A Handbook for Criminal Justice Practitioners on Trafficking in Persons

Annex 2: Sentencing Chart — Human Trafficking and Related Offences

This Annex is intended to provide police and prosecutors with guidance on the appropriate range of sentences for human-trafficking and related offences. Given the paucity of reported human trafficking sentencing judgments, this chart includes several cases without human trafficking charges but that are factually comparable to human trafficking in some way (e.g., procuring/pimping cases whose sentences could be considered a base line for a human trafficking case). This chart was compiled in July 2013.

Unless otherwise stated, the sentence indicated in the top right represents the total sentence for relevant offences — where the sentence can be severed from irrelevant offences — that would have been imposed without credit for pre-trial custody.

R v AR, [1998] AJ No 354 (Alta CA)

17 months

17 months for one count of living on the avails of prostitution of someone under eighteen (s. 212(2)). This figure had already been adjusted account for pre-trial custody. The court opined that an adult offender would receive a sentence of 60 to 84 months in similar circumstances.

Summary: The sixteen-year-old offender instructed the fourteen-year-old victim to prostitute herself, told her how often, and delivered her to locations. The offender forcibly demanded and received money from her during a one-month period. When complainant wanted to go home to her parents, the offender threatened her with a knife.

Mitigating factors: The offender was a young offender.

Aggravating factors: The offender had a substantial criminal record (21 entries), exercised a degree of control, and use of a knife. There was evidence of arguments and physical altercations.

R v Tynes and Lafferty, 2010 QCCQ 11298

34 / 34 months

  • Tynes received a total sentence of 16 months: global sentence of 34 months for two counts of living on the avails of prostitution of someone under eighteen (s. 212(2), conviction), three counts of procuring illicit sexual intercourse (s. 212(1)(a), conviction), two counts of procuring prostitution (s. 212(1)(d), conviction), one count of procuring a person to leave his place of abode to become a frequenter of a common bawdy house (s. 212(1)(e), conviction), and two counts of trafficking in controlled substances; minus 18 months credit for pre-trial custody. Ancillary orders: 10-year firearms prohibition (s. 109) and a DNA order (s. 487.051).
  • Lafferty received a total sentence of 17 months: global sentence of 34 months for three counts of living on the avails of prostitution of someone under eighteen (conviction), two counts of procuring a person to have illicit sexual intercourse (conviction), one count of enticing a person to a common bawdy-house for the purpose of prostitution (s. 212(1)(b), conviction), two counts of procuring a person to become a prostitute (conviction), one count of procuring a person to leave his place of abode to become a frequenter of a common bawdy house (conviction), and two counts of trafficking in controlled substances; minus 17 months credit for pre-trial custody Ancillary orders: Lifetime firearms prohibition and a DNA order.

Both offenders were also convicted of several offences that were subject to the Kienapple principle (e.g., exercising control over a person in such a manner that he is aiding that person to engage in prostitution (s. 212(1)(h), conviction)). Both offenders were acquitted of several other offences (e.g., trafficking in persons (s. 279.01)).

Summary: The two victims were both under eighteen. The victims worked as escorts for both of the offenders, one for several weeks and the other for a few days. The offenders gave them drugs on a regular basis. There was no use of violence and the victims could leave if they wanted to, but there was a level of coercion and control over them. The victims had no control over the number of clients they had to accept during any given night and they could not refuse a client. The offenders furnished the victims with an apartment in exchange for their wages, but it became “more of a jail than a residence.”

Mitigating factors: The complainants were free to leave when they wanted.

Aggravating factors: Tynes exploited underage victims, provided the underage victims with drugs, and was in charge of an escort agency whose sole purpose was to offer the services of prostitutes to clients for his own monetary benefit. Lafferty participated in the daily activities of the escort agency and was involved in an intimate relationship with one of the underage victims.

R v AA, [2012] OJ No 6256 (Ont SCJ)

36 months less a day

Total sentence of 29 months imprisonment less a day: 36 months less a day for human trafficking (s. 279.01, conviction); 3 months consecutive for receiving a material benefit therefrom (s. 279.02, conviction); 2 months consecutive for failing to comply with a recognizance (s. 145(3), plea); 2 months concurrent for failing to comply with a probation order (s. 733.1(1), plea); minus 9 months credit for pre-trial custody. The offender was acquitted of two counts of procuring prostitution (s. 212). Ancillary orders: Lifetime firearms prohibition (s. 110); DNA order (s. 487.051); and a forfeiture order on cell phones and cash (s. 490.1).

