R. v. James

R. v. James

Application dismissed because applicant failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances or credible medical evidence removing risk; his documented history of breaches, failure to complete sex-offender programming, continued denial of wrongdoing, probation services' opposition, and prior refusal by another judge justified maintaining the existing probation orders to protect the community and respect sentencing objectives.

Citation
2013 BCSC 1472
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: William Frederick James
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal — Variation Application / Application to Vary Probation Orders (hearing Before Trial Judge)
Outcome
Application dismissed; probation orders remain unchanged
Legal Topics
Probation Variation, Travel Restriction (passport), Breach of Probation, Child Pornography Offences
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Probation Probation Variation Travel Restriction (passport) Breach of Probation Child Pornography Offences

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

William Frederick James

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal — Variation Application / Application to Vary Probation Orders (hearing Before Trial Judge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the probation orders should be varied to permit possession of a passport and travel outside Canada
  2. 2 Whether the duration or reporting conditions of the probation orders should be reduced or suspended
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's medical condition and claimed lack of risk justify variation despite past breaches and lack of completion of sex-offender programming

Ratio Decidendi

Application dismissed because applicant failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances or credible medical evidence removing risk; his documented history of breaches, failure to complete sex-offender programming, continued denial of wrongdoing, probation services' opposition, and prior refusal by another judge justified maintaining the existing probation orders to protect the community and respect sentencing objectives.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; probation orders remain unchanged

Orders

  • Application dismissed; probation orders remain in place and unchanged