SELECTED CASE LAW
In 2018 BCCA 346, Mr. W pleaded guilty to sexual interference and child pornography.
Mr. W abused his step-daughter, who was between 11 and 12 years old during the offences.
Mr. W had separated from the girl’s mother, but continued to visit her as a step-parent. On an overnight visit where Mr. W took her to a hotel, someone reported that Mr. W was inappropriately touching the girl. The police found Mr. W in his hotel room, sexually abusing the girl. A search of his camera and computer resulted in 129 images and eight videos of the girl, as well as three written stories of sexual activity between children and adults. The videos were de-scribed as “[b]reathless in their brutality, there are no words to describe the despair one felt for the child or the loathing for [Mr. W], except a deep and abiding sadness” by the trial judge.
Mr. W was sentenced to seven years in jail.
After four years of delays between the charge and sentencing, Mr. W sought a stay of proceed-ing for unreasonable delay. Mr. W had switched counsel many times and failed to appear for psychological assessment appointments. The sentencing judge dismissed the application, stat-ing that a delay between the charge and sentencing was different than a delay pre-trial or pre-conviction (Jordan Principles).
Mr. W argued that the trial judge made a mistake in addressing the Crown’s contribution to the delays and incorrectly applied the Jordan principles about restrictions on delays in trials.
The appeal court found that there were some mistakes in the trial judge’s calculations, but overall the decision was correct.
The appeal was dismissed.
Also see: 2017 BCCA 137 (Appeal).