Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision Content

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA

Citation: R. v. Hanlon, 2010 NSSC 286

 

Date: 20100706

Docket: CRT No. 325505

Registry: Truro

 

Between:

                                             Her Majesty The Queen

 

v.

 

Alexander Francis Hanlon

Defendant

 

                                                                                                                                      

 

                                                  DECISION

                                   SENTENCE

 

__________________________________________________________________

 

Judge:                            The Honourable Justice Nick Scaravelli

 

Heard:                            July 6, 2010, Truro, Nova Scotia

 

Written Decision: 

 

Charge:                          That he, on or about the 31st day of January, 2009, at, or near Bible Hill, in the County of Colchester, Province of Nova Scotia, did steal money and liquor from Gordon Michael Moore, and at the time thereof did use violence to Gordon Michael Moore, contrary to Section 343(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada.           

 

 

Counsel:                         Paul Drysdale, Crown Attorney

David Mahoney, Solicitor for the Defendant


By the Court:

 

 

[1]              In the present case there is a joint recommendation on sentencing.  The offender, Mr. Hanlon,  has entered a guilty plea to a charge of robbery contrary to section 343(b) of the Criminal Code.  Violence was used where the victim was assaulted in his home, with a weapon.   I believe an aluminum or steel pipe.

[2]              I note the guilty plea followed what our Court of Appeal has termed a true plea bargaining.  That is what is known as a negotiated plea in exchange for leniency.  The joint recommendation is that the offender serve a period of incarceration of two years in a Federal Penitentiary.  In making the recommendation both counsel have indicated they are aware of the starting range of three years of imprisonment for an offence of this nature as stated by our Court of Appeal.


[3]              I have reviewed  Crown  and  Defence counsel briefs that were earlier submitted to the Court and the cases that  have been cited by both Crown and Defence.  I have also heard submissions from counsel.  I have reviewed the pre-sentence report and have considered the principles of sentencing as set out in section 718 of the Criminal Code.  I have also considered section 348.1 of the Criminal Code.

[4]              The victim was in his residence at the time of the offence, according to information provided to the Court.  This residence was known by the offender and his accomplice to be the location of a bootlegging operation or business.  Both Crown and Defence counsel submit that the circumstances of this case calls for a deviation from a sentence in the three year range.  I note the offender was 21 years of age at the time of the offence.   He has what is considered a minor  criminal record and has never been incarcerated.  According  to the pre-sentence report he is healthy and is gainfully employed.   His employer is indicating his willingness to maintain or  re-offer him his employment following sentence.  According to the pre-sentence  report the victim has moved on and has advised that he has put this matter behind him. 

[5]              In terms of the negotiated plea the Crown has acknowledged a distinctly


arguable issue relating to the admissibility of the offender’s confession statement which resulted from what is termed a “Mr. Big Operation”.  The issue at trial, as explained by counsel, would be voluntariness of the statement.  The Crown has submitted that this evidence was critical to the successful prosecution of the offender.  The offender’s statement also led  to the guilty plea of the co-accused who was sentenced to five years imprisonment in light of his prior criminal record, which included previous Federal Penitentiary sentence.

[6]              Under the circumstances,  I accept the joint recommendation for sentence as put forward by the Crown  and  Defence counsel .

[7]              Mr. Hanlon would you stand please?

[8]              The Court is sentencing you to a period of incarceration of two years in a Federal Penitentiary.  There will also be a primary designated offence DNA order pursuant to section 487.051 of the Criminal Code,  as well as a section 109 Firearms Prohibition for a period of ten years following the expiration of the prison sentence. You have indicated Mr. Hanlon, through your  counsel, that you have plans for your future and that you no longer consume alcohol.  I am pleased to hear that and I wish you well with your future endeavors.

 

                                                             J.

07/14/10

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.