Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: R. v. Hindessa, 2011 ONCA 477

DATE: 20110624

DOCKET: C52910

Before: Moldaver, Simmons and Rouleau JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty The Queen Respondent

and

Arssei Hindessa Appellant

Counsel: Brian Snell, for the appellant Deborah Krick, for the respondent

Heard and endorsed: June 14, 2011

On appeal from sentence imposed by Justice Anne Malloy of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury, dated July 27, 2009.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] As the trial judge observed, correctly in our view, “this was a particularly brutal and savage crime characterized by gratuitous violence and mutilation”. The trial judge also found, again correctly, that there was an element of planning involved. The victim was vulnerable and in a domestic relationship with the offender. It is apparent that she wished to end the relationship but the appellant would have no part of that. If he could not have her, no one could.

[2] The trial judge was entitled to conclude, as she did, that it was unclear as to whether the appellant’s mental health issues had anything to do with the crime. She did however, consider his mental state and treated it as a mitigating factor. While we have no difficulty with that, in terms of mitigating factors, the appellant’s mental state in our view was marginal at best. Balanced against that are a host of aggravating factors, including the nature and brutality of the crime, which we have referred to, the appellant’s history of violence towards the victim and his spouse and his utter disregard for court orders intended to restrain and modify his behaviour.

[3] In short, he is a man who holds himself above the law, a factor which the trial judge quite properly took into account as a significant aggravating feature.

[4] As for the range of sentence in these types of crimes, the trial judge was alive to the relevant authorities from this court and provided cogent reasons for concluding that 18 years was an appropriate period for parole ineligibility in this case. We see no error in her analyses or conclusion.

[5] Accordingly, while leave to appeal sentence is granted, the appeal is dismissed.