Dangerous offender proceedings are sentencing proceedings, where judge must determine fit sentence
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has found that a judge must engage the accused’s testimony and background in determining his sentence, and failure to do so requires a new sentencing hearing.
In R v. Laprise, 2022 SKCA 77, Michael Laprise was convicted of seven offences. Following the assessment of a forensic psychiatrist, he was also designated as a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of imprisonment.
Laprise appealed his sentence. He argued that the judge failed to consider both his testimony and relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances relating to the offense, specifically his background and circumstances as an Indigenous person in the sentencing hearing.
The appellate court agreed.
Since dangerous offender proceedings are sentencing proceedings, the judge must determine a fit sentence, which requires them to hear any relevant evidence presented by the prosecutor and the offender, said the court.
In this case, the appellate court found that Laprise’s testimony was unquestionably relevant to the issues. However, the judge’s decision failed to demonstrate his engagement with the testimony in contrast to the report of the forensic psychologist, said the court.
“In a dangerous offender proceeding, where the offender testifies about crucial matters, as Mr. Laprise did here, it is vital that the court assess that evidence and weigh it in determining the proper sentence to impose. In my view, there is simply no way to read the decision as establishing that the sentencing judge undertook that assessment,” said the court.
Further, the judge also failed to give any consideration to Laprise’s background and unique circumstances as an Indigenous person as required by the Criminal Code, said the court. While the provision does not dictate a particular result, it must form part of the analysis, aid the court. The sentencing judge’s decision contained no analysis of this evidence in determining the appropriate sentence, said the court.
These errors of law called a new sentencing hearing, said the court.
