Regina v. Taylor

Regina v. Taylor

The joint submission for a two year less one day global sentence was rejected because it failed to reflect the gravity of the offence, the accused's high blood alcohol, prior recent impaired-driving charge, and his flight from the scene; the failure to stop is a distinct event warranting a consecutive sentence; a global sentence of four years (three and one-half years for impaired driving causing death plus a consecutive six months for failing to stop) and an eight year driving prohibition was appropriate to satisfy denunciation, deterrence, separation and totality with consideration of, but not subordination to, rehabilitation.

Citation
2000 BCSC 734
Parties
Crown: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN; Accused: SCOTT CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
Accused convicted on counts admitted; sentenced to a global term of four years imprisonment composed of 3.5 years for impaired driving causing death and a consecutive 6 months for failing to stop; concurrent two year term for impaired driving causing bodily harm; eight year driving prohibition; stay entered on...
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving Causing Death, Impaired Driving Causing Bodily Harm, Failing to Stop at Scene of an Accident, Sentencing Principles, Rehabilitation Vs Deterrence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Motor Vehicle Offences Impaired Driving Causing Death Impaired Driving Causing Bodily Harm Failing to Stop at Scene of an Accident Sentencing Principles Rehabilitation Vs Deterrence

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Crown

SCOTT CHRISTOPHER TAYLOR

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate sentence for impaired driving causing death?
  2. 2 Whether the joint submission for a two year less one day custodial sentence plus probation and recommended treatment was appropriate
  3. 3 Whether the offence of failing to stop should be sentenced concurrently or consecutively

Ratio Decidendi

The joint submission for a two year less one day global sentence was rejected because it failed to reflect the gravity of the offence, the accused's high blood alcohol, prior recent impaired-driving charge, and his flight from the scene; the failure to stop is a distinct event warranting a consecutive sentence; a global sentence of four years (three and one-half years for impaired driving causing death plus a consecutive six months for failing to stop) and an eight year driving prohibition was appropriate to satisfy denunciation, deterrence, separation and totality with consideration of, but not subordination to, rehabilitation.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted on counts admitted; sentenced to a global term of four years imprisonment composed of 3.5 years for impaired driving causing death and a consecutive 6 months for failing to stop; concurrent two year term for impaired driving causing bodily harm; eight year driving prohibition; stay entered on...

Orders

  • Imprisonment: 3.5 years on count 1 (impaired driving causing death)
  • Imprisonment: 2 years on count 2 (impaired driving causing bodily harm) concurrent to count 1