R. v. Maxwell-Smith

R. v. Maxwell-Smith

Leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed: the two years less a day sentence for impaired driving causing death was not demonstrably unfit; consideration of deportation risk was permissible and did not dominate sentencing; the judge erred in failing to state the effective sentence under s.719(3.3) and erred in ordering concurrency for the two one-month sentences, but those errors did not justify increasing the overall sentence in the interests of justice.

Citation
2013 YKCA 12
Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: Christopher John Maxwell-Smith
Court
Yukon Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Territorial Court of Yukon
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving Causing Death, Pre Sentence Custody Credit, Concurrent Sentencing, Collateral Immigration Consequences (deportation), Sentencing Principles
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Immigration Law Impaired Driving Causing Death Pre Sentence Custody Credit Concurrent Sentencing Collateral Immigration Consequences (deportation) Sentencing Principles

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

Christopher John Maxwell-Smith

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Territorial Court of Yukon

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence for impaired driving causing death was demonstrably unfit
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge allowed risk of deportation to inappropriately dominate sentencing
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in failing to state the effective sentence and pre-sentence custody credit under s. 719(3.3)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed: the two years less a day sentence for impaired driving causing death was not demonstrably unfit; consideration of deportation risk was permissible and did not dominate sentencing; the judge erred in failing to state the effective sentence under s.719(3.3) and erred in ordering concurrency for the two one-month sentences, but those errors did not justify increasing the overall sentence in the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeal dismissed