R. v. Ball

R. v. Ball

Applying established sentencing principles and authorities, the judge found a fit sentence for Count 3 (possession of a loaded restricted firearm) is three years; because that sentence is within the range that would be imposed absent the mandatory minimum, the constitutional challenge to s.95(2)(a) was rendered unnecessary and was not decided. Aggravating factors (discharging and concealing the loaded handgun, possession while subject to a lifetime firearms prohibition, concurrent cocaine possession, prior record) justified a high‑end sentence. The judge granted enhanced pre‑sentence custody credit (12.5 months) under s.719(3.1) as remand in protective custody was a distinct hardship,...

Citation
2013 BCSC 2372
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Andrew Tavis Ball
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
Accused found guilty on all counts; sentence on Count 3 fixed at 36 months but reduced to 23.5 months effective after enhanced remand credit of 12.5 months; Counts 2,4,5 conditionally stayed under Kienapple; Count 1 two months concurrent; Count 6 sixty days concurrent; Count 7 ninety days concurrent; 18 months...
Legal Topics
Mandatory Minimum Sentences, S.95 Criminal Code, S.12 Charter Cruel and Unusual Punishment, S.7 Charter Rights, Pre‑sentence Custody Credit (s.719), Kienapple Principle, Forfeiture Orders, Probation Conditions
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Charter Law Sentencing Firearms Law Drugs Offences Mandatory Minimum Sentences S.95 Criminal Code S.12 Charter Cruel and Unusual Punishment +5 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 7 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Andrew Tavis Ball

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.95(2)(a) three‑year mandatory minimum violates s.12 and s.7
  2. 2 Appropriate sentencing range for possession of a loaded restricted firearm (s.95(1))
  3. 3 Application of judicial restraint when constitutional issues are raised

Ratio Decidendi

Applying established sentencing principles and authorities, the judge found a fit sentence for Count 3 (possession of a loaded restricted firearm) is three years; because that sentence is within the range that would be imposed absent the mandatory minimum, the constitutional challenge to s.95(2)(a) was rendered unnecessary and was not decided. Aggravating factors (discharging and concealing the loaded handgun, possession while subject to a lifetime firearms prohibition, concurrent cocaine possession, prior record) justified a high‑end sentence. The judge granted enhanced pre‑sentence custody credit (12.5 months) under s.719(3.1) as remand in protective custody was a distinct hardship,...

Court Disposition

Accused found guilty on all counts; sentence on Count 3 fixed at 36 months but reduced to 23.5 months effective after enhanced remand credit of 12.5 months; Counts 2,4,5 conditionally stayed under Kienapple; Count 1 two months concurrent; Count 6 sixty days concurrent; Count 7 ninety days concurrent; 18 months...

Orders

  • Conviction entered on all seven counts
  • Counts 2, 4 and 5 conditionally stayed pursuant to Kienapple