................................... 187–88 R v WDR, 2004 ABQB 545 ...................................................
-
R. v. Fuhr,, 2017 ABCA 266
...on some ground rational enough, to evoke the possibility that the appeal may be allowed”).[16] 2017 SCC 17, ¶20. See The Queen v. Watts, 2016 ABCA 139, ¶46; [2016] 9 W.W.R. 631, 651 (chambers)(“There is no lower [merit-based] standard ... than ‘not frivolous’”); The Queen v. Jensen, 2014 AB......
-
R v Manuel,
...Moldaver, J. (“the ‘not frivolous’ test is widely recognized as being a very low bar”); The Queen v. Watts, 2016 ABCA 139, ¶ 46; [2016] 9 W.W.R. 631, 651 (chambers) per Wakeling, J.A. (“There is no lower [merit-based] standard [than ‘not frivol......
-
R v Smith, 2017 SKCA 81
...overlap between satisfying the merit and hardship requirement and determining whether release is in the public interest: R v Watts, 2016 ABCA 139 at para 73; Trotter, s. 10.3(b)(iv). Having regard for the number and seriousness of the offences, involving as they do, guns, the offering for s......
-
R. v. Fuhr,, 2017 ABCA 266
...on some ground rational enough, to evoke the possibility that the appeal may be allowed”).[16] 2017 SCC 17, ¶20. See The Queen v. Watts, 2016 ABCA 139, ¶46; [2016] 9 W.W.R. 631, 651 (chambers)(“There is no lower [merit-based] standard ... than ‘not frivolous’”); The Queen v. Jensen, 2014 AB......
-
R v Manuel,
...Moldaver, J. (“the ‘not frivolous’ test is widely recognized as being a very low bar”); The Queen v. Watts, 2016 ABCA 139, ¶ 46; [2016] 9 W.W.R. 631, 651 (chambers) per Wakeling, J.A. (“There is no lower [merit-based] standard [than ‘not frivol......
-
R v Smith, 2017 SKCA 81
...overlap between satisfying the merit and hardship requirement and determining whether release is in the public interest: R v Watts, 2016 ABCA 139 at para 73; Trotter, s. 10.3(b)(iv). Having regard for the number and seriousness of the offences, involving as they do, guns, the offering for s......
-
R v Wowk, 2020 ABCA 34
...the sentence is relatively short and the sentence appeal will probably be heard after the sentence of imprisonment is served: R v Watts, 2016 ABCA 139 at para 29. [28] Counsel confirmed that if the appeal is not granted, Ms. Wowk will likely be released after serving two thirds of her sente......
-
Table of Cases
...320–21 R v Warsing, [1998] 3 SCR 579 .......................................................................... 170 R v Watts, 2016 ABCA 139 .......................................................................... 187–88 R v WDR, 2004 ABQB 545 ...................................................
-
Release Pending Determination of Appeal
...appeal, the offender is not contesting the lawfulness of the conviction, and so cannot argue that they are not a criminal: R v Watts , 2016 ABCA 139. Watts also suggests that in practical terms most bail applications on appeal will relate to relatively short sentences. Where a lengthy priso......