R. v. Woods (L.), (2008) 310 Sask.R. 16 (CA)

• Judge: Jackson, Richards and Wilkinson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: April 01, 2008
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2008), 310 Sask.R. 16 (CA);2008 SKCA 40

R. v. Woods (L.) (2008), 310 Sask.R. 16 (CA);

      423 W.A.C. 16

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] Sask.R. TBEd. AP.001

Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Lawrence Woods (respondent)

(1204)

Lawrence Woods (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(1248; 2008 SKCA 40)

Indexed As: R. v. Woods (L.)

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Jackson, Richards and Wilkinson, JJ.A.

April 1, 2008.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of sexually assaulting a woman he lived with for several months. The trial judge imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day. The accused appealed his conviction. The Crown appealed the sentence.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal and allowed the sentence appeal. The court substituted a sentence of 22 months' imprisonment.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Courts - Topic 12

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - General principles - Refusal to grant leave to appeal - Effect of - The Crown appealed the imposition of a conditional sentence for sexual assault - The accused relied on a Provincial Court decision where an accused in similar circumstances was granted a conditional sentence and the Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated that "his position in this regard reflects a misunderstanding of the significance or meaning of a decision refusing leave to appeal. Leave can be denied for a variety of reasons completely unrelated to the merits of the decision in relation to which it is being sought. A refusal of leave to appeal should not be taken as indicating any view by the members of the court, one way or the other, about the merits of the decision in issue." - See paragraph 41.

Criminal Law - Topic 4868

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Failure to consider evidence - The accused was convicted of sexually assaulting a woman he lived with for several months - He appealed, submitting that the trial judge erred in failing to consider or appreciate all of the evidence, particularly an exculpatory warned statement that he gave to police - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - A trial judge's failure to refer to all of the relevant evidence in his reasons constituted an error of law only if it impaired the accused's right to a meaningful appeal, which it did not - Further, the accused repeatedly testified that he had no memory of what took place, so the trial judge was entitled to disregard exculpatory comments in the warned statement - If the accused repeatedly denied any memory of the event, how could he give a statement to police that what occurred was consensual and not a sexual assault - See paragraphs 14 to 23.

Criminal Law - Topic 5831.9

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Domestic violence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5932 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5932

Sentence - Sexual assault - The 44 year old accused sexually assaulted a woman he lived with for several months - The accused had forcible nonconsensual intercourse - The accused had a dated criminal record - The trial judge imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day - The Crown appealed, seeking the imposition of three years' imprisonment, which was the starting point sentence for a serious sexual assault - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that given the trial judge's fact findings, the court would not interfere with the finding that a sentence of under two years was appropriate - However, the trial judge erred in imposing a conditional sentence - This was a case of domestic abuse where denunciation and deterrence required incarceration - A conditional sentence was manifestly unfit - Contrary to the accused's assertions, a history of a conjugal relationship involving consensual sexual intercourse between the accused and victim was an aggravating factor, not one which diminished the seriousness of the offence - The court, noting that the accused had served three months of his conditional sentence, substituted a sentence of 22 months' imprisonment - See paragraphs 24 to 46.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50; 2002 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 17].

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, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61; 249 N.R. 201; 142 Man.R.(2d) 161; 212 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Jackson (D.H.) (1993), 116 Sask.R. 146; 59 W.A.C. 146; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 56 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Bird (S.D.) (1992), 105 Sask.R. 161; 32 W.A.C. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Cappo (T.) (1993), 116 Sask.R. 15; 59 W.A.C. 15 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. M.S. (2003), 232 Sask.R. 28; 294 W.A.C. 28; 173 C.C.C.(3d) 526; 2003 SKCA 33, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. M.J.H. (2004), 257 Sask.R. 1; 342 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SKCA 171, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Iron (L.J.) (2005), 269 Sask.R. 51; 357 W.A.C. 51; 2005 SKCA 84, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852; 108 N.R. 321; 67 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. R.A.R., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 163; 249 N.R. 322; 142 Man.R.(2d) 282; 212 W.A.C. 282; 2000 SCC 8, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. R.N.S., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 149; 249 N.R. 365; 132 B.C.A.C. 1; 215 W.A.C. 1; 2000 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. L.F.W., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 132; 249 N.R. 345; 185 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 562 A.P.R. 1; 2000 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Edmondson (D.T.) (2005), 257 Sask.R. 270; 342 W.A.C. 270; 196 C.C.C.(3d) 164; 2005 SKCA 51, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. B.G.R. (2004), 241 Sask.R. 114; 313 W.A.C. 114; 2004 SKCA 8, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. J.R.E. (2005), 273 Sask.R. 316; 2005 SKPC 114, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Hamm (A.P.), [1997] Sask.R. Uned. 110; 1997 SKCA 43, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Creber (J.H.) (1997), 158 Sask.R. 265; 153 W.A.C. 265 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Des Champs v. Conseil des écoles séparées catholiques de langue française de Prescott-Russell et al., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 281; 245 N.R. 201; 125 O.A.C. 279, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. H.K.C. (1997), 158 Sask.R. 157; 153 W.A.C. 157 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Weekusk, 1995 SKCA (SentDig) 36, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Unger, 2008 SKCA 5, refd to. [para. 43].

Counsel:

W. Dean Sinclair, for the Crown;

Craig D. Neely, for Lawrence Woods.

These appeals were heard on January 14, 2008, before Jackson, Richards and Wilkinson, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

On April 1, 2008, Richards, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.