R. v. E.R.D.R.

R. v. E.R.D.R.

The court concluded that, applying established sentencing principles and taking into account the offender's autism spectrum disorder as a mitigating factor (which reduces moral blameworthiness and increases difficulty of incarceration) but not accepting delay as a standalone mitigating factor, a 12‑month term of imprisonment followed by three years probation and ancillary orders was the fit and proportionate sentence in all the circumstances; the court had earlier found the mandatory minimum engaged s.12 and applied the Nur analysis and heard s.1 submissions before sentencing and tailored the sentence within the articulated range.

Citation
2016 BCSC 1758
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: E.R.D.R.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Assault / Sentencing
Outcome
Accused convicted (guilty plea) and sentenced to imprisonment and ancillary orders
Legal Topics
Sexual Assault, Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Charter S.12 Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Charter S.1 Justification / Oakes Test, Sentencing Principles (proportionality, Deterrence, Denunciation, Rehabilitation), Probation Conditions, Section 161 Prohibition Orders, Sex Offender Registration (soira), DNA Sample Order, Firearms Prohibition
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Sentencing Law Sexual Assault Mandatory Minimum Sentences Charter S.12 Cruel and Unusual Punishment Charter S.1 Justification / Oakes Test Sentencing Principles (proportionality, Deterrence, Denunciation, Rehabilitation) +5 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

E.R.D.R.

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Assault / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mandatory minimum one‑year sentence for sexual assault under s.271(a) breaches s.12 of the Charter
  2. 2 If a s.12 breach is found, whether the breach can be justified under s.1
  3. 3 Appropriate sentence for the offender having regard to s.718 et seq. and the offender's autism spectrum disorder and other mitigating factors

Ratio Decidendi

The court concluded that, applying established sentencing principles and taking into account the offender's autism spectrum disorder as a mitigating factor (which reduces moral blameworthiness and increases difficulty of incarceration) but not accepting delay as a standalone mitigating factor, a 12‑month term of imprisonment followed by three years probation and ancillary orders was the fit and proportionate sentence in all the circumstances; the court had earlier found the mandatory minimum engaged s.12 and applied the Nur analysis and heard s.1 submissions before sentencing and tailored the sentence within the articulated range.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted (guilty plea) and sentenced to imprisonment and ancillary orders

Orders

  • Imprisonment for 12 months
  • Probation for 3 years with standard s.732 conditions and additional conditions including reporting within 72 hours of release, residence approval, permitting entry to residence by peace/probation officers, disclosure of household occupants, participation in programming and counselling, notifying probation officer of...