Canada Judgment

British Columbia Court of Appeal

R. v. Morrison

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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. MacLean

Stephen John Morrison

Respondent Counsel: R. Hoggard

Amounts and remedies

  • Probation Length Min Months: 18
  • Probation Length Max Months Requested: 24
  • Number of Driving Prohibition Offences: 3

03

Procedural history

  1. 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

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

  1. 01

    General sentencing principles / sentencing jurisprudence

    Sentences should prefer the least restrictive measure consistent with protection of the public and rehabilitation where appropriate.

  2. 02

    Sentencing practice and principles

    Probation may be added to conditional sentences to provide supervision and ensure compliance with rehabilitative conditions.

  3. 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.

Source document

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Judgment· 3 February 2004

2004 BCCA 67

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".

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.