COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Applicant/Appellant) v. STEVE ALEXANDER MILLS (Respondent)
BEFORE:
DOHERTY, LASKIN and ARMSTRONG JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Eliott Behar
for the applicant/appellant
David Beneteau
for the respondent
HEARD: December 8, 2006
RELEASED ORALLY: December 8, 2006
On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice S. Rogin of the Superior Court of Justice dated January 17, 2005.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1After a two week trial, a jury convicted the respondent of attempted murder. The trial judge sentenced him to three years in the penitentiary. The Crown appeals arguing that the sentence is manifestly inadequate.
2The Crown contends that the three year sentence fails to reflect either the high level of personal culpability associated with a conviction on the charge of attempted murder, or the serious harm caused to the victim in this case.
3We agree with the Crown’s position. The respondent made a concerted effort to kill the victim. He drove at him three times, travelling up onto the sidewalk and into a field in pursuit of the victim before finally striking him with his pick-up truck on his third effort. This was, as the trial judge said, a “dogged effort” to run the victim down. Again, as the trial judge said, “the respondent used his vehicle as a “weapon”.
4The victim suffered very serious injuries as a result of being struck by the respondent’s vehicle. He underwent at least one surgery, spent approximately two weeks in the hospital and continues to have ongoing physical and emotional problems as a result of his injuries. He has not worked for two years and it is no overstatement to say that his life will never be the same.
5The respondent is not a first time offender. He has a relatively minor criminal record, although it does involve some prior assaultive behaviour. Perhaps, the main mitigating factor is that this attempted murder was not a planned and deliberate act, but arose out of a prior consensual fight between the victim and the respondent. The victim apparently got the better of the respondent in this struggle. The respondent also has an excellent work record and is in many respects a contributing, productive member of the community.
6Bearing in mind the inherent seriousness of the crime of attempted murder, the devastating effect on this victim, but also the mitigating factors referred to above, we are satisfied that a sentence of three years is wholly inadequate. In our view, a sentence of six years should be imposed.
7Leave to appeal sentence is granted, the appeal is allowed, the sentence imposed at trial is varied to six years in the penitentiary.
“Doherty J.A.”
“J.I. Laskin J.A.”
“Robert P. Armstrong J.A.”
