R. v. Shapitka

R. v. Shapitka

The court held the fit sentence for the robbery must be determined independently and cannot be reduced to accommodate the mandatory minimum under s.85; the mandatory consecutive minimum for using an imitation firearm must then be added. Consequently Vedrine was sentenced to 2 years on robbery plus 3 years consecutive on the s.85 count; Hamilton to 2 years on robbery plus 1 year consecutive; pre-trial custody credits and ancillary orders were applied as set out in the reasons.

Citation
2014 BCSC 1811
Parties
Prosecution: Regina (Crown); Accused: Brittany Candis Morgan Shapitka; Accused: Liam Alexander Hamilton; Accused: Kerry Rene Vedrine
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal (robbery and Use of Imitation Firearm) / Sentencing (oral Reasons for Sentence)
Outcome
Accused convicted (pleaded guilty) and sentenced; joint submissions considered but court imposed fit robbery sentences plus mandatory s.85 consecutive minima
Legal Topics
Robbery, Use of Imitation Firearm (s.85 Criminal Code), Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Totality Principle, Joint Submissions
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Statutory Mandatory Minimums Robbery Use of Imitation Firearm (s.85 Criminal Code) Mandatory Minimum Sentences Totality Principle Joint Submissions

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina (Crown)

Prosecution

Brittany Candis Morgan Shapitka

Accused

Liam Alexander Hamilton

Accused

Kerry Rene Vedrine

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (robbery and Use of Imitation Firearm) / Sentencing (oral Reasons for Sentence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the totality principle permits reduction of the sentence for the underlying robbery to accommodate the mandatory minimum for using an imitation firearm under s.85
  2. 2 Whether the joint submission should be accepted by the court
  3. 3 Appropriate fit sentence for robbery in these facts

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the fit sentence for the robbery must be determined independently and cannot be reduced to accommodate the mandatory minimum under s.85; the mandatory consecutive minimum for using an imitation firearm must then be added. Consequently Vedrine was sentenced to 2 years on robbery plus 3 years consecutive on the s.85 count; Hamilton to 2 years on robbery plus 1 year consecutive; pre-trial custody credits and ancillary orders were applied as set out in the reasons.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted (pleaded guilty) and sentenced; joint submissions considered but court imposed fit robbery sentences plus mandatory s.85 consecutive minima

Orders

  • Kerry Rene Vedrine: Count 1 (robbery) – 2 years imprisonment; Count 2 (use of imitation firearm) – 3 years imprisonment, consecutive (total 5 years)
  • Liam Alexander Hamilton: Count 1 (robbery) – 2 years imprisonment; Count 2 (use of imitation firearm) – 1 year imprisonment, consecutive (total 3 years)