Court of Appeal for Ontario
BEFORE: Laskin, Hourigan and Pardu JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen Respondent
and
Richard Lee Wayne Beckwith Appellant
COUNSEL: Brian Weingarten and Michael Dineen, for the appellant Mabel Lai, for the respondent
HEARD: August 26, 2015
On appeal from the sentence imposed on April 4, 2014 by Justice Ramsay of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
1The appellant appeals his sentence on three grounds.
The trial judge erred by denying him 1.5 to 1 credit for pre-sentence custody.
The trial judge erred by sentencing him to a penitentiary term so he could get treatment.
The four year sentence is demonstrably unfit.
2On the appellant’s first ground of appeal, the trial judge did err by denying 1.5:1 credit on the ground the appellant would have been denied bail had he asked for it. The applicable principle comes from Summers: 1.5 for 1 credit can be denied if the possibility of early release or parole is highly unlikely. On the record before us we cannot say it is highly unlikely the appellant will be denied early release or parole. His record, though lengthy, is dated, as is his parole violation. By itself the appellant’s claim in his texts that he will repeat his conduct once he gets out of jail is not sufficient to meet the threshold in Summers. Thus, we grant the appellant 1.5 for 1 credit for his one year of pre-sentence custody.
3On the appellant’s second submission the trial judge did not sentence the appellant to the penitentiary so he could get treatment. The trial judge had already decided on a penitentiary sentence. His comment that the penitentiary had facilities to deal with the appellant’s psychiatric condition was simply an observation in response to amicus’ submission. Thus we would not give effect to the appellant’s second ground of appeal.
4On the appellant’s third submission, we accept that the trial judge imposed a lengthy sentence and that the trial Crown’s position is a relevant consideration in assessing the fitness of his sentence. Nonetheless, we are not persuaded that this sentence is demonstrably unfit. The appellant’s conduct, which amounted to egregious domestic abuse, demanded a sentence that provided specific deterrence and denounced the appellant’s conduct. Two years for his criminal harassment of his former partner was not unfit. Nor was the two-year sentence for his serious assault of his partner two years earlier. Thus, we do not give effect to the appellant’s third ground of appeal.
5For these reasons leave to appeal sentence is granted and; credit for pre-sentence custody is increased to 1.5:1 credit, but the appeal is otherwise dismissed.
