W A R N I N G

The President of the panel hearing this appeal directs that the following should be attached to the file:

A non-publication and non-broadcast order in this proceeding under s. 486(3) of the Criminal Code, concerning the identity of and any evidence that would tend to identify the complainant(s), shall continue. As relevant in this case, s. 486(3) and s. 486(5) of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the consequence of failure to comply with an order made under s. 486(3), read:

486.(3) Subject to subsection (4), where an accused is charged with

(a) an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 155, 159, 160, 170, 171, 172, 173, 210, 211, 212, 213, 271, 272, 273, 346 or 347,

(b) an offence under section 144, 145, 149, 156, 245 or 246 of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 4, 1983, or

(c) an offence under section 146, 151, 153, 155, 157, 166 or 167 of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as it read immediately before January 1, 1988,

the presiding judge or justice may make an order directing that the identity of the complainant or of a witness and any information that could disclose the identity of the complainant or witness shall not be published in any document or broadcast in any way.

(5) Every one who fails to comply with an order made pursuant to subsection (3) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

DATE: 20050628

DOCKET: C41901

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – R.G.H. (Appellant)

BEFORE:

SHARPE, GILLESE and ROULEAU JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

Adam Weisberg

for the appellant

Kim Crosbie

for the respondent

HEARD & ENDORSED:

June 24, 2005

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Harry Keenan of the Superior Court of Justice July 31, 2003.

A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] The trial judge imposed a sentence of four years. The trial Crown conceded that the appellant was entitled to twenty-three months credit for pre-trial custody. The trial judge made no reference to pre-custody in his reasons for sentence and when asked of giving his reasons by the Crown, the trial judge stated that the four years was in addition, but did not say he had credited the appellant or the amount of credit. These were serious offences, the appellant has a serious record, and the consequences for the victim have been severe. In the end, we agree with the trial judge that a global sentence of four year is appropriate, but credit must be given for pre-trial custody. Accordingly, we grant leave to appeal sentence, allow the appeal, maintain the sentence as imposed but with credit for twenty-three months for pre-trial custody for a net sentence of twenty-five months.

ADDENDUM June 29, 2005

[2] By way of clarification, the calculation of the appellant’s sentence is as follows:

Counts 1, 2, 3 and 5: nineteen months concurrent;

Counts 4 and 7: three months concurrent to nineteen months on Counts 1, 2, 3 5;

Counts 6, 8 and 9: six months consecutive to the nineteen months on Counts 1, 2, 3, 5

for a total sentence of twenty-five months.

[3] Publication ban maintained.

“Robert J. Sharpe”