R. v. Lawrence
The Court held the trial judge did not err: the Crown disproved self-defence under s.34(2); necessity did not excuse the impaired driving once the appellant had driven to the parking lot; the impaired driving sentence of one year was excessive and is reduced to four months concurrent; the trial judge properly...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C39605
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Ronald James Lawrence
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 28 January 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence (court of Appeal)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed except to reduce the impaired driving sentence to four months concurrent; convictions and other sentences upheld.
- Legal Topics
- Self Defence, Necessity, Impaired Driving, Sentencing, Conditional Sentence
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Ronald James Lawrence
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence (court of Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Crown disproved self-defence under s.34(2) of the Criminal Code
- 2 Whether necessity excuse applied to impaired driving after appellant entered and drove to parking lot
- 3 Whether the impaired driving sentence was excessive and whether a conditional sentence was appropriate for the assault
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held the trial judge did not err: the Crown disproved self-defence under s.34(2); necessity did not excuse the impaired driving once the appellant had driven to the parking lot; the impaired driving sentence of one year was excessive and is reduced to four months concurrent; the trial judge properly declined a conditional sentence for the serious assault and that decision is entitled to deference.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed except to reduce the impaired driving sentence to four months concurrent; convictions and other sentences upheld.
Orders
- Appeal allowed in part to reduce impaired driving sentence to four months concurrent.
- All other aspects of the appeal dismissed; convictions and the trial judge's refusal to impose a conditional sentence are upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Lawrence Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2004-01-28 Docket numbers C39605 Judges Sharpe, Robert J.; Armstrong, Robert Patrick; Blair, Robert Ashley Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20040128 DOCKET: C39605 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) - and - RONALD JAMES LAWRENCE (Appellant) BEFORE: SHARPE, ARMSTRONG and BLAIR JJ.A. COUNSEL: Richard Posner for the appellant Leslie Paine for the respondent HEARD & ENDORSED: January 26, 2004 On appeal from the conviction and sentence imposed by Justice Sidney N. Lederman of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 24 and August 8, 2002. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] We see no error in the trial judge's finding that the Crown disproved self-defence. The trial judge's factual findings are entitled to deference and, in our view, he was entitled to conclude that third element of self-defence under s. 34(2) had been disproved. Without warning that he had a lethal weapon, the appellant stabbed his assailant in the chest in circumstances where, on the trial judge's finding, he could have extricated himself by escaping into his vehicle. [2] As for the necessity defence to impaired driving, we agree with the trial judge that having entered his vehicle and driven to the parking lot, it was no longer necessary for him to drive. [3] The Crown concedes that the sentence of one year concurrent for impaired diving was excessive. We would allow the sentence appeal, but only to the extent of reducing the sentence for impaired driving to four months concurrent. Given the high degree of deference to be accorded the trial judge on the question of conditional sentence, we see no reason to interfere with his conclusion that given the serious nature of this assault, a conditional sentence was not appropriate.