R. v. Hennessey

R. v. Hennessey

The court held that the earlier YCJA finding of guilt operates as a prior conviction for the purposes of s.255(4) of the Criminal Code and therefore triggers the mandatory-minimum 30-day imprisonment in s.255(1)(a)(ii), relying on the reasoning in R. v. Able and the operation of YCJA s.119(9)(a) which limits s.82(4).

Citation
2017 NSPC 29
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Brett Edward Hennessey
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Summary Conviction (refusal to Provide Breath Sample) / Sentencing
Outcome
Guilty plea accepted; court found prior YCJA finding constitutes a prior conviction for the purposes of s.255(4) and that the mandatory-minimum 30-day imprisonment in s.255(1)(a)(ii) applies.
Legal Topics
Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Youth Criminal Justice Act Record Effect, Definition of Prior Conviction, Refusal to Provide Breath Sample
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Youth Law Sentencing Statutory Interpretation Mandatory Minimum Sentences Youth Criminal Justice Act Record Effect Definition of Prior Conviction Refusal to Provide Breath Sample

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

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Brett Edward Hennessey

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Summary Conviction (refusal to Provide Breath Sample) / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a YCJA finding of guilt constitutes a prior conviction for triggering mandatory-minimum sentencing under s.255(4) and s.255(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether s.119(9)(a) of the YCJA renders s.82(4) inapplicable such that a youth record counts as a prior conviction
  3. 3 Whether R. v. Able is binding or persuasive on this issue

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the earlier YCJA finding of guilt operates as a prior conviction for the purposes of s.255(4) of the Criminal Code and therefore triggers the mandatory-minimum 30-day imprisonment in s.255(1)(a)(ii), relying on the reasoning in R. v. Able and the operation of YCJA s.119(9)(a) which limits s.82(4).

Court Disposition

Guilty plea accepted; court found prior YCJA finding constitutes a prior conviction for the purposes of s.255(4) and that the mandatory-minimum 30-day imprisonment in s.255(1)(a)(ii) applies.

Orders

  • Finding that the prior YCJA 26 June 2012 finding of guilt operates as a prior conviction for the purposes of s.255(4) and that the mandatory-minimum sentence under s.255(1)(a)(ii) applies to the current s.254(5) offence