R. v. Lawrence
The trial judge erred by overemphasizing denunciation and general deterrence, failing to apply restraint for a first custodial sentence and failing to undertake any Gladue analysis; accordingly the Court allowed the appeal and substituted a sentence of time served plus 15 months probation and affirmed a 10 year...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C43169
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Applicant/appellant: Alexander Lawrence
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 3 June 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Sentence Appeal From Ontario Court of Justice to Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; sentence varied
- Legal Topics
- Sentencing Principles, Gladue Analysis, Denunciation, General Deterrence, Specific Deterrence, Probation, Firearms Prohibition
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Alexander Lawrence
Applicant/appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Sentence Appeal From Ontario Court of Justice to Court of Appeal for Ontario
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge overemphasized denunciation and general deterrence at the expense of specific deterrence and rehabilitation
- 2 Whether the trial judge failed to exercise restraint in imposing a first custodial sentence
- 3 Whether the trial judge failed to consider the offender's aboriginal status and apply Gladue principles
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge erred by overemphasizing denunciation and general deterrence, failing to apply restraint for a first custodial sentence and failing to undertake any Gladue analysis; accordingly the Court allowed the appeal and substituted a sentence of time served plus 15 months probation and affirmed a 10 year firearms prohibition.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; sentence varied
Orders
- Original 18 month custodial sentence set aside and replaced with time served
- Probation for 15 months imposed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Lawrence Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2005-06-03 Docket numbers C43169 Judges MacPherson, James C.; Armstrong, Robert Patrick; Lang, Susan Elizabeth Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20050603 DOCKET: C43169 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – ALEXANDER LAWRENCE (Applicant/Appellant) BEFORE: MACPEHRSON, ARMSTRONG and LANG JJ.A. COUNSEL: Melvyn Green for the appellant Amy Alyea for the respondent HEARD & ENDORSED: May 31, 2005 On appeal from the sentence imposed on January 10, 2005 by Justice Leonard T. Montgomery of the Ontario Court of Justice. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The trial judge sentenced the appellant to 18 months in custody and 15 months probation for the offence of robbery. [2] The appellant contends that the trial judge made three errors. [3] First, the appellant contends that the trial judge overemphasized the principles of general deference and denunciation. We agree. In many cases, especially R. v. Priest, (1996), 110 C.C.C. (3d) 289 (C.A.), this court has emphasized the paramountcy of specific deference and rehabilitation in sentencing youthful, first offenders. The trial judge virtually ignored these principles in a case which cried out for a careful analysis of these factors. [4] The appellant submits that the trial judge ignored the principle of restraint in imposing a first custodial sentence. We agree. The 18 month sentence for this offender was much too high. [5] The appellant submits that the trial judge ignored the appellant’s aboriginal status. We agree. He did not engage in even a hint of the analysis required by R. v. Gladue (1999), 133 C.C.C. (3d) 385 (S.C.C.). [6] The appeal is allowed. In light of the fresh evidence, which the Crown concedes is properly admitted, which demonstrates genuine educational and occupational opportunities for the appellant, an appropriate sentence is time served, plus probation for 15 months. [7] The Crown concedes that the prohibition order relating to firearms should be for a period of 10 years. This is what the trial judge’s reasons provide for; unfortunately, he checked the wrong box on the formal order.