Mischaracterization of a crime as a ‘spree’ is substantial error in principle, appeal allowed: court

Mere proximity in time of a series of crimes not a ‘spree’

Mischaracterization of a crime as a ‘spree’ is substantial error in principle, appeal allowed: court
That a crime is a “spree” is relevant only in transactional totality

The Court of Appeal for Alberta has ruled that the sentencing judge’s mischaracterization of a series of robberies as a single overall transaction or a “spree” was substantial error subject to appellate intervention.

In R v. Lebeuf, 2021 ABCA 322, the respondent was convicted of three counts of robbery, and one count each of possession of stolen credit card, breach of probation, and breach of recognizance. His total sentence was four years and 35 days. In arriving at this sentence, the sentencing judge considered the respondent’s addiction to fentanyl and that the counts of robbery were a “spree” based on totality and the fact that they occurred close in time.

The Crown appealed the sentence, claiming that the sentencing judge erred in characterizing the pre-considered and serious violence-based crimes spread over a period of three weeks as a “spree.”

The Court agreed with the Crown and ruled that the sentencing judge failed to properly apply the totality concept. Based on the evidence presented, the crimes were not impulsive but involved a measure of planning, and the respondent’s behaviour was calculated to intimidate his victims, said the Court. Thus, the sentencing judge erred in treating the robberies as a single overall transaction. Further, the factor of the crime being part of a “spree” is relevant only in transactional totality, which has nothing to do with the respondent’s crimes.

Therefore, the Court increased the total sentence from four years and 35 days to a total of 6.5 years from the date of sentencing.

Recent articles & video

Vote for Canadian Lawyer's Top Regional Ontario firms

Privacy and access authorities gather in Toronto to address emerging issues

Federal Court limits trademark to dining services, excludes sit-down and take-out offerings

Ontario Court of Appeal denies mother's bid to prevent child's return to Bangladesh

PEI Court of Appeal affirms property transfer to heir did not require subdivision approval

NS Court of Appeal affirms doctors' right to judicial review in dispute with health authority

Most Read Articles

Federal Court overturns study permit denial, citing unreasonable focus on applicant’s career plans

Ontario court rejects child protection agency’s ‘speculation and gossip’, orders child’s return

Pre-hearing request to review law firm's fees in personal injury case is premature: BC Supreme Court

SK Court of King’s Bench dismisses personal injury claim due to inordinate delay