R. v. Morrison
- Citation
- 2004 BCCA 67
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- British Columbia Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 3 February 2004
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal (crown Appeal Against Sentence) / Court of Appeal Decision on Crown Appeal From a Provincial Court Conditional Sentence
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- British Columbia Court of Appeal
- Decision
- 3 February 2004
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal (crown Appeal Against Sentence) / Court of Appeal Decision on Crown Appeal From a Provincial Court Conditional Sentence
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court allowed the Crown appeal in part and added an 18-month period of probation to the existing conditional sentence because the Crown sought probation rather than imprisonment and the post-sentence report demonstrated the respondent's compliance and suitability for continued supervised non-custodial disposition.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed in part; probation of 18 months added to the conditional sentence.
Orders
- Grant leave to appeal to the extent of adding probation.
- Add a period of probation of 18 months to the respondent's conditional sentence with the conditions stipulated by Crown counsel (Ms. MacLean).
02
Material facts
Parties
Regina
Appellant Counsel: B. MacLeanStephen John Morrison
Respondent Counsel: R. HoggardAmounts and remedies
- Probation Length Min Months: 18
- Probation Length Max Months Requested: 24
- Number of Driving Prohibition Offences: 3
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal (crown Appeal Against Sentence) / Court of Appeal Decision on Crown Appeal From a Provincial Court Conditional Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether a period of probation should be added to an existing conditional sentence
- 02
Appropriate length and conditions of any probation to ensure continued abstinence and rehabilitation
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Crown sought addition of a period of probation of 18 to 24 months with specific conditions similar to those in the conditional sentence to ensure continued abstinence from alcohol and attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous, preferring probation to a three-year term of imprisonment.
- Respondent
- The respondent relied on a positive post-sentence report showing compliance with the conditional sentence and argued that the existing conditional sentence terms were adequate and that imprisonment was unnecessary.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
General sentencing principles / sentencing jurisprudence
Sentences should prefer the least restrictive measure consistent with protection of the public and rehabilitation where appropriate.
- 02
Sentencing practice and principles
Probation may be added to conditional sentences to provide supervision and ensure compliance with rehabilitative conditions.
- 03
Sentencing practice
Post-sentence reports are relevant to assessing compliance and suitability of non-custodial measures.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court allowed the Crown appeal in part and added an 18-month period of probation to the existing conditional sentence because the Crown sought probation rather than imprisonment and the post-sentence report demonstrated the respondent's compliance and suitability for continued supervised non-custodial disposition.
Obiter and limits
- The panel was unanimous in adding probation under the circumstances rather than imposing a custodial term.
- Administrative correction of the hearing date was noted but did not affect the substantive decision.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed in part; probation of 18 months added to the conditional sentence.
- Grant leave to appeal to the extent of adding probation.
- Add a period of probation of 18 months to the respondent's conditional sentence with the conditions stipulated by Crown counsel (Ms. MacLean).
Source and reliance status
British Columbia Court of Appeal · 3 February 2004
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.
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Judgment· 3 February 2004
2004 BCCA 67 R. v. Morrison
COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Morrison, 2004 BCCA 67 Date: 20040203 Docket: CA31113 Between: Regina Appellant And Stephen John Morrison Respondent Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Rowles The Honourable Madam Justice Ryan The Honourable Madam Justice Newbury Oral Reasons for Judgment B. MacLean Counsel for the Appellant R. Hoggard Counsel for the Respondent Place and Date: Vancouver, British Columbia 3 February 2004 [1] ROWLES J.A.: We have before us a Crown appeal from a conditional sentence imposed in relation to some driving offences. [2] This matter previously came before the Court and a post-sentence report was ordered. The post-sentence report indicates that the respondent is adhering to the conditions of the conditional sentence imposed by the Provincial Court judge. For that and other reasons the Crown now seeks, rather than a three year term of imprisonment, the addition of a period of probation to the concurrent conditional sentence imposed by the Provincial Court judge for the three driving prohibition offences. [3] The Crown asks that a period of probation between 18 to 24 months be added, with terms as stipulated by counsel. The terms sought are similar, although certainly not identical, to those imposed in relation to the conditional sentence, and are directed toward ensuring that the respondent continues on the path he has started by
abstaining from alcohol and attending Alcohol Anonymous meetings. [4] In view of the Crown's position we are minded to allow the appeal and to add to the conditional sentence a period of probation of 18 months with the conditions that were stipulated by Ms. MacLean during her submissions. [5] To that extent I would grant leave to appeal and allow the appeal. [6] RYAN J.A.: I agree. [7] NEWBURY J.A.: I agree "The Honourable Madam Justice Rowles" Correction: February 16, 2004 The date of the Hearing has been changed from "February 4, 2004" to the correct date of "February 3, 2004".
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.