R. v. Stocker

R. v. Stocker

Applying the particularized inquiry the appropriate sentence absent the mandatory minimum was four years; increasing to the statutory five-year minimum does not render the sentence grossly disproportionate given the significant deterrent and denunciatory objectives related to use of a restricted firearm in a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2017 BCSC 542
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Christopher Wayne Stocker
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Robbery Using a Restricted Firearm (s.344(1)(a)(i) Criminal Code) / Constitutional Challenge Under S.12 Charter and Sentencing Hearing
Outcome
Constitutional challenge dismissed; mandatory five-year minimum upheld.
Legal Topics
Mandatory Minimum Sentence, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (s.12), Robbery With Firearm, Particularized and Hypothetical Inquiries
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Sentencing Charter Law Mandatory Minimum Sentence Cruel and Unusual Punishment (s.12) Robbery With Firearm Particularized and Hypothetical Inquiries

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Christopher Wayne Stocker

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Robbery Using a Restricted Firearm (s.344(1)(a)(i) Criminal Code) / Constitutional Challenge Under S.12 Charter and Sentencing Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mandatory five-year minimum under s.344(1)(a)(i) Criminal Code constitutes cruel and unusual punishment contrary to s.12 of the Charter
  2. 2 What sentence would be appropriate in the absence of the mandatory minimum (particularized inquiry)

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the particularized inquiry the appropriate sentence absent the mandatory minimum was four years; increasing to the statutory five-year minimum does not render the sentence grossly disproportionate given the significant deterrent and denunciatory objectives related to use of a restricted firearm in a robbery, therefore the s.12 challenge is dismissed and the mandatory minimum remains applicable.

Court Disposition

Constitutional challenge dismissed; mandatory five-year minimum upheld.

Orders

  • Constitutional challenge under s.12 dismissed
  • Accused sentenced to the mandatory five years' imprisonment under s.344(1)(a)(i) Criminal Code less credit for time served