The Crown appealed a sentencing decision declining to designate the respondent a dangerous offender and instead declaring him a long-term offender following a predicate sexual assault causing bodily harm and an extensive history of violent sexual offending.
The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge erred in law by failing to make the required finding of substantial risk under s. 753.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code and by selectively relying on evidence of treatability while ignoring significant contrary evidence.
The court emphasized that public protection is the governing objective and that a reasonable possibility of eventual control in the community must rest on evidence amounting to more than hope or speculation.
The appeal was allowed, the long-term offender designation was set aside, and a new sentencing hearing was ordered.
