R. v. Howe

R. v. Howe

Judge held that objectionable factual material in PSRs must be disregarded; offender statements and counsel representations may include hearsay only if not disputed or proved per ss.723–724; extortion was the dominant predicate offence and, after weighing aggravating factors (including s.718.2(a)(iv)) and mitigation, imposed custodial sentences of 3 years (James), 2 years (Howe) and 18 months (Pearce) on predicate extortion then reallocated to avoid double counting by downsizing predicate sentences and adding consecutive s.467.12 terms resulting in final totals: James 3 years (2+1), Howe 2 years (1+1) plus probation, Pearce 18 months (0.5+1) plus probation; forfeiture of...

Citation
2018 NSSC 274
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Duayne Jamie Howe; Defendant: Patrick Michael James; Defendant: David John Pearce
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal (sentencing) / Sentencing Decision
Outcome
Sentences imposed after considering aggravating and mitigating factors, with consecutive criminal-organization terms added and forfeiture order granted.
Legal Topics
Extortion, Uttering Threats, Intimidation, Pre Sentence Reports Admissibility, Criminal Organization Offences (s.467.12), Consecutive Sentencing (s.467.14), Forfeiture of Offence Related Property, Parole Ineligibility
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Organized Crime Forfeiture Extortion Uttering Threats Intimidation Pre Sentence Reports Admissibility +4 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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Duayne Jamie Howe

Defendant

Patrick Michael James

Defendant

David John Pearce

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal (sentencing) / Sentencing Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are parts of the PSRs inadmissible and should be disregarded?
  2. 2 What is the proper ambit of ss.726 and 726.1 regarding offender statements and counsel submissions at sentencing?
  3. 3 What is the sentencing range for the predicate extortion offence for each offender?

Ratio Decidendi

Judge held that objectionable factual material in PSRs must be disregarded; offender statements and counsel representations may include hearsay only if not disputed or proved per ss.723–724; extortion was the dominant predicate offence and, after weighing aggravating factors (including s.718.2(a)(iv)) and mitigation, imposed custodial sentences of 3 years (James), 2 years (Howe) and 18 months (Pearce) on predicate extortion then reallocated to avoid double counting by downsizing predicate sentences and adding consecutive s.467.12 terms resulting in final totals: James 3 years (2+1), Howe 2 years (1+1) plus probation, Pearce 18 months (0.5+1) plus probation; forfeiture of...

Court Disposition

Sentences imposed after considering aggravating and mitigating factors, with consecutive criminal-organization terms added and forfeiture order granted.

Orders

  • Patrick Michael James: s.346 extortion reallocated to 2 years custody plus s.467.12 consecutive 1 year (total 3 years custody); DNA order s.487.051; firearms prohibition for 10 years post-release; victim fine surcharge $400; forfeiture of listed BMC/offence-related property.
  • Duayne Jamie Howe: s.346 extortion reallocated to 1 year custody plus s.467.12 consecutive 1 year (total 2 years custody) and three years probation with conditions including no association with named motorcycle clubs and ban on wearing/displaying related paraphernalia; DNA order; firearms prohibition for 10 years...