Summary: The victim was an exotic dancer. She was nineteen when she went to Toronto from Montreal to make extra money at Christmas. She was taken to offender’s apartment after working at a club and told she was “on charge” to him. Over several days, offender took the victim from the apartment to the club to dance. She was required to give offender all her money except for small amounts. The victim feared offender and testified that he used some violence when she did not make enough money and that she believed he had a gun. The victim managed to slip away from the club one night after several days and call police.

Mitigating factors: The operation was small and unsophisticated, the exploitative conduct was of a short duration, and there were no extraordinary negative impacts suffered by the victim.

Aggravating factors: The victim was vulnerable, did not know the area, had no family support, English was not her first language, and she was quite young. The offender had a significant youth and criminal record (including drug and weapons offences, assaults and charges of fail to appear and fail to comply), had been charged with additional assault offences while out of custody awaiting trial and breaches, demonstrated violent coercion, and had not been deterred by the increasing severity and seriousness of court dispositions. There had been evidence of a weapon.

R v McPherson, 2013 ONSC 1635

36 months

Total sentence of 36 months imprisonment: global sentence of 36 months for two counts of prostitution-related offences (ss. 212(1)(d) and (h), convictions) and 6 months concurrent for one count uttering threats (s. 264.1(1)(a), plea). No credit was granted for pre-trial custody because the offender was on bail. Ancillary orders:
10-year firearms prohibition (s. 109) and a DNA order (s. s. 487.051).

Summary: The victim met the offender at a nightclub when she was seventeen. Their relationship was initially platonic. When she turned nineteen, the offender set her up as a dancer at a club. They moved in together and a sexual relationship commenced. She considered the offender to be her boyfriend. At his request, she turned over all of her earnings to him. The offender instructed her to perform sexual services for club patrons, imposing a $1,000 per night quota that she was required to earn and rules to follow. This arrangement continued for one and a half years. The offender was thirty-six at the time of sentencing.

Mitigating factors: The offender was employed at the time of sentencing, complied with his bail conditions over a four-year period, and had strong family support.

Aggravating factors: The offender exercised significant control over the victim (e.g., work locations, schedule, and sexual acts), took most of the money the victim earned from prostitution, and acted as the victim’s pimp over a lengthy period of time.

R v St Vil, [2008] OJ No 6023 (Ont SCJ)

37 months

Total sentence of 1 day: global sentence of 37 months for trafficking in persons (s. 279.01, plea) and living on the avails of prostitution (s. 212(1)(j), plea) minus 37 months credit for pre-trial custody. 36 months probation. Ancillary orders: 18 month prohibition on entering adult entertainment venues and a DNA order (s. 487.051).

Summary: The offender began a relationship with victim. They moved together from Montreal to Mississauga where victim began dancing in strip clubs. They discussed the greater earning potential of offering extra services to clients and she began to prostitute herself. Relationship was violent, the offender maintained control over the victim’s motor vehicle during the time she was prostituting herself, and he took around $20,000 of her earnings.

Mitigating factors: The offender entered a guilty plea and demonstrated a strong potential for rehabilitation (i.e., he took significant steps in pre-trial custody with educational and religious programs).

Aggravating factors: There was domestic violence in the relationship. The offence was serious and must have had a serious impact on the victim (no victim impact statement was adduced).

R v Miller (1997), 40 OTC 17 (Ont CJ GD)

52 months

Total sentence of 22 months imprisonment: 15 months for one count of assault with a weapon (s. 267, plea); 6 months consecutive for one counts of keeping common bawdy-house (s.210(1), plea) and 6 months concurrent for each of two more counts; 6 months concurrent for each of two counts of living on avails of prostitution (s. 212(1)(j), plea); and 1 month consecutive for one count of common assault (s. 265, plea). These figures had already been adjusted down to account for 30 months credit for pre-trial custody. Ancillary orders: 24-month probation order (); lifetime weapons prohibition (s. 110).

Summary: The offender was pimp who operated a common bawdy-house for one year. He had a number of adult prostitutes working for him. He provided three residential apartments and collected 40% of the fees. The offender pushed or shoved one victim. The assaulted an exotic dancer who lived with him with a weapon, wrapped electrical cord around her neck, and threatened her.

Mitigating factors: There was no evidence that offender corrupted or coerced women to become prostitutes. The offender pleaded guilty.

Aggravating factors: The offender was mature, had a lengthy prior criminal record (including assault and uttering threats), was motivated by greed, and was on probation for assault during the offences. The offences lasted a long period and involved a number of prostitutes.

R v Bright, 2005 CarswellOnt 7126 (Ont CJ)

46 months

Total sentence of 46 months: 40 months for one count of living on avails of prostitution (s. 212(1)(j), conviction) and 6 months consecutive for one count of assault causing bodily harm (s. 267, conviction).

