|
Criminal - Sentencing - Deterrence. R. v. Holder
In R. v. Holder (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considers "future dangerousness" (here, relevant to 'deterrence') as a sentencing factor:[28] The appellant’s related argument is that the trial judge erred in relying on his risk of future dangerousness as relevant to his sentencing decision. He argues that this is a factor only properly considered on a dangerous offender application. There is no merit to this position. Again, as referred to above, the risk of future dangerousness can be relevant to sentencing, especially in relation to the objective of deterrence. The trial judge reasonably identified deterrence as one of the primary sentencing objectives in this case. Accordingly, we see no error in his reference to concerns over the appellant’s risk of future dangerousness.
[29] At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant did not pursue the argument in his factum that the sentence was unfit. In any event, given the circumstances of the offence, which involved a calculated and unprovoked violent shooting that has left Mr. Cseko permanently and seriously disabled, and given the appellant’s prior criminal record which includes other violent offences, the sentence imposed by the trial judge was entirely fit, and proportionate to sentences imposed in similar circumstances.
|
