R. v. Deyoung

R. v. Deyoung

For the purposes of this sentencing proceeding the one-year mandatory-minimum in para. 271(a) was found to infringe s.12 because it can capture reasonably foreseeable, less serious conduct and produce grossly disproportionate sentences; the infringement is not justified under s.1 because the provision does not minimally impair or protect against disproportionate applications (the Crown election/safety valve is insufficient); accordingly the mandatory minimum is of no force or effect in this proceeding and the court sentenced the accused without applying the mandatory minimum.

Citation
2016 NSPC 67
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Nickolis William Deyoung
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal — Sexual Assault (s.271 Criminal Code) / Sentencing Hearing With Constitutional Challenge to Mandatory Minimum (s.12 Charter)
Outcome
Mandatory one-year minimum in para. 271(a) declared of no force or effect for the purposes of this proceeding; accused pleaded guilty and was sentenced on the substantive offence without application of the mandatory minimum.
Legal Topics
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing, S.12 Cruel and Unusual Punishment, S.1 Oakes Justification, Age of Consent, Prosecutorial Election / Safety Valve, Sentencing Principles, Sex Offences
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Sentencing Charter Law Mandatory Minimum Sentencing S.12 Cruel and Unusual Punishment S.1 Oakes Justification Age of Consent +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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Nickolis William Deyoung

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal — Sexual Assault (s.271 Criminal Code) / Sentencing Hearing With Constitutional Challenge to Mandatory Minimum (s.12 Charter)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the one-year mandatory-minimum in para. 271(a) of the Criminal Code violates s.12 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether any s.12 infringement is saved under s.1 of the Charter
  3. 3 Whether prosecutorial election (hybrid offence/safety valve) cures constitutional defect

Ratio Decidendi

For the purposes of this sentencing proceeding the one-year mandatory-minimum in para. 271(a) was found to infringe s.12 because it can capture reasonably foreseeable, less serious conduct and produce grossly disproportionate sentences; the infringement is not justified under s.1 because the provision does not minimally impair or protect against disproportionate applications (the Crown election/safety valve is insufficient); accordingly the mandatory minimum is of no force or effect in this proceeding and the court sentenced the accused without applying the mandatory minimum.

Court Disposition

Mandatory one-year minimum in para. 271(a) declared of no force or effect for the purposes of this proceeding; accused pleaded guilty and was sentenced on the substantive offence without application of the mandatory minimum.

Orders

  • Custodial sentence: 12 months imprisonment
  • Probation: 24 months following release with appropriate conditions