R. v. Bentley

R. v. Bentley

The court found the s.725(1)(b.1) conditions were not met because there was no mutual consent to sentence the accused for the Chilliwack charges, the accused did not agree with the facts or expressly acknowledge commission of those specific offences, and the sentencing judge did not understand she was being asked to impose sentence for those charges; therefore s.725(2) does not bar further proceedings and the application is dismissed.

Citation
2021 BCSC 958
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Michael Shane Bentley
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal (possession for Purpose of Trafficking) / Sentencing and Application Re Invocation of S.725 Criminal Code
Outcome
Application dismissed; s.725(1)(b.1) not invoked; s.725(2) does not preclude further prosecution on Chilliwack charges
Legal Topics
Section 725 Criminal Code, Consent to Consider Outstanding Charges, Double Punishment/double Jeopardy, Bail Breach, Evidence at Sentencing
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Section 725 Criminal Code Consent to Consider Outstanding Charges Double Punishment/double Jeopardy Bail Breach Evidence at Sentencing

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Michael Shane Bentley

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (possession for Purpose of Trafficking) / Sentencing and Application Re Invocation of S.725 Criminal Code

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.725(1)(b.1) was validly invoked
  2. 2 Whether Crown and accused consented to sentencing for outstanding Chilliwack charges
  3. 3 Whether accused agreed with facts and acknowledged commission of the extraneous offences as required by s.725(1)(b.1)(iv)-(v)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the s.725(1)(b.1) conditions were not met because there was no mutual consent to sentence the accused for the Chilliwack charges, the accused did not agree with the facts or expressly acknowledge commission of those specific offences, and the sentencing judge did not understand she was being asked to impose sentence for those charges; therefore s.725(2) does not bar further proceedings and the application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; s.725(1)(b.1) not invoked; s.725(2) does not preclude further prosecution on Chilliwack charges

Orders

  • Application dismissed