R. v. B.P.

R. v. B.P.

Portions of the four victim impact statements were inadmissible because they contained factual assertions beyond the offence, direct addresses to the offender, criticisms of character, sentence recommendations and expressions of vengeance; the VBRA does not alter these foundational limits; inadmissible content must be excised or redrafted prior to being presented at sentencing and the Crown has responsibility to vet victim impact statements.

Citation
2015 NSPC 34
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused (young Person): B.P.
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Youth Criminal Sentencing (second Degree Murder) / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Victim Impact Statements; Sentencing Adjourned to June 24, 2015
Outcome
Judge found portions of four victim impact statements inadmissible and ordered excision/redaction of inadmissible content prior to sentencing.
Legal Topics
Victim Impact Statements, Admissibility of Evidence, Vengeance and Sentencing, Victims Bill of Rights Act (vbra), YCJA Interpretation, IRCS Sentencing
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Youth Criminal Justice Victim Rights Sentencing Victim Impact Statements Admissibility of Evidence Vengeance and Sentencing Victims Bill of Rights Act (vbra) +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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

B.P.

Accused (young Person)

Procedural Posture

Youth Criminal Sentencing (second Degree Murder) / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Victim Impact Statements; Sentencing Adjourned to June 24, 2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether portions of four victim impact statements are admissible at a youth sentencing hearing
  2. 2 Whether expressions directed to the offender, criticisms of character, factual assertions, recommendations on sentence, or expressions of vengeance are permissible in victim impact statements
  3. 3 Whether the not-yet-in-force Victims Bill of Rights Act alters existing admissibility principles

Ratio Decidendi

Portions of the four victim impact statements were inadmissible because they contained factual assertions beyond the offence, direct addresses to the offender, criticisms of character, sentence recommendations and expressions of vengeance; the VBRA does not alter these foundational limits; inadmissible content must be excised or redrafted prior to being presented at sentencing and the Crown has responsibility to vet victim impact statements.

Court Disposition

Judge found portions of four victim impact statements inadmissible and ordered excision/redaction of inadmissible content prior to sentencing.

Orders

  • Victim Impact Statement #4: identified factual references on pages 1, 3, 4 and 5 to be removed/highlighted for excision
  • All inadmissible content (factual assertions unrelated to the admitted offence; direct communications to the offender; criticisms of character; sentence recommendations; expressions of vengeance) must be redacted or redrafted before presentation at the June 24, 2015 sentencing hearing