The Crown applied to have Justin Primmer declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of detention.
Primmer sought dismissal or a determinate sentence with long-term supervision.
The court found Primmer met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation under two pathways, based on a pattern of repetitive violent behaviour, failure to restrain behaviour, likelihood of future violence, and persistent aggressive behaviour showing substantial indifference to consequences.
The court rejected arguments for a lesser sentence, including religious conversion, pro-social behaviour in custody, treatability, and the "burnout theory," citing his history of manipulation, lack of genuine remorse, and chronic dishonesty.
An indeterminate sentence was imposed to protect the public.