Summary: The complainant had been a prostitute with drug habit and began relationship with the offender, whom she met at narcotics anonymous meeting. At the offender’s behest, the complainant earned money as prostitute, gave all her earnings to offender, and received cocaine from him. The offender’s conduct turned coercive over time and he used violence to make complainant earn money.

Mitigating factors: The offender had a troubled upbringing, had run various businesses, and did not use drugs until he was twenty-one years old.

Aggravating factors: The offender had a substantial criminal record (thirty-five entries).

R v Tang (1997), 34 WCB (2d) 473 (Alta CA)

60 months

60 months for living on the avails of prostitution (s. 212(1)(j) or 212(2) — unspecified).

Summary: The accused ran a sophisticated brothel business — he solicited and provided seven or eight customers per night, up to six nights weekly for two girls aged thirteen and fourteen, over a six-week period. The victims were in foster care and a group home at the time he introduced them to prostitution. The offender provided drugs and alcohol, although not to motivate them to prostitute themselves, and extracted personal sexual favours.

Mitigating factors: The offender had no prior record, was primarily employed outside of prostitution at the time the offences occurred, and the offence lacked gratuitous violence, intimidation, or coercion.

Aggravating factors: The offender exercised a high degree of planning, had a large number of customers, earned large sums of money, and displayed no remorse. The victims were vulnerable in their foster/group homes.

R v Nakpangi, [2008] OJ No 6022 (Ont CJ)

60 months

Summary: The twenty-five-year-old offender became a pimp for the first victim when she was fifteen years old. She worked as a prostitute almost daily and turned over a total of $360,000 over three years until she contacted police. Over course of relationship, the offender threatened the victim and her family, assaulted her, and told her there was an exit fee of $100,000 if she wanted to leave. The second victim met the offender when she was a ward of CAS at age fourteen and became a prostitute. The offender acted as pimp for her and she gave approximately $65,000 in earnings to him.

Mitigating factors: The offender pleaded guilty.

Aggravating factors: The offender lived an extremely lavish lifestyle on money taken from his victims, exercised control over the first victim for a long period of time and used assaults, threats, threats against her family, and the imposition of exit fees, and showed little remorse or chance of rehabilitation. The victims were both young.

R v Wallace, 2009 ABCA 300

60 months

Total sentence of 22 months: 60 months for procuring prostitution (s. 212(1)(a), conviction); 48 months concurrent for controlling a prostitute (s. 212(1)(h), conviction); 12 months consecutive for assault (s. 265, conviction); 12 moths concurrent for possession of a weapon (conviction); minus 50 months credit for pre-trial custody. Ancillary orders: None mentioned on appeal.

Summary: The twenty-seven-year-old offender met the eighteen-year-old victim on an Internet dating website. The offender took the victim from Alberta to Toronto and introduced her to prostitution, keeping all the proceeds for himself. They then returned to Alberta where the offence continued.

Mitigating factors: None.

Aggravating factors: The offence was a planned and deliberate course of conduct that involved trickery and manipulation equivalent to coercion. The victim was unsophisticated and involved in an intimate relationship with the offender.

R v Husain, [2011] OJ No 6487 (Ont SCJ) aff’d [2012] OJ No 4848 (Ont CA)

62 months

Total sentence of 24 months less a day: global sentence of 62 months for two counts of sexual assault (s. 271, plea), one count of attempting to procure prostitution (s. 212(1)(d), plea), one count of procuring the services of a person under 18 (s. 212(4), plea), and one count of failing to comply with a recognizance (s. 145(3), plea); minus 38 months credit for pre-trial custody. Ancillary orders: Prohibition order (s. 161), DNA order (s. 487.051), and sex offender registration.

Summary: The victims were thirteen-and fifteen-year-old aspiring models when they were introduced to offender as a professional photographer. The offender had unprotected sex periodically with each victim over approximate eighteen-month period, during all or part of which victims were underage. He gave them alcohol and money and on occasion gave at least one of them Oxycontin. He also asked them to have sex with his friends for more money.

Mitigating factors: The offender pleaded guilty, was depressed after being separated from his wife and children, and claimed to have a sexual addiction.

Aggravating factors: The victims were young. The offender was much older (fifty-two at time of sentencing), provided the victims with alcohol and drugs were involved, and had an unrelated U.S. criminal record (71 months).

R v Murray, [1995] AJ No 688 (Alta CA)

72 months

Total sentence of 60 months: global sentence of 72 months for an unspecified number of offences that included one count of living on the avails of prostitution (s. 212(1)(j)), two counts of uttering threats (s. 264.1), and one count of assault causing bodily harm (s. 267); minus 12 months credit for pre-trial custody.

