R. v. Wheeler (D.G.), (2015) 375 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 157 (NLPC)

• Judge: Gorman, P.C.J.
• Court: Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 09, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2015), 375 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 157 (NLPC);2015 NLPC 1314

R. v. Wheeler (D.G.) (2015), 375 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 157 (NLPC);

    1167 A.P.R. 157

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. DE.027

Her Majesty the Queen v. David Gordon Wheeler

(2015 NLPC 1314A00493)

Indexed As: R. v. Wheeler (D.G.)

Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court

Gorman, P.C.J.

November 16, 2015.

Summary:

The accused pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, impaired driving, refusing to comply with a breathalyzer demand, operating a motor vehicle while prohibited, and breach of probation. The Crown proceeded by way of summary conviction in relation to all counts.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court sentenced the accused to a total of 22 months' imprisonment, reduced by 11 days for seven days of pre-sentence custody, one year's probation and a 10 year driving prohibition. The court also imposed a victim fine surcharge and a DNA order.

Criminal Law - Topic 5798

Punishments (sentence) - Prohibition orders - Respecting driving of motor vehicles - The 47 year old accused pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, impaired driving, refusing to comply with a breathalyzer demand, operating a motor vehicle while prohibited, and breach of probation - The Crown proceeded by way of summary conviction - The impaired accused, while prohibited from operating a motor vehicle and bound by a probation order, and after picking up a hitchhiker, struck an electrical pole and drove his vehicle into a house - The accused left the scene and subsequently failed to comply with a breathalyzer demand - His extensive related record included five convictions for drinking and driving offences and two convictions for operating a vehicle while prohibited from doing so - He was single and unemployed - He expressed remorse and a willingness to attend counselling - The Crown and the accused both recommended 16 months' imprisonment (not a joint submission) - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court stated that the accused's criminal record and current convictions illustrated that he constituted a significant danger to the public - Public protection required that he be separated from society for a considerable period - By pure chance, he had not caused the hitchhiker's death - The recommended sentence did not reflect that aggravating factor - Emphasizing deterrence and denunciation, the court determined that an appropriate sentence was 12 months' imprisonment for impaired driving, nine months for failing to provide breath samples, four months for leaving the accident scene, nine months for driving while prohibited and two months for breach of probation (all consecutive except for the impaired driving and refusal offences which were concurrent to each other) - Applying the totality principle, the court reduced the 27 month total sentence to 22 months - The court further reduced the sentence by 11 days for 7 days' pre-sentence custody - The court also imposed 12 months' probation, a 10 year driving prohibition, a victim fine surcharge and a DNA order.

Criminal Law - Topic 5804

Sentencing - General - Consecutive sentences - Reduced total term - Totality principle - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5798 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5823.2

Sentencing - Sentencing procedure and rights of the accused - Role of judge - At the accused's sentencing hearing, the Crown and the accused both recommended a total sentence of 16 months' imprisonment (not a joint submission) - The Crown stated that the 16 months was its "best offer" to facilitate resolving the matter - The accused asserted that he relied on that offer in pleading guilty - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court stated that there was nothing inherently wrong with counsel agreeing on what was an appropriate sentence - However, unlike a joint submission, the acceptance of such an offer by the accused did not bind the sentencing judge - It was unnecessary for the administration of justice to be brought into disrepute for a judge to impose a sentence different from the Crown's best offer - Also, unlike a joint submission, the accused was not bound by the Crown's best offer - He or she could seek a lower or different type of sentence - A sentencing judge had to always start with the proposition that sentencing was solely the judge's responsibility - The judge had to impose a sentence which accorded with the Criminal Code's sentencing principles - The Crown was not similarly bound when making a sentence recommendation - The judge had to provide reasons for any sentence imposed - Thus, public scrutiny was available - The Crown was not bound to provide public reasons for the basis of its best offer or generally for its sentencing recommendations - Therefor, if the judiciary adopted a totally deferential (or blind) adoption of counsels' sentencing recommendations, the sentencing process would become entirely free of public scrutiny - Although it was important that judges consider counsels' submissions, judicial consideration must not become judicial abdication - Finally, an accused in deciding to plead guilty might rely upon the Crown's undertaking to seek a certain sentence, but the decision to plead guilty was rarely one-dimensional in nature - See paragraphs 21 to 36.

