DATE: 20030319

DOCKET: C38599 and C37843

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – TIMOTHY MICHAEL PLAYFORD

BEFORE: MORDEN, GOUDGE and ARMSTRONG JJ.A.

COUNSEL: Richard Litkowski (duty counsel for the appellant on the conviction appeal) and Delmar Doucette for the appellant on the sentence appeal

Leslie Paine for the respondent

HEARD: February 24, 2003

RELEASED ORALLY: February 24, 2003

On appeal from a judgment of Justice Christopher M. Speyer of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 20, 2002.

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] On the conviction appeal, we do not think that the evidence was equivocal. In our view, it was reasonably capable of supporting the trial judge’s finding that the appellant’s purpose in assaulting the complainant was to obtain the money he owed to the appellant. This evidence comprised the assaulting, the threat to kill, and the questioning “where the money was”. There is nothing in the trial judge’s recitation of the evidence to indicate that the newspaper accounts of the previous trial had any impact on this trial.

[2] With respect to the appeal from sentence, having regard to the range of sentences in previous cases of extortion and the particular facts in those cases, we think that the sentence of three years and four months (there was ten months pre-trial custody) in this case was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. No doubt, the previous conviction for extortion and the short period following the serving of the sentence on that conviction before this offence was committed were aggravating factors and we take them into account. In our view a sentence of two years would be appropriate.

[1] Accordingly, the appeal from conviction is dismissed. Leave to appeal sentence is granted, the appeal is allowed, and the sentence is varied to two years.

“J.W. Morden J.A.”

“S.T. Goudge J.A.”

“R.P. Armstrong J.A.”