R. v. Stanton

R. v. Stanton

There was insufficient factual nexus and insufficient correspondence of essential elements between robbery (count 9) and assault causing bodily harm (count 10) to justify a conditional stay under the Kienapple/Prince framework, so the accused should be convicted and sentenced on both counts; sentencing focused on denunciation and deterrence given organized violent drug-related conduct, yielding concurrent six-year terms on counts 6,7,9,10, together with mandatory victim surcharge, DNA order and lifetime firearms prohibition.

Citation
2006 BCSC 2116
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Norman Clay Stanton
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing / Oral Reasons for Sentence
Outcome
Accused convicted on counts 6, 7, 9 and 10; sentenced to concurrent six-year terms on each count; victim fine surcharge imposed; DNA sampling order made; lifetime firearms prohibition ordered.
Legal Topics
Robbery, Assault Causing Bodily Harm, Conspiracy, Double Jeopardy/kienapple Rule, Sentencing Principles, DNA Order, Firearm Prohibition, Victim Fine Surcharge
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Robbery Assault Causing Bodily Harm Conspiracy Double Jeopardy/kienapple Rule Sentencing Principles DNA Order +2 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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Norman Clay Stanton

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentencing / Oral Reasons for Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether counts 9 (robbery) and 10 (assault causing bodily harm) could both be proceeded with or whether one should be stayed under Kienapple/Prince principles
  2. 2 Appropriate sentence and the weight of denunciation and deterrence versus rehabilitation
  3. 3 Whether prior sentence of a co-accused or pretrial curfew should mitigate sentence

Ratio Decidendi

There was insufficient factual nexus and insufficient correspondence of essential elements between robbery (count 9) and assault causing bodily harm (count 10) to justify a conditional stay under the Kienapple/Prince framework, so the accused should be convicted and sentenced on both counts; sentencing focused on denunciation and deterrence given organized violent drug-related conduct, yielding concurrent six-year terms on counts 6,7,9,10, together with mandatory victim surcharge, DNA order and lifetime firearms prohibition.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted on counts 6, 7, 9 and 10; sentenced to concurrent six-year terms on each count; victim fine surcharge imposed; DNA sampling order made; lifetime firearms prohibition ordered.

Orders

  • Convicted on counts 6, 7, 9 and 10
  • Sentence: six years imprisonment on each of counts 6, 7, 9 and 10; all sentences to run concurrently; time to be served from date of sentence (dead time of three months considered and doubled)