R. v. Gooderham

R. v. Gooderham

The court has jurisdiction under s.822(6) of the Criminal Code, supported by R. v. Comeau, to vary a custodial sentence to intermittent (weekend) service without finding the original sentence demonstrably unfit; on these facts (employment, employer confirmation, sentencing judge's prior indication re electronic monitoring and omission of intermittent service at sentencing), variation to weekend custody with concurrent probation conditions was appropriate.

Citation
2000 BCSC 984
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Shane Leonard Gooderham
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Sentencing
Outcome
Sentence varied to permit intermittent weekend custody; accused released from custody to serve remaining sentence on weekends and remain on probation when not serving intermittent custody.
Legal Topics
Fraud, Intermittent Sentence, Probation, Restitution, Sentence Variation, Appellate Jurisdiction
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Corrections Fraud Intermittent Sentence Probation Restitution Sentence Variation +1 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Shane Leonard Gooderham

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an appellate court has jurisdiction to vary the terms of a custodial sentence to allow intermittent (weekend) service absent a finding that the original sentence was demonstrably unfit
  2. 2 Whether the facts and mitigation (employment, mortgage obligations, employer support) justify varying the custodial sentence to intermittent service
  3. 3 Whether prior indication by the sentencing judge (e.g. approval of electronic monitoring) and the accused's self-representation and failure to raise intermittent sentence at sentencing affect the appropriateness of variation

Ratio Decidendi

The court has jurisdiction under s.822(6) of the Criminal Code, supported by R. v. Comeau, to vary a custodial sentence to intermittent (weekend) service without finding the original sentence demonstrably unfit; on these facts (employment, employer confirmation, sentencing judge's prior indication re electronic monitoring and omission of intermittent service at sentencing), variation to weekend custody with concurrent probation conditions was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Sentence varied to permit intermittent weekend custody; accused released from custody to serve remaining sentence on weekends and remain on probation when not serving intermittent custody.

Orders

  • Sentence varied to 90 days to be served intermittently
  • From Monday June 26, 2000, accused released from custody and ordered to attend each weekend from Friday 6:00 p.m. to Sunday 6:00 p.m. to serve out the balance of the sentence until the remaining time is served in full