Crown appeal from a global sentence of 3.5 years’ incarceration after accused pleaded guilty to sexual assault of her 4-year old son and distributing and making child pornography. Respondent’s online boyfriend “guided” her into sexually assaulting her son and sharing photos of the acts (and other child pornography) with him. Accused was remorseful and a psychiatric report suggested an “exceedingly low risk of recidivism”.
Held: Appeal dismissed.
“Sentencing is an inexact science. There is no ‘one right sentence.’… If an appellate court is too eager to seize on the trial judge’s purported overemphasis or underemphasis of a relevant consideration as a reviewable error, deference quickly becomes an illusion … Intervention on this ground should be limited to clear cases, where the trial judge has exercised her discretion unreasonably”: see e.g Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64. While the sentencing judge incorrectly characterized the accused’s separation from her son as mitigating, it did not materially affect the sentence. Sentence was not unfit. Wakeling JA dissented.
N. Rodych – Defence Counsel.