R. v. Watts (D.), [2016] A.R. TBEd. MY.027

• Judge: Wakeling, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: Tuesday 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.