Criminal Law - Topic 5833

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Deterrence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5798 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5834.1

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Seriousness of offence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5798 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5835

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Protection of the public - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5798 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5842

Sentencing - Consideration on imposing sentence - Previous criminal offences - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5798 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5848.7

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Denunciation or repudiation of conduct - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5798 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5849.7

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Representations of counsel - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5798 and Criminal Law - Topic 5823.3 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5849.13

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Drinking and driving offences - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5798 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5866

Sentence - Leaving scene of an accident - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5798 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5885

Sentence - Driving while disqualified or suspended - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5798 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5886

Sentence - Impaired driving - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5798 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5887

Sentence - Failure to provide a breath or blood sample - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5798 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5898

Sentence - Breach of probation - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5798 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Kang (M.) (2015), 465 Sask.R. 269; 649 W.A.C. 269 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Lundrigan (D.A.) (2012), 324 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 270; 1007 A.P.R. 270; 2012 NLCA 43, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Presgrave, [2014] Q.C.A. 105, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Squires (P.J.) (2012), 320 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 39; 993 A.P.R. 39 (N.L.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. O'Flaherty (A.E.) (1997), 155 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 150; 481 A.P.R. 150 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Cattral (R.D.) (2015), 335 O.A.C. 143; 2015 ONCA 315, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Lai (1988), 69 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 297; 211 A.P.R. 297 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Williams (D.), [2004] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. Uned. 103; 2004 NLCA 15, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Moreau (B.D.) (2007), 241 B.C.A.C. 231; 399 W.A.C. 231; 2007 BCCA 239, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Howe (P.L.) (2007), 330 N.B.R.(2d) 204; 845 A.P.R. 204; 2007 NBCA 84, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Polley (S.D.) (2013), 335 N.S.R.(2d) 98; 1060 A.P.R. 98; 2013 NSPC 95, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Nur (H.) (2015), 469 N.R. 1; 332 O.A.C. 208; 2015 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Gibson (R.J.) (2015), 593 A.R. 380; 637 W.A.C. 380; 2015 ABCA 41, refd to. [para. 35].

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Wiggins, [2015] I.E.C.A. 178, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Webber (C.G.), [2013] A.R. Uned. 125; 2013 ABCA 189, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Knott (D.W.) (2012), 433 N.R. 38; 324 B.C.A.C. 1; 551 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Klemenz (C.G.) et al. (2015), 465 Sask.R. 134; 649 W.A.C. 134; 2015 SKCA 89, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Cluney (N.) (2013), 338 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 57; 1049 A.P.R. 57; 2013 NLCA 46, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Briand (R.) et al. (2010), 302 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 67; 938 A.P.R. 67 (N.L.C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Oake (B.) (2010), 296 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 79; 915 A.P.R. 79 (N.L.C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Johnston (H.E.) (2011), 311 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 129; 967 A.P.R. 129 (N.L.C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Sivia v. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (B.C.) et al. (2015), 476 N.R. 3; 378 B.C.A.C. 1; 650 W.A.C. 1; 2015 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 46].

Goodwin v. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (B.C.) et al. - see Sivia v. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (B.C.) et al.

