R. v. Eisener

R. v. Eisener

Balancing significant aggravating factors (commission while on statutory release, extensive and escalating criminal record, need for specific deterrence) against mitigating facts (brief confinement under one minute, no weapon, no physical injury, not a planned hijacking and mid-to-low moral blameworthiness), the appropriate individual sentences are 12 months for unlawful confinement and 60 days concurrent for resisting arrest; applying enhanced remand credit of 224 days (121 days remand credited at 1.5:1 plus accounting adjustments) yields 141 days remaining to be served; lifetime weapons prohibition ordered and victim surcharge declined due to undue hardship.

Citation
2023 NSPC 42
Parties
Prosecution: His Majesty the King; Defendant: Krishna Michael Eisener
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
Sentenced to 12 months imprisonment for unlawful confinement and 60 days concurrent for resisting or obstructing a peace officer; total custodial sentence before credit 365 days; enhanced remand credit 224 days applied; 141 days remaining to be served; lifetime weapons prohibitions imposed; no victim surcharge ordered.
Legal Topics
Unlawful Confinement, Resisting or Obstructing a Peace Officer, Sentencing Principles (proportionality, Totality), Enhanced Remand Credit (carvery), Section 109 Weapons Prohibition
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Parole and Release Remand Credit Weapons Prohibition Unlawful Confinement Resisting or Obstructing a Peace Officer Sentencing Principles (proportionality, Totality) +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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty the King

Prosecution

Krishna Michael Eisener

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is a fit sentence for unlawful confinement contrary to s.279(2) and resisting or obstructing a peace officer contrary to s.129(a) in the circumstances?
  2. 2 How should sentencing principles (proportionality, denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, restraint) be applied here?
  3. 3 Whether enhanced remand credit applies and how it is calculated under R. v. Carvery and s.719(3.1) of the Criminal Code

Ratio Decidendi

Balancing significant aggravating factors (commission while on statutory release, extensive and escalating criminal record, need for specific deterrence) against mitigating facts (brief confinement under one minute, no weapon, no physical injury, not a planned hijacking and mid-to-low moral blameworthiness), the appropriate individual sentences are 12 months for unlawful confinement and 60 days concurrent for resisting arrest; applying enhanced remand credit of 224 days (121 days remand credited at 1.5:1 plus accounting adjustments) yields 141 days remaining to be served; lifetime weapons prohibition ordered and victim surcharge declined due to undue hardship.

Court Disposition

Sentenced to 12 months imprisonment for unlawful confinement and 60 days concurrent for resisting or obstructing a peace officer; total custodial sentence before credit 365 days; enhanced remand credit 224 days applied; 141 days remaining to be served; lifetime weapons prohibitions imposed; no victim surcharge ordered.

Orders

  • Sentence: 12 months imprisonment on count of unlawful confinement (s.279(2))
  • Sentence: 60 days imprisonment on count of resisting or obstructing a peace officer (s.129(a)), to be served concurrently