R. v. Kelly, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 400, 2003 SCC 50
Her Majesty The Queen Appellant
v.
Michael Edward Kelly Respondent
and
Attorney General of Canada Intervener
Indexed as: R. v.
Kelly
Neutral citation: 2003 SCC 50.
File No.: 29140.
2003: January 16; 2003: September 26.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major,
Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia
Criminal law — Sentencing — Dangerous offenders and
long‑term offenders — Accused declared to be dangerous offender and
sentenced to indeterminate prison term — Predicate offence occurring after
enactment in Criminal Code of long‑term offender provisions — Whether
sentencing judge’s failure to consider possibility of long‑term offender
designation constituted error of law — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46,
ss. 753(1) , 753.1 , 759(3) (b).
The sentencing judge found the accused to be a
dangerous offender and sentenced him to an indeterminate period of
incarceration. The predicate offence occurred after the enactment in the Criminal
Code of the long‑term offender provisions, but the sentencing judge
did not consider the applicability of these provisions. The Court of
Appeal allowed the accused’s appeal and ordered a new sentencing hearing.
Held: The appeal
should be dismissed.
For the reasons set out in R. v. Johnson,
[2003] 2 S.C.R. 357, 2003 SCC 46, a sentencing judge must consider the
possibility of a long‑term offender designation prior to declaring an
offender dangerous. In the absence of a full inquiry into the suitability
of the long‑term offender provisions, it would be improper to reinstate
the sentencing judge’s finding that the accused is properly classified as a
dangerous offender.
Cases Cited
Applied: R. v. Johnson, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 357, 2003 SCC 46; referred
to: R. v. Edgar, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 388, 2003 SCC 47; R. v. Smith,
[2003] 2 S.C.R. 392, 2003 SCC 48; R. v. Mitchell, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 396,
2003 SCC 49.
APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court
of Appeal (2002), 163 B.C.A.C. 287, 267 W.A.C. 287, [2002] B.C.J. No. 352
(QL), 2002 BCCA 121, reversing a decision of the Provincial Court. Appeal
dismissed.
William F. Ehrcke, Q.C.,
and Beverly MacLean, for the appellant.
Jeffrey R. Ray and Letitia
Sears, for the respondent.
Robert J. Frater and David
Schermbrucker, for the intervener.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
1
Iacobucci and Arbour JJ. — This
case, which was heard at the same time as R. v. Johnson, [2003] 2 S.C.R.
357, 2003 SCC 46, R. v. Edgar, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 388, 2003 SCC 47, R.
v. Smith, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 392, 2003 SCC 48, and R. v. Mitchell,
[2003] 2 S.C.R. 396, 2003 SCC 49, involves an appeal against a sentencing
judge’s decision to declare an offender dangerous and sentence him to an
indeterminate period of detention. The question that this appeal raises is
whether the sentencing judge’s failure to consider the possibility of a long-term
offender designation constituted an error of law.
2
For the reasons set out in Johnson, a sentencing judge must
consider the possibility of a long-term offender designation prior to declaring
an offender dangerous. If an offender satisfies the criteria set out in the
long-term offender provisions and the sentencing judge is satisfied that a
determinate sentence followed by a long-term supervision order would reduce the
threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons to
an acceptable level, the sentencing judge cannot properly declare the offender
dangerous and thereupon impose an indeterminate sentence.
3
In this case, the record discloses insufficient
evidence to conclude that there is no reasonable possibility that the respondent
would have been declared a long-term offender if the sentencing judge had
concluded that the long-term offender provisions were available. In the
absence of a full inquiry into the suitability of the long-term offender
provisions, it would be improper to reinstate the sentencing judge’s finding
that the respondent is properly classified as a dangerous offender.
4
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. We confirm the Court of
Appeal’s decision to order a new sentencing hearing, to be determined in accordance
with the principles set out in Johnson.
Appeal dismissed.
Solicitor for the appellant: Ministry of Attorney General,
Vancouver.
Solicitors for the respondent: Jeffrey R. Ray and
Letitia Sears, New Westminster.
Solicitor for the intervener: Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa.