R v Friesen

Last updated
R v Friesen
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: October 16, 2019
Judgment: October 16, 2019
Full case nameHer Majesty the Queen v Justyn Kyle Napoleon Friesen
Citations 2020 SCC 9
Docket No. 38300
Prior historyJudgment for defendant in the Court of Appeal for Manitoba
RulingAppeal allowed
Court membership
Chief Justice Richard Wagner
Puisne Justices Rosalie Abella, Michael Moldaver, Andromache Karakatsanis, Suzanne Côté, Russell Brown, Malcolm Rowe, Sheilah Martin, Nicholas Kasirer
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons by Wagner C.J. and Rowe J

R v Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on sentencing for sexual offences against children and the principle of parity. The Court held that sentences for offences involving the sexual abuse of children should be increased to reflect contemporary social understanding of the harms associated with such conduct, and Parliament's repeated signals to increase sentences through amendments to the Criminal Code. The court also held that the principle of parity, which requires similar sentences to be imposed for similar conduct, must be read in conjunction with the broader principle of proportionality. [1] [2]

Contents

Background

The defendant in the case, Justyn Friesen, met the 4 year old victim's mother on an online dating website. When the mother invited Friesen to her residence they engaged in consensual sexual intercourse, eventually Friesen told her to bring the victim to the room at which point he sexually assaulted the child. Her cries awoke the mothers friend who removed her from the room, leading to Friesen threatening to accuse the mother of abusing her 1-year-old son unless she brought the daughter back to the room. The mother's friend confronted Friesen at which he point he fled the residence, he was subsequently charged and pled guilty to sexual interference and attempted extortion. [3]

In lower courts

The trial judge sentenced Friesen to 6 years in prison for both offences concurrent. In reaching his sentence he applied the 4-5 year starting point set by the Manitoba Court of Appeals in R v Sidwell, 2015 MBCA 56 for major sexual assaults committed by adults against young persons while in a position of trust or authority. [4] The Court of Appeals overturned the sentence, finding that no such relationship existed, it then substituted a lower sentence of 4 years and 6 months. [5]

Judgment

The court overturned the sentence by the Court of Appeals, restored the trial judges' sentence, and took the opportunity to review sentencing for child sexual offences. Calling for tougher punishment of sexual violence against children. The Court also encouraged an upwards departure from prior precedent. [6] [1]

The Court noted that Parliament had consistently increased the maximum sentences for child sexual offences, most recently with the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, and courts should impose stricter punishments to give effect to Parliament's understanding of the gravity of said offences. [7] The court also opined on the objective seriousness of sexual violence against children, saying "we send a strong message that sexual offences against children are violent crimes that wrongfully exploit children’s vulnerability and cause profound harm to children, families, and communities". [8]

In calling for a departure from prior precedent, the Court also commented on the principle of parity, noting that it is an expression of the broader principle that sentences should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender's degree of responsibility.

Parity and proportionality do not exist in tension; rather, parity is an expression of proportionality. A consistent application of proportionality will lead to parity. Conversely, an approach that assigns the same sentence to unlike cases can achieve neither parity nor proportionality.

— Supreme Court of Canada, R v Friesen, para 32

Friesen factors

The court also provided guidance on five factors that could impact sentencing:

Likelihood to reoffend

The Court noted that the fundamental purpose of sentencing was to protect society, and therefore the protection of children from harm was imperative in any sentence imposed against a child predator. Consequently, it directed sentencing judges to impose longer sentences when the offender presented a heightened risk to re-offend. Ruling that there should be a greater emphasis on separating the offender from society in such a scenario and a smaller emphasis on rehabilitation. [9]

Abuse of a position of trust or authority

The Court first recognized that relationships of trust can exist in a spectrum, overturning the Court of Appeal's finding that Friesen wasn't in a position of trust towards the victim. It additionally re-affirmed that abuses of trust and authority expose victims to more harm and should warren stricter sentences. It further recognized that grooming can in of itself create a new relationship of trust where none exists before. [10]

Duration and frequency

The Courts ruled that an increased duration and frequency of abuse is an aggravating factor. It found that multiple sexual assaults risk multiplying the harm to children in the short term. Additionally on a long-term basis a prolonged sexual relationship could lead to a more pronounced psychological effect, and the moral blameworthiness of the offender also rises with each assault they choose to commit. [11]

