Canada Judgment

British Columbia Court of Appeal

R. v. Sutherland

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Because the application was indistinguishable from R. v. Kanthasamy and the Crown did not oppose, the Court granted an extension of time, admitted the fresh evidence by leave, granted leave to appeal and reduced each of the concurrent two year sentences to two years less one day.

Court disposition

Extension of time granted; leave to file fresh evidence granted; leave to appeal granted; sentences reduced.

Orders

  • Extend time for filing the application for leave to appeal.
  • Grant leave to file fresh evidence in the form of affidavits from the applicant and his former counsel.
  • Grant leave to appeal.
  • Reduce the four concurrent custodial sentences to two years less one day (to be served concurrently).

02

Material facts

Parties

Regina

Respondent Counsel: J. Duncan

Mark Everett Sutherland

Appellant Counsel: R.S. Gill

Amounts and remedies

  • Sentence Years: 2
  • Number of Offences: 4

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal (granted)

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicant sought extension of time and leave to appeal a two year custodial sentence on the basis of a deportation threat and relied on R. v. Kanthasamy to justify relief; sought leave to file fresh evidence in affidavits from applicant and former counsel and a reduction of sentence.
Respondent
Crown acknowledged the application was indistinguishable from Kanthasamy and did not oppose the relief sought.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    R. v. Kanthasamy, 2005 BCCA 135

    Extension of time may be granted where delay is justified by a real risk of deportation and fairness to the accused

  2. 02

    Court of Appeal procedural principles

    Leave may be granted to file fresh evidence on an appeal where it is material and justice requires it

  3. 03

    Court of Appeal sentencing principles

    An appellate court has power to vary sentences, including reducing concurrent custodial terms, where appropriate

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Because the application was indistinguishable from R. v. Kanthasamy and the Crown did not oppose, the Court granted an extension of time, admitted the fresh evidence by leave, granted leave to appeal and reduced each of the concurrent two year sentences to two years less one day.

Obiter and limits

  • All three judges agreed with the disposition.
  • The deportation risk was decisive in justifying the extension of time.

Court disposition

Extension of time granted; leave to file fresh evidence granted; leave to appeal granted; sentences reduced.

  • Extend time for filing the application for leave to appeal.
  • Grant leave to file fresh evidence in the form of affidavits from the applicant and his former counsel.
  • Grant leave to appeal.
  • Reduce the four concurrent custodial sentences to two years less one day (to be served concurrently).

Source and reliance status

British Columbia Court of Appeal · 10 April 2008

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· 10 April 2008

2008 BCCA 158

2008 BCCA 158 R. v. Sutherland

COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Sutherland, 2008 BCCA 158 Date: 20080410 Docket: CA035203 Between: Regina Respondent And Mark Everett Sutherland Appellant Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Rowles The Honourable Madam Justice Newbury The Honourable Mr. Justice Hall Oral Reasons for Judgment R.S. Gill Counsel for the Appellant J. Duncan Counsel for the (Crown) Respondent Place and Date: Vancouver, British Columbia 10 April 2008 [1] ROWLES, J.A.: The applicant, Mark Everett Sutherland, seeks an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal and leave to appeal a custodial sentence of two years imposed on him on 3 June 2005 for four offences. The sentence was imposed with respect to each of the offences with the sentences to be served concurrently. [2] The application is prompted by a threat of deportation. As Crown counsel has acknowledged, the application is in substance indistinguishable from R. v. Kanthasamy, 2005 BCCA 135, [2005] B.C.J. No. 517, and the Crown does not oppose the relief sought. [3] Accordingly, I would extend the time for filing the application for leave to appeal; grant leave to file the fresh evidence in the form of affidavits from the applicant and his former counsel; grant leave to appeal and reduce the four sentences, all of which were ordered to be served concurrently, to two years less one day. [4] NEWBURY, J.A.: I agree. [5] HALL, J.A.: I agree. "The Honourable Madam Justice Rowles"

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.

R. v. Kanthasamy, 2005 BCCA 135, [2005] B.C.J. No. 517

Case cited

R. v. Sutherland, 2008 BCCA 158

Case cited

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.