R. v. Brittain

R. v. Brittain

Applying the statutory sentencing principles and authorities, consecutive parole ineligibility totaling 40 years would be unduly long and harsh and not necessary to meet sentencing objectives; a fit and proportionate disposition is life sentences concurrent with parole ineligibility of 15 years for the second‑degree murder and 25 years for each first‑degree murder served concurrently, yielding earliest parole eligibility after 25 years.

Citation
2020 BCSC 1821
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: John Brittain
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing Hearing
Outcome
Accused pleaded guilty to four counts of murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment on each count; sentences to be served concurrently; parole ineligibility set at 15 years for the second‑degree murder and 25 years for each of the three first‑degree murders; concurrent operation results in earliest parole...
Legal Topics
Consecutive Versus Concurrent Parole Ineligibility, Life Imprisonment, Mandatory Minimum Parole Periods, Mitigating and Aggravating Factors, Victim Impact Statements, Ancillary Orders (dna, Weapons Ban, Forfeiture)
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Homicide Sentencing Parole Ineligibility Firearms Forfeiture Consecutive Versus Concurrent Parole Ineligibility Life Imprisonment Mandatory Minimum Parole Periods +3 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 10 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

John Brittain

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether periods of parole ineligibility for multiple murders should be ordered consecutive or concurrent under s.745.51 of the Criminal Code
  2. 2 What period(s) of parole ineligibility are fit and proportionate having regard to the offender's character, nature and circumstances of the offences, and sentencing objectives
  3. 3 Whether imposing consecutive parole ineligibility would amount to an impermissible de facto whole‑life sentence

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the statutory sentencing principles and authorities, consecutive parole ineligibility totaling 40 years would be unduly long and harsh and not necessary to meet sentencing objectives; a fit and proportionate disposition is life sentences concurrent with parole ineligibility of 15 years for the second‑degree murder and 25 years for each first‑degree murder served concurrently, yielding earliest parole eligibility after 25 years.

Court Disposition

Accused pleaded guilty to four counts of murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment on each count; sentences to be served concurrently; parole ineligibility set at 15 years for the second‑degree murder and 25 years for each of the three first‑degree murders; concurrent operation results in earliest parole...

Orders

  • Life imprisonment on Count 1 (second degree murder of Rudi Winter) with no eligibility for parole for 15 years
  • Life imprisonment on Count 2 (first degree murder of Barry Wonch) with no eligibility for parole for 25 years