R. v. Edwards
The trial judge erred by failing to grant enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody where appropriate: credit must be given for the 86-day revocation period and two-for-one credit applied to the first 30-day remand period where the only reason to deny it was a withdrawn breach charge; accordingly the appeal is...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2011 ONCA 798
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty The Queen; Appellant: Paul King Edwards
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 16 December 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence (court of Appeal for Ontario)
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentence reduced by 202 days.
- Legal Topics
- Pre Sentence Custody Credit, Two for One Credit, Recognizance Breach, Sentence Reduction
- 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
Paul King Edwards
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence (court of Appeal for Ontario)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in failing to give credit for pre-sentence custody (86 days)
- 2 Whether two-for-one credit should have been applied to a 30-day remand period where the breach of recognizance charge was withdrawn
- 3 Whether one-for-one credit should apply to all pre-sentence custody because the post-credit sentence was fit
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge erred by failing to grant enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody where appropriate: credit must be given for the 86-day revocation period and two-for-one credit applied to the first 30-day remand period where the only reason to deny it was a withdrawn breach charge; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the sentence reduced by 202 days.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; sentence reduced by 202 days.
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted
- Appeal allowed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Edwards Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2011-12-16 Neutral citation 2011 ONCA 798 Docket numbers C53924 Judges Simmons, Janet M.; Blair, Robert Ashley; Hoy, Alexandra Subject Criminal Decision Content CITATION: R. v. Edwards, 2011 ONCA 798 DATE: 20111216 DOCKET: C53924 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Simmons, Blair and Hoy JJ.A. BETWEEN Her MajestyThe Queen Respondent and Paul King Edwards Appellant Breese Davies, duty counsel Paul Edwards, in person Scott Latimer, for the respondent Heard and released orally: December 13, 2011 On appeal from conviction entered by Justice W. Salmers of the Superior Court of Justice dated March 16, 2011 and sentence imposed on May 2, 2011. ENDORSEMENT [1] The Crown concedes that the trial judge erred in failing to give credit for pre-sentence custody during the period October 12, 2010 to January 6, 2011 (86 days). In fairness to the trial judge, he was not aware that the appellant’s bail had been revoked on this charge during this period. [2] The trial judge gave the appellant one-for-one credit for two other periods of pre-sentence custody that total 60 days. The only reason the trial judge gave for departing from the usual practice of giving two-for-one credit was the fact that the appellant had been charged with breach of recognizance. However, that charge was withdrawn. The trial judge therefore erred in failing to give two-for-one credit for the first of these periods (30 days). The accused only asked for one-for-one credit for the second of these periods (30 days). The trial judge did not therefore err in giving one-for-one credit for that period. [3] On appeal, the Crown argues that one-for-one credit should apply to the entire period of pre-sentence custody because the sentence the trial judge arrived at after giving credit for pre-sentence custody was otherwise fit. We reject this submission. The sentence the trial judge had decided to impose before giving credit for pre-sentence custody was a fit sentence. In our view, the appellant is entitled to appropriate credit for his pre-sentence custody. [4] Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted, the appeal is allowed and the sentence is reduced by 202 days. [5] The appellant abandoned his conviction appeal on November 15, 2011. Signed: “Janet Simmons J.A.” “R. A. Blair J.A.” “ Alexandra Hoy J.A.”