R. v. Pittman (K.) (2006), 258 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 357; 779 A.P.R. 357 (N.L.T.D.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Slaney, [2009] N.J. No. 327 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. White (R.) (2009), 292 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 128; 902 A.P.R. 128 (N.L.T.D.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Barry (M.) (2010), 296 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 136; 915 A.P.R. 136; 2010 NLTD 50, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Musseau (C.) (2010), 318 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 315; 989 A.P.R. 315 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Young (G.L.) (2012), 323 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 328; 1004 A.P.R. 328 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Griffin (J.) (2013), 337 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 137; 1047 A.P.R. 137 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Jacobs (M.) (2015), 360 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 333; 1118 A.P.R. 333 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Batt (M.T.) (2015), 361 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 170; 1122 A.P.R. 170 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. O'Connell (P.D.) (2015), 369 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 274; 1150 A.P.R. 274 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Edwards (E.M.) (2015), 361 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 1122 A.P.R. 1 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Strickland, [1997] N.J. No. 398 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. McCarthy (J.) (1997), 157 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 222; 486 A.P.R. 222 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Stevenson, [2003] N.J. No. 125 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Clarke (T.J.) (2004), 257 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 316; 776 A.P.R. 316; 2006 NLTD 72, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Brousseau (M.J.) (2006), 258 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 248; 779 A.P.R. 248 (N.L.T.D.), refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Smith (G.) (2011), 313 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 189; 974 A.P.R. 189 (N.L.T.D. (Gen.)), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. O'Keefe (L.) (2011), 316 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 349; 982 A.P.R. 349 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Conway (W.P.) (2014), 350 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 256; 1088 A.P.R. 256 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Young (B.M.) (2014), 362 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 218; 1125 A.P.R. 218 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Taylor (F.W.) (2015), 369 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 285; 1150 A.P.R. 285 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. Bighead (S.D.) (2013), 417 Sask.R. 47; 580 W.A.C. 47; 2013 SKCA 63, refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Slaney (R.H.) (2013), 344 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 144; 1068 A.P.R. 144; 2013 NLCA 70, refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Drake (O.F.) (2010), 297 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 225; 918 A.P.R. 225 (N.L.T.D.), refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Bell, [2011] N.J. No. 108 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. Moulton (D.J.) (2012), 331 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 66; 1027 A.P.R. 66 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Wheeler (R.) (2014), 350 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 352; 1088 A.P.R. 352 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 80].

R. v. Dwyer (J.R.) (2014), 359 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 90; 1117 A.P.R. 90 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Brake (C.I.) (2015), 372 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 172; 1158 A.P.R. 172 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Murphy (D.) (2011), 304 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 266; 944 A.P.R. 266 (N.L.C.A.), refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Hutchings (R.) (2012), 316 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 211; 982 A.P.R. 211; 2012 NLCA 2, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Best (C.A.T.) (2014), 355 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 82; 1106 A.P.R. 82 (N.L.T.D. (Gen.)), refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Thorne (S.R.) (2014), 356 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 201; 1108 A.P.R. 201 (N.L.T.D.(Gen.)), refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Young (G.T.) (2014), 357 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 40; 1109 A.P.R. 40 (N.L.T.D. (Gen.)), refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. Gough (C.) (2015), 373 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 314; 1161 A.P.R. 314; 2015 NLTD(G) 152, refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Head (C.D.), [2015] A.R. TBEd. NO.057; 2015 ABPC 230, refd to. [para. 94].

R. v. Rowe (D.) (2008), 273 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 38; 833 A.P.R. 38 (N.L.C.A.), refd to. [para. 100].

R. v. E.W. (2002), 216 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 89; 647 A.P.R. 89 (N.L.C.A.), refd to. [para. 100].

R. v. Crocker (B.J.) (1991), 93 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 222; 292 A.P.R. 222 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Lewis (D.E.) (2012), 318 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 64; 989 A.P.R. 64; 2012 NLCA 11, refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. De Souza (D.L.) (2011), 510 A.R. 228; 527 W.A.C. 228; 2011 ABCA 220, refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Johnsrud (J.T.) (2014), 588 A.R. 67; 626 W.A.C. 67; 2014 ABCA 395, refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Fournel, [2014] O.J. No. 1889 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Khawaja (M.M.), [2012] 3 S.C.R. 555; 437 N.R. 42; 301 O.A.C. 200; 2012 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Summers (S.), [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575; 456 N.R. 1; 316 O.A.C. 349, refd to. [para. 112].

Counsel:

A. Sparkes, Q.C., for Her Majesty the Queen;

S. MacKinnon, for Mr. Wheeler.

This sentencing was heard at Corner Brook, N.L., on November 9, 2015, by Gorman, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on November 16, 2015.