Age of the victim

The Court found that the disparity in power between an adult and a child increases the younger the child is, and the low age of the victim can be an aggravating factor. It however cautioned courts not to underestimate the risk of harm to adolescent victims, noting that the demographic was disproportionally victimized, and finding that sentences for the cohort had historically been disproportionately low. [12]

Degree of physical interference

The Court said that the degree of physical interference was an aggravating factor, but cautioned lower courts to be careful not to create of hierarchies of physical acts. Pointing out such sentencing ranges/starting points set by appellate courts in Alberta, B.C, Manitoba, and Newfoundland, and distinguishing appellate guidance in Ontario as a proper example of assessing degree of physical interference. [13]

Victim participation

The Court rebuked the notion that victim participation was a mitigating factor, pointing to Parliament's decision to establish an age of consent. It ruled there was no legal basis for 'de facto consent' under the law, and that the onus for not engaging in sexual activity fell wholly on adults. It also gave guidance to lower courts on how victim participation could be a sign of grooming, which would be an aggravating factor for sentencing. [14]

See also

Related Research Articles

Life imprisonment is any sentence of imprisonment for a crime under which convicted people are to remain in prison either for the rest of their natural lives or indefinitely until pardoned, paroled, or otherwise commuted to a fixed term. Crimes for which, in some countries, a person could receive this sentence include murder, torture, terrorism, child abuse resulting in death, rape, espionage, treason, drug trafficking, drug possession, human trafficking, severe fraud and financial crimes, aggravated criminal damage, arson, kidnapping, burglary, and robbery, piracy, aircraft hijacking, and genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or any three felonies in case of three-strikes law. Life imprisonment can also be imposed, in certain countries, for traffic offences causing death. Life imprisonment is not used in all countries; Portugal was the first country to abolish life imprisonment, in 1885.

Sexual assault is an act in which one intentionally sexually touches another person without that person's consent, or coerces or physically forces a person to engage in a sexual act against their will. It is a form of sexual violence, which includes child sexual abuse, groping, rape, or the torture of the person in a sexual manner.

Battery is a criminal offense involving unlawful physical contact, distinct from assault which is the act of creating apprehension of such contact.

<i>Youth Criminal Justice Act</i> Canadian statute

The Youth Criminal Justice Act is a Canadian statute, which came into effect on April 1, 2003. It covers the prosecution of youths for criminal offences. The Act replaced the Young Offenders Act, which itself was a replacement for the Juvenile Delinquents Act.

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section: the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice.

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm is a statutory offence of aggravated assault in England and Wales, Northern Ireland, the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Hong Kong and the Solomon Islands. It has been abolished in the Republic of Ireland and in South Australia, but replaced with a similar offence.

Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977), held that the death penalty for rape of an adult woman was grossly disproportionate and excessive punishment, and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A few states continued to have child rape statutes that authorized the death penalty. In Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008), the court expanded Coker, ruling that the death penalty is unconstitutional in all cases that do not involve homicide or crimes against the State.

Murder is an offence under the common law of England and Wales. It is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another with the intention to cause either death or serious injury unlawfully. The element of intentionality was originally termed malice aforethought, although it required neither malice nor premeditation. Baker, chapter 14 states that many killings done with a high degree of subjective recklessness were treated as murder from the 12th century right through until the 1974 decision in DPP v Hyam.

The precise definitions of and punishments for aggravated sexual assault and aggravated rape vary from nation to nation and state to state within nations.

Penal Code (Singapore) Criminal code of Singapore

The Penal Code of Singapore sets out general principles of the criminal law of Singapore, as well as the elements and penalties of general criminal offences such as assault, criminal intimidation, mischief, grievous hurt, theft, extortion, sex crimes and cheating. The Penal Code does not define and list exhaustively all the criminal offences applicable in Singapore – a large number of these are created by other statutes such as the Arms Offences Act, Kidnapping Act, Misuse of Drugs Act and Vandalism Act.

