R. v. Jones

R. v. Jones

Although the accused demonstrably needs curative treatment for severe alcohol use disorder, the court refused a second curative discharge because the Crown-established public interest concerns outweighed the relief: the accused's chronicity of alcoholism, multiple prior alcohol-related driving convictions including one causing bodily harm, history of relapse after prior discharge, insufficient demonstrated motivation and inadequate current treatment structure meant the probability of successful rehabilitation under a discharge was not established; therefore discharge was dismissed and custodial sentence subject to statutory minimum applies.

Citation
2015 NSPC 87
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Kevin Douglas Jones
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving / Decision on Curative Discharge Application; Sentencing Adjourned
Outcome
Application for curative discharge dismissed; sentencing adjourned for written submissions; statutory minimum custody of 120 days applicable
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving (s.253(1)(a)), Curative Discharge (s.255(5)), Probation Conditions, Expert Opinion Evidence (mohan), Recidivism and Public Interest
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Evidence Addiction Treatment in Sentencing Impaired Driving (s.253(1)(a)) Curative Discharge (s.255(5)) Probation Conditions Expert Opinion Evidence (mohan) +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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Kevin Douglas Jones

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving / Decision on Curative Discharge Application; Sentencing Adjourned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused is in need of curative treatment for alcohol and qualifies for a curative discharge under s.255(5) of the Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether granting a curative discharge would be contrary to the public interest (Ashberry factors)
  3. 3 Appropriate sentencing if discharge is denied including minimum custody under s.255(1)

Ratio Decidendi

Although the accused demonstrably needs curative treatment for severe alcohol use disorder, the court refused a second curative discharge because the Crown-established public interest concerns outweighed the relief: the accused's chronicity of alcoholism, multiple prior alcohol-related driving convictions including one causing bodily harm, history of relapse after prior discharge, insufficient demonstrated motivation and inadequate current treatment structure meant the probability of successful rehabilitation under a discharge was not established; therefore discharge was dismissed and custodial sentence subject to statutory minimum applies.

Court Disposition

Application for curative discharge dismissed; sentencing adjourned for written submissions; statutory minimum custody of 120 days applicable

Orders

  • Application for curative discharge dismissed
  • Crown to file written submissions on sentence within 30 days