R. v. Phinn

R. v. Phinn

Because the Crown failed to give s.727(1) notice, the statutory five year mandatory minimum for a subsequent s.95(1) conviction did not apply and the sentencing range was three to ten years; weighing aggravating factors (concealed loaded prohibited firearm, prior conviction and active prohibition/probation/recognizance breaches) against mitigating factors (youth, guilty plea, stated rehabilitation plans), a sentence above the minimum was warranted and three and a half years imprisonment was appropriate, with 2:1 remand credit, concurrent 30 days for breach, s.109(2) weapons prohibition order and forfeiture of the handgun.

Citation
2010 NSSC 99
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Jermane Tirando Phinn
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
Guilty pleas accepted; sentence imposed
Legal Topics
Possession of Prohibited Firearm, Breach of Recognizance, Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Section 727(1) Notice, Weapons Prohibition Order, Forfeiture
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Firearms Offences Possession of Prohibited Firearm Breach of Recognizance Mandatory Minimum Sentences Section 727(1) Notice Weapons Prohibition Order +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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Jermane Tirando Phinn

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Effect of Crown failure to give s.727(1) notice on applicable minimum sentence
  2. 2 Appropriate sentence within the applicable range given aggravating and mitigating factors
  3. 3 Whether weapons prohibition and forfeiture orders should be made

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Crown failed to give s.727(1) notice, the statutory five year mandatory minimum for a subsequent s.95(1) conviction did not apply and the sentencing range was three to ten years; weighing aggravating factors (concealed loaded prohibited firearm, prior conviction and active prohibition/probation/recognizance breaches) against mitigating factors (youth, guilty plea, stated rehabilitation plans), a sentence above the minimum was warranted and three and a half years imprisonment was appropriate, with 2:1 remand credit, concurrent 30 days for breach, s.109(2) weapons prohibition order and forfeiture of the handgun.

Court Disposition

Guilty pleas accepted; sentence imposed

Orders

  • Impose overall sentence of three and a half years imprisonment with credit for time served on remand at 2:1
  • Accused to serve remaining term of one and a half years from date of decision after remand credit applied