|
Criminal - Dangerous Offender. R. v. Tynes
In R. v. Tynes (Ont CA, 2022) the Court of Appeal considers a 'dangerous offender' appeal:[58] Part XXIV of the Criminal Code authorizes and governs the conduct of dangerous offender proceedings. The statutory scheme is divided into two stages. First, s. 753(1) lists the statutory requirements which must be met before an offender can be designated as dangerous. This is called the “designation stage”. Second, ss. 753(4) and (4.1) govern the penalty or “sentencing stage” for dangerous offenders: R. v. Boutilier, 2017 SCC 64, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 936, at paras. 13‑15.
[59] The appellant challenges the trial judge’s assessment in both stages of the dangerous offender proceeding. The standard of review on a dangerous offender appeal was articulated by this court in R. v. Sawyer, 2015 ONCA 602, 127 O.R. (3d) 686, at para. 26, as follows:Appellate review of a dangerous offender designation “is concerned with legal errors and whether the dangerous offender designation was reasonable”: R. v. Sipos, 2014 SCC 47, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 423, at para. 23. While deference is owed to the factual and credibility findings of the sentencing judge, appellate review of a dangerous offender designation is more robust than on a “regular” sentence appeal: Sipos, at paras. 25-26; R. v. Currie, 1997 CanLII 347 (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 260, [1997] S.C.J. No. 10, at para. 33. [Emphasis added.] The court continues in it's dangerous offender analysis at paras 60-76.
|
