R. v. Bingley
- Citation
- 2020 BCSC 1118
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 2 July 2020
- Posture
- Criminal Sentencing / Sentencing (oral Reasons)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 2 July 2020
- Posture
- Criminal Sentencing / Sentencing (oral Reasons)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Judge found reasonable doubt that Bingley was a knowing co‑principal from the outset and that his moral culpability was reduced by lack of planning and deliberation; found he became aware or ought to have after the assault; applied home invasion aggravator but not the highest range of cases; imposed concurrent five‑year terms on robbery and unlawful entry reduced by pre‑trial credit to an effective concurrent sentence of three years and 269 days; assault and weapons counts set to time served; ordered DNA, lifetime weapons prohibition and no contact with the complainant during sentence.
Court disposition
Sentence imposed following jury conviction: concurrent custodial term on robbery and unlawful entry reduced to effective term by credit; assault and weapons counts set to time served; ancillary orders made.
Orders
- Concurrent custodial sentence for unlawfully being in a dwelling house (s.349(1)) and robbery (s.343) of three years and 269 days (effective after credit)
- Assault (s.266) and possession of a weapon (s.88(1)) recorded as time served
- Provide DNA sample pursuant to s.487.051(1)
- Lifetime weapons prohibition pursuant to s.109 Criminal Code
- No contact order with complainant A.B. during period of imprisonment
02
Material facts
Parties
Regina
Crown Counsel: P. Donnachie; L. Baskerville (agent on July 2, 2020)Bryden Jim Bingley
Accused Counsel: D. MacLeodShane George Wilson
Co AccusedMr. Alvarez
Co AccusedAmounts and remedies
- Sentence Before Credit (robbery & Unlawful Entry): years 5
- Effective Sentence After Credit (robbery & Unlawful Entry): years 3.737
- Pre Trial Custody (dead Time): days 307
- Enhanced Credit (1.5:1): days 461
- Assault Sentence Before Credit: months 8
- Weapons Sentence Before Credit: years 1
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Sentencing / Sentencing (oral Reasons)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Proper characterization of accused's role (co‑principal vs aider/abettor) and resulting moral culpability
- 02
Appropriate range of sentence for robbery and unlawful entry occurring in an occupied dwelling
- 03
Application of home invasion aggravating circumstance (s.348.1)
- 04
Weight to be given to co‑accused's guilty plea for parity
- 05
Calculation and application of pre‑trial custody credit (1.5:1)
- 06
Standard of proof in sentencing for aggravating facts (s.724)
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Crown submitted Bingley was a co‑principal who went to the apartment intending to participate in a robbery; sought concurrent custodial sentences of six to seven years on the most serious offences and one year concurrent on assault and weapons counts; relied on planning, association with co‑accused, weapons and threats as aggravating factors.
- Respondent
- Defence submitted Bingley initially attended innocently, misled by co‑accused; his moral culpability is substantially lessened; proposed a fit sentence before credit of 18 to 36 months, no more than 42 months.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal Code s.718
Fundamental purposes of sentencing: denunciation, deterrence, separation, rehabilitation, reparation, responsibility
- 02
Criminal Code s.718.1
Sentence must be proportionate to gravity of offence and degree of responsibility
- 03
Criminal Code s.718.2
Recognition of aggravating and mitigating factors and parity with similar offenders
- 04
Criminal Code s.348.1; R. v. Chudley, 2016 BCCA 90
Home invasion in occupied dwelling is an aggravating circumstance where offender knew or was reckless as to occupancy and used violence or threats
- 05
Criminal Code s.724
In sentencing after a jury verdict the court must accept facts essential to the verdict, may find other facts on balance of probabilities, but aggravating facts require proof beyond a reasonable doubt
- 06
R. v. R.M., 2019 BCCA 409
Guilty plea may mitigate sentence but its weight depends on circumstances including whether it saved resources or spared victim from testifying
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Judge found reasonable doubt that Bingley was a knowing co‑principal from the outset and that his moral culpability was reduced by lack of planning and deliberation; found he became aware or ought to have after the assault; applied home invasion aggravator but not the highest range of cases; imposed concurrent five‑year terms on robbery and unlawful entry reduced by pre‑trial credit to an effective concurrent sentence of three years and 269 days; assault and weapons counts set to time served; ordered DNA, lifetime weapons prohibition and no contact with the complainant during sentence.
Obiter and limits
- Term 'home invasion' is a descriptive catchphrase not a distinct offence
- Weight to be given to a co‑accused guilty plea may be limited where the plea did not materially spare the victim or save resources
- Harsh bail conditions argument rejected as mandatory treatment program was not viewed as a harsh condition
- Comparison with co‑accused Alvarez's greater culpability and guilty plea discussed but sentencing parity is not mathematical
- Judge noted defendant's post‑offence steps toward rehabilitation and commended his written address
Court disposition
Sentence imposed following jury conviction: concurrent custodial term on robbery and unlawful entry reduced to effective term by credit; assault and weapons counts set to time served; ancillary orders made.
- Concurrent custodial sentence for unlawfully being in a dwelling house (s.349(1)) and robbery (s.343) of three years and 269 days (effective after credit)
- Assault (s.266) and possession of a weapon (s.88(1)) recorded as time served
- Provide DNA sample pursuant to s.487.051(1)
- Lifetime weapons prohibition pursuant to s.109 Criminal Code
- No contact order with complainant A.B. during period of imprisonment
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of British Columbia · 2 July 2020
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Full judgment text is not available for this record.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.