A. S. Latimer

Following a trial and dangerous offender proceeding, the offender had previously been declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to a custodial term and long-term supervision order.

The court discovered that sentence had inadvertently not been imposed on one count despite a conviction having been entered.

The parties agreed the court was not functus and could correct the omission.

The court amended the earlier sentencing reasons to impose sentence on the omitted count while maintaining the overall totality of the sentence.

The Crown applied to have the offender declared a dangerous offender following his convictions for multiple violent and sexual offences against his intimate partner, including aggravated assault and sexual assault with a weapon.

The offender had a lengthy criminal history involving domestic violence, an antisocial personality disorder, and chronic substance abuse.

The court found that the offender met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation.

However, considering the offender's cognitive limitations, his expressions of remorse, and the availability of intensive treatment and supervision in the penitentiary and community, the court concluded there was a reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public.

The court imposed a determinate sentence of 10 years and 1 day (after credit for pre-sentence custody) followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The accused was charged with robbery arising from the theft of two necklaces from a student on a residential street.

The Crown relied primarily on circumstantial evidence that the accused transported the robbers to the scene, repositioned his vehicle during the offence, and fled with them immediately afterward.

Police recovered a photograph of the stolen necklaces stored on the accused’s cellphone shortly after the robbery.

The court rejected the accused’s explanation that he had unknowingly acted as a driver for strangers during a marijuana purchase, finding the account implausible and inconsistent with the evidence.

The circumstantial evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly assisted the robbery as the getaway driver.