R. v. English
Convictions for the predicate arson offences are sustained because the appellant conceded causing fire damage and evidence showed houses were damaged or required clean up; recklessness as to habitation was inevitable given the residential area known to the appellant; the dangerous offender designation and sentence...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C42459
- Parties
- Appellant: Theodore English; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 11 May 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence (court of Appeal)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentence upheld
- Legal Topics
- Arson, Dangerous Offender Designation, Sentencing, Recklessness, Mental Disorder (pyromania)
- 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
Theodore English
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence (court of Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant caused damage by fire to the properties
- 2 Whether the appellant was reckless as to whether the properties were inhabited
- 3 Whether the finding of dangerous offender was supported by the evidence
Ratio Decidendi
Convictions for the predicate arson offences are sustained because the appellant conceded causing fire damage and evidence showed houses were damaged or required clean up; recklessness as to habitation was inevitable given the residential area known to the appellant; the dangerous offender designation and sentence were supported by evidence of intractability, lack of motivation for treatment and absence of effective treatment for pyromania, with no reliance on state failure to provide treatment.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentence upheld
Orders
- Convictions on the predicate offences sustained
- Sentence appeal dismissed; dangerous offender finding and sentence affirmed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. English Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2006-05-11 Docket numbers C42459 Judges Goudge, Stephen Thomas; Gillese, Eileen E.; LaForme, Harry Smith Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20060511 DOCKET: C42459 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – THEODORE ENGLISH (Appellant) BEFORE: GOUDGE, GILLESE, LAFORME JJ.A. COUNSEL: Christopher Hicks Catriona Verner for the appellant Gillian Roberts for the respondent HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY: May 3, 2006 On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Sally E. Marin of the Ontario Court of Justice dated January 25, 2000 and from the sentence imposed by Justice Sally E. Marin dated April 16, 2002. ENDORSEMENT [1] The question of whether the appellant caused damage by fire to the four properties was conceded at trial. Moreover, the uncontradicted evidence was that despite the fact that the fires were set in items discrete from the four houses, in one case the house itself received fire damage and in the other three cases, the houses suffered damage that required clean up. [2] Secondly, given that these houses were in a clearly residential area known by the appellant, the finding that he was reckless as to whether the properties were inhabited was inevitable. The convictions on the predicate offences are sustained. [3] As to sentence, there was ample evidence to support the finding of dangerous offender. The trial judge referred to the intractability of the appellant’s problems, his lack of motivation to pursue counselling or treatment and the fact that there is no effective treatment for pyromania. She did not rely on nor was there any evidence of a failure of the state to make available effective treatment for the appellant’s conditions. [4] The sentence appeal is dismissed as well. “S.T. Goudge J.A.” “E.E. Gillese J.A.” “H.S. LaForme J.A.”