Summary: Offender got his very vulnerable young girlfriend to working for him as a prostitute, even though she had never worked as a prostitute previously. The offender beat another woman with whom he was involved to prevent her from talking about his business. The offender threatened the victims to keep them from assisting the women who acted as his prostitutes.

Mitigating factors: None.

Aggravating factors: The offender committed a number of different offences involving four different victims and used violence to control those whom he regarded as interfering with prostitution business. One victim had not been a prostitute before she began working for the appellant.

R v Thomas, [2003] OJ No 6137 (Ont SCJ)

78 months

Total sentence of 54 months: global sentence of 78 months for procuring prostitution (s. 212(1)(d)), living on the avails of prostitution in aggravating circumstances (s. 212(2.1)), and sexual assault (s. 271); minus 24 months credit for pre-trial custody. Ancillary orders: Lifetime firearms prohibition (s. 110); DNA order (s. 487.051).

Summary: The twenty-six-year-old offender persuaded a fourteen-year-old runaway girl (who posed as a nineteen-year-old) to engage in prostitution to pay for room and board. The offender hit the victim when she refused to have sex with him, whipped her, and forced her to have anal sex with him to make her more valuable to him as a prostitute. The offences took place over nine to ten months.

Mitigating factors: The offender pleaded guilty and believed that the victim was nineteen years old.

Aggravating factors: The offender had an extensive criminal record dating back to 1991, including narcotics trafficking, kidnapping, possession of weapon, and sexual assault charges. The offender used threats, intimidation, and violence against the victim.

R v Bennett (2004), 184 OAC 386 (Ont CA)

78 months

Total sentence of 54 months: global sentence of 36 months for one count each of procuring prostitution (s. 212(1)(d)), living on the avails of prostitution in aggravating circumstances (s. 212(2.1)), controlling movement for the purpose of prostitution (s. 212(1)(h)), and common assault (s. 265); 12 months consecutive for another count of controlling movement for the purpose of prostitution; 12 months concurrent for one count of living on avails of prostitution (s. 212(1)(j)); six months consecutive for one count of attempting to procure prostitution (s. 212(1)(d)). These figures had already been adjusted down from a total sentence of 78 months to 54 months.

Summary: The offences involved three female complainants under the age of eighteen. The offender controlled a complainant to compel her to engage in prostitution and lived on avails of prostitution and procuring. The convictions were upheld but sentence reduced on appeal from a global sentence of 96 months (before credit for pre-trial custody credit) to a sentence of 78 months (before credit for pre-trial custody).

Mitigating factors: The conduct with the first victim was short-lived and violence left no physical injury. The second victim was a prostitute before she met offender and there was no indication of violence in their relationship. The offender’s criminal record was dated and unrelated and he showed prospects for rehabilitation (an intelligent man with some community support).

Aggravating factors: The victims were young and vulnerable. The offences were serious.

R v Patterson, [2003] OJ No 1353 (Ont CA), add [2003] OJ No 1721

84 months

Total sentence of 83 months: 84 months for ten charges including kidnapping (s. 279(1), conviction), unlawful confinement (s. 279(2), conviction), procuring to have illicit sexual intercourse (s. 212(1)(a), conviction), living on the avails of prostitution (s. 212(1)(j), conviction), uttering threats (s. 264.1, conviction), and attempt to obstruct justice (s. 139, conviction); minus 20 weeks credit for pre-trial custody.

Summary: The nineteen-year-old victim was kidnapped, held her against her will for over one week, and forced her into street prostitution. The offender subjected complainant to extreme threats and humiliation. The offender was a lawyer and member of the Ontario bar.

Mitigating factors: The offender had no criminal record.

Aggravating factors: The victim was young. The offender acted with two co-accused and subjected the victim to a week of systematic abuse and humiliation.

R v Nelson, [2004] OJ No 5532 (Ont SCJ)

96 months

Total sentence of 24 months: global sentence of 48 months for one count each of exercising influence for the purpose of prostitution (s. 212(1)(h), conviction) and living on the avails of prostitution (s. 212(1)(j), conviction); 48 months consecutive for sexual assault (s. 271, conviction); global sentence of 12 months concurrent for two counts of assault (s. 265, conviction); global sentence of 9 months concurrent for three counts of breaching a recognizance (s. 811, conviction); minus 72 months credit for pre-trial custody. Ancillary orders: 10-year supervision order (s. 753.1(3)); lifetime firearms prohibition (s. 110); DNA order (s. 487.051).

