The appellant appealed his designation as a dangerous offender and the resulting indeterminate sentence of imprisonment.
He argued that the sentencing judge provided insufficient reasons, failed to properly consider treatability at the designation stage, and improperly placed an evidentiary burden on him to prove a reasonable expectation of eventual control in the community.
He also argued that the trial amicus curiae failed to ensure a fair hearing by conceding that he met the dangerous offender criteria.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant patently met the statutory thresholds for the designation based on a pattern of violent sexual assaults.
The court held that the sentencing judge did not impose an improper burden of proof and that the trial amicus curiae's performance did not cause actual prejudice or create an appearance of unfairness amounting to a miscarriage of justice.