Laws against child sexual abuse vary by country based on the local definition of who a child is and what constitutes child sexual abuse. Most countries in the world employ some form of age of consent, with sexual contact with an underage person being criminally penalized. As the age of consent to sexual behaviour varies from country to country, so too do definitions of child sexual abuse. An adult's sexual intercourse with a minor below the legal age of consent may sometimes be referred to as statutory rape, based on the principle that any apparent consent by a minor could not be considered legal consent.

<i>R v DB</i> Canadian legal decision

R v DB, 2008 SCC 25 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on youth justice and sentencing. The Court held the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act that required presumptive adult sentences for youth convicted of certain offences to be unconstitutional. Ruling that the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness for young persons was a principle of fundamental justice under section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that the impugned provisions unconstitutionally deprived them of their liberty by presuming their moral blameworthiness to be equivalent to adults.

<i>R v Gladue</i> Supreme Court of Canada case on sentences for Indigenous offenders

R v Gladue is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the sentencing principles that are outlined under s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code. That provision, enacted by Parliament in 1995, directs the courts to take into consider "all available sanctions, other than imprisonment" for all offenders. It adds that the courts are to pay "particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders".

Legality of BDSM Laws on BDSM

Criminalization of consensual BDSM practices is usually not with explicit reference to BDSM, but results from the fact that such behavior as spanking or cuffing someone could be considered a breach of personal rights, which in principle constitutes a criminal offense. In Germany, Netherlands, Japan and Scandinavia, such behavior is legal in principle. In Austria the legal status is not clear, while in Switzerland some BDSM practices can be considered criminal.

Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act, 2007

The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2007 is an act of the Parliament of South Africa that reformed and codified the law relating to sex offences. It repealed various common law crimes and replaced them with statutory crimes defined on a gender-neutral basis. It expanded the definition of rape, previously limited to vaginal sex, to include all non-consensual penetration; and it equalised the age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual sex at 16. The act provides various services to the victims of sexual offences, including free post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV, and the ability to obtain a court order to compel HIV testing of the alleged offender. It also created the National Register for Sex Offenders, which records the details of those convicted of sexual offences against children or people who are mentally disabled.

Sentencing in England and Wales refers to a bench of magistrates or district judge in a magistrate's court or a judge in the Crown Court passing sentence on a person found guilty of a criminal offence. In deciding the sentence, the court will take into account a number of factors: the type of offence and how serious it is, the timing of any plea of guilty, the defendant's character and antecedents, including his/her criminal record and the defendant's personal circumstances such as their financial circumstances in the case of a fine being imposed.

Sexual violence in Finland Overview of sexual violence in Finland

Sexual violence is defined as the use of force or manipulation to get someone to engage in unwanted sexual activity without his or her consent. Such violence takes place in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, as well as outside intimate relationships. All sexual offenses violate the basic right of sexual self-determination. In Finland, sexual violence and taking advantage of a person is always a crime, even if the assaulter was the victim's spouse, relative or their friend. Sexual offences include but are not limited to rape, forcing someone into a sexual act and taking sexual advantage of a person. The victims of sexual violence are predominantly women, but 26 percent of Finnish men have experienced sexual harassment since their 15th birthday.

R v Ipeelee is a Supreme Court of Canada decision which reaffirmed the court's previous holdings in R v Gladue, in that when sentencing an Indigenous person, every sentencing judge must consider: (a) the unique systemic or background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular Indigenous individual before the courts; and (b) the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the person before the court because of their particular Indigenous heritage or connection.

<i>Pearce v R</i>

Pearce v R is an Australian legal case decided in the High Court.

<i>Dinsdale v R</i>

Dinsdale v R is an Australian legal case decided in the High Court.

References

  1. 1 2 Friesen SCC at para 107.
  2. ↑ Friesen SCC at para 32.
  3. ↑ Friesen SCC at paras 6-13.
  4. ↑ Friesen SCC at para 18.
  5. ↑ Friesen SCC at para 21.
  6. ↑ Friesen SCC at para 43.
  7. ↑ Friesen SCC at paras 98-100.
  8. ↑ Friesen SCC at para 5.
  9. ↑ Friesen SCC at paras 122-24.
  10. ↑ Friesen SCC at para 125.
  11. ↑ Friesen SCC at para 131.
  12. ↑ Friesen SCC at paras 134-36.
  13. ↑ Friesen SCC at paras 137-46.
  14. ↑ Friesen SCC at paras 148-54.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.