R. v. Cromwell

R. v. Cromwell

After weighing aggravating factors (repetitive, planned, deliberate breaches over approximately three months, exhortations to obstruct and evidence of luring to a person under 18) against mitigation (youthful first offender, positive PSR, rehabilitation prospects and systemic considerations), the judge held imprisonment was necessary but must respect proportionality and totality; fixed 30 days as starting point per count then reduced by totality to 3 days per count served consecutively for a global sentence of 168 days, applied enhanced remand credit of 330 days and deemed the 168‑day sentence served, noted consideration of the April 30 call under s.725(1)(c) and recorded it on the...

Citation
2020 NSSC 14
Parties
Crown/prosecutor: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused/defendant: Dante Warnell Cromwell
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing Decision
Legal Topics
Breach of Undertaking/non Communication Order (s.145(3) Criminal Code), Consideration of Uncharged Offences at Sentencing (s.725(1)(c)), Remand Credit and Enhanced Credit (1.5:1), Totality Principle and Consecutive Vs Concurrent Sentences, Luring/communications With a Person Under 18 (s.172.1), Cultural Background/systemic Racism in Sentencing
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Evidence Youth Justice Sexual Offences Breach of Undertaking/non Communication Order (s.145(3) Criminal Code) Consideration of Uncharged Offences at Sentencing (s.725(1)(c)) Remand Credit and Enhanced Credit (1.5:1) +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown/prosecutor

Dante Warnell Cromwell

Accused/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is a fit sentence for 56 breaches of a non-communication order under s.145(3)?
  2. 2 Whether the court may consider the April 30, 2018 call as an uncharged offence under s.725(1)(c) and its impact on sentence
  3. 3 Whether sentences for multiple daily breaches should be concurrent or consecutive and application of totality

Ratio Decidendi

After weighing aggravating factors (repetitive, planned, deliberate breaches over approximately three months, exhortations to obstruct and evidence of luring to a person under 18) against mitigation (youthful first offender, positive PSR, rehabilitation prospects and systemic considerations), the judge held imprisonment was necessary but must respect proportionality and totality; fixed 30 days as starting point per count then reduced by totality to 3 days per count served consecutively for a global sentence of 168 days, applied enhanced remand credit of 330 days and deemed the 168‑day sentence served, noted consideration of the April 30 call under s.725(1)(c) and recorded it on the...