|
Criminal - Sentencing - Absconding. R. v. Sithravel
In R. v. Sithravel (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal locates 'absconding' the juridiction (here during the sentencing process), in sentencing doctrine:[3] The appellant absconded between the date the guilty plea was entered and the date of the sentencing hearing. As a result, the sentencing proceeded in absentia. Both grounds of appeal raised by the appellant regarding the length of his sentence are linked to the fact that he absconded. One ground relates to the treatment of his absconding as a factor in sentencing. The other, at least in part, arose from the fact that he absconded, resulting in the sentencing judge not having the benefit of defence submissions.
No error in treatment of absconding as a factor in sentencing
[4] Because it can be addressed briefly, we address first the appellant’s submission that the sentencing judge erred in treating the fact that he absconded as an aggravating factor. He argues that doing so is an error in principle, relying on R. v. Singh, 2015 ONSC 904, at para. 19.
[5] It is not necessary in this appeal to decide whether, in some circumstances, absconding may be treated as an aggravating factor on sentence. In this case, the use made by the sentencing judge of the fact that the appellant absconded was more nuanced than that. Although the sentencing judge used the phrase “aggravating factors” at the start of the paragraph where he considered the appellant’s role in the offence and the impact of his absconding, the whole of his analysis shows that his use of the absconding was more tailored. The sentencing judge explained the use as follows:Further, when looking at individual deterrence, [the appellant], in the evidence that I accepted this morning has fled the jurisdiction, as opposed to taking responsibility for his actions, which is a positive step when looking at rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. Individual deterrence, therefore, also becomes more paramount. This passage makes clear that the sentencing judge did not treat absconding as an aggravating factor, but rather found it was a factor that diminished the taking of responsibility from the guilty plea, negatively impacted the appellant’s prospects for rehabilitation, and increased the weight to be given to specific deterrence. There is no error in these uses: R. v. P.M., 2022 ONCA 408, at para. 22; Singh, at para. 19.
|