Summary: During an eight-day period, the offender procured the victim to become his prostitute. The victim was a drug addict who purchased drugs from him. The offender physically and sexually assaulted her and took her earnings.

Mitigating factors: None.

Aggravating factors: The offender had a criminal record involving sexual assault and twenty-five years of drug abuse.

R v MS, [2006] OJ No 1347 (Ont SCJ)

96 months

Total sentence of 57 months: 48 months for one count of unlawful confinement (s. 279(2)); 48 months consecutive for two counts of living on the avails of prostitution of someone under eighteen (s. 212(2)); minus 39 months credit for pre-trial custody in solitary confinement.

Summary: While on probation, the twenty-two-year-old offender confined a teenaged girl and forced her to work as a prostitute. The offender also had two other teenaged girls work as prostitutes for him for about three to four weeks each, apparently from the detention centre.

Mitigating factors: None.

Aggravating factors: The offender had been arrested on similar charges in three years earlier, had a recent and relevant criminal record, had been deported and had returned to Canada illegally, was on probation when the offences were committed, and was manipulating and taking advantage of young girls while in the detention centre.

R v Mfizi (2008), 78 WCB (2d) 109 (Ont SCJ), aff’d 2010 ONCA 253

96 months

Total sentence of 72 months imprisonment: 96 months for one count of living on the avails of prostitution of someone under eighteen (s. 212(2), conviction); 60 months concurrent for procuring prostitution (s. 212(1)(a), conviction); 48 months concurrent for exercising control for the purposes of prostitution (s. 212(1)(h), conviction); 60 months concurrent for five counts of assault (s. 265); minus 24 months credit for pre-trial custody. Ancillary orders: Lifetime firearms prohibition (s. 110) and a DNA order (s. s. 487.051).

Summary: The victim met the offender at a nightclub when she was seventeen. Their relationship was initially platonic. When she turned nineteen, the offender set her up as a dancer at a club. They moved in together and a sexual relationship commenced. She considered the offender to be her boyfriend. At his request, she turned over all of her earnings to him. The offender instructed her to perform sexual services for club patrons, imposing a $1,000 per night quota that she was required to earn and rules to follow. This arrangement continued for one and a half years. The offender was thirty-six at the time of sentencing.

Mitigating factors: The offender had a difficult childhood with a single mother who worked three jobs, had a ten year old son, and did not exercise control over victim for an extended period of time.

Aggravating factors: The victim was young (seventeen years old) and the offence had a severe impact on her and her family. The offender exercised control through violence and humiliation, used drugs as an inducement, lacked remorse or responsibility, and had a criminal record (including robbery, attempted robbery, assault, and failure to comply with a recognizance).

R v Grouse (1994), 71 OAC 79 (Ont CA)

108 months

Total sentence of 108 months: 60 months for one count of assault causing bodily harm (s. 267, conviction) and global sentence of 48 months consecutive for one count each of procuring prostitution (s. 212(1)(a), conviction), exercising control for the purpose of prostitution (s. 212(1)(h), conviction), and living on the avails of prostitution (s. 212(1)(j), conviction).

Summary: The offender kept the victim in a “state of near slavery and brutalized her mercilessly for three years.” The assaults on the victim were prolonged and brutal, including attempted drowning, cigarette and curling iron burns, and severe beatings, even when she was pregnant. The victim and another woman who worked as a prostitute for the offender were known on the streets as "the burn sisters."

Mitigating factors: None mentioned on appeal.

Aggravating factors: The offender had a prior conviction for living on the avails of prostitution, exercised total control over the victim for approximately three years, and left her destitute and dependent on him.

R v Domotor, Domotor, and Kolompar, [2012] OJ No 3630 (Ont SCJ)

108 / 60 months

  • Domotar Sr. received a total sentence of 54 months: 108 months for human trafficking (s. 279.01, plea); an unspecified concurrent sentence for participating in a criminal organization (s. 467.11, plea); 6 months concurrent for counselling misrepresentations that induced error in the administration of the IRPA (plea); minus 24 months credit for pleading guilty and 30 months credit for pre-trial custody. Ancillary orders: 10-year firearms prohibitions (s. 109); DNA orders (s. 487.051); and a delayed parole recommendation (s. 743.6).
  • Domotar Jr. received a total sentence of 16 months: 60 months for human trafficking (plea); an unspecified concurrent sentence for participating in a criminal organization (plea); 3 months concurrent for misrepresentation (plea); minus 24 months credit for pleading guilty and 20 months credit for pre-trial custody. Ancillary orders: 10-year firearms prohibitions and DNA orders.
  • Kolompar received a sentence of time served for misrepresentation (plea).

Summary