WARNING
The President of the panel hearing this appeal directs that the following should be attached to the file:
An order restricting publication in this proceeding under ss. 486.4(1), (2), (3) or (4) or 486.6(1) or (2) of the Criminal Code shall continue. These sections of the Criminal Code provide:
486.4 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that any information that could identify the complainant or a witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way, in proceedings in respect of
(a) any of the following offences;
(i) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 162, 163.1, 170, 171, 172, 172.1, 173, 210, 211, 212, 213, 271, 272, 273, 279.01, 279.02, 279.03, 346 or 347,
(ii) an offence under section 144 (rape), 145 (attempt to commit rape), 149 (indecent assault on female), 156 (indecent assault on male) or 245 (common assault) or subsection 246(1) (assault with intent) of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 4, 1983, or
(iii) an offence under subsection 146(1) (sexual intercourse with a female under 14) or (2) (sexual intercourse with a female between 14 and 16) or section 151 (seduction of a female between 16 and 18), 153 (sexual intercourse with step-daughter), 155 (buggery or bestiality), 157 (gross indecency), 166 (parent or guardian procuring defilement) or 167 (householder permitting defilement) of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 1, 1988; or
(b) two or more offences being dealt with in the same proceeding, at least one of which is an offence referred to in any of subparagraphs (a)(i) to (iii).
(2) In proceedings in respect of the offences referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b), the presiding judge or justice shall
(a) at the first reasonable opportunity, inform any witness under the age of eighteen years and the complainant of the right to make an application for the order; and
(b) on application made by the complainant, the prosecutor or any such witness, make the order.
(3) In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 163.1, a judge or justice shall make an order directing that any information that could identify a witness who is under the age of eighteen years, or any person who is the subject of a representation, written material or a recording that constitutes child pornography within the meaning of that section, shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way.
(4) An order made under this section does not apply in respect of the disclosure of information in the course of the administration of justice when it is not the purpose of the disclosure to make the information known in the community. 2005, c. 32, s. 15; 2005, c. 43, s. 8(3)(b).
486.6 (1) Every person who fails to comply with an order made under subsection 486.4(1), (2) or (3) or 486.5(1) or (2) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(2) For greater certainty, an order referred to in subsection (1) applies to prohibit, in relation to proceedings taken against any person who fails to comply with the order, the publication in any document or the broadcasting or transmission in any way of information that could identify a victim, witness or justice system participant whose identity is protected by the order. 2005, c. 32, s. 15.
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CITATION: R. v. Hall, 2014 ONCA 348
DATE: 20140501
DOCKET: C53038
Goudge, Cronk and Strathy JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
Robert Edward Hall
Applicant/Appellant
Robert Sheppard, for the appellant
Dena Bonnet, for the respondent
Heard and released orally: April 16, 2014
On appeal from the sentence imposed on January 4, 2011 by Justice Kelly A. Gorman of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] In our view, the trial judge was fully aware of the sentence recently imposed on the appellant for the G.S. offences and properly took it into account in addressing the predicate offences that were before her. Equally she considered the appellant’s lack of insight into his crimes but did not over-emphasize it.
[2] In the end, the offences on which the trial judge imposed sentence involved a number of innocent children. They were seriously scarred as a consequence of the appellant’s wrongful conduct. While the offences are historical, they involve a sexual predator abusing young innocent victims, the prototype described in R. v. D. (D.) (2002), 58 O.R. (3d) 788 (C.A.). In these circumstances, we view as fit the six-year global sentence for all the predicate offences, taken together.
[3] The parties agree that in allocating this sentence to the various offences, the convictions for gross indecency and assault with intent should be allocated five years each in recognition of the maximum sentence provided by the Code. The allocation to the indecent assault convictions remains at six years each. All sentences to be concurrent. The parties also agree that the global sentence of six years be reduced by 42 days to reflect credit for pre-trial custody which was overlooked at trial. Otherwise the sentence appeal must be dismissed.
“S.T. Goudge J.A.”
“E.A. Cronk J.A.”
“G.R. Strathy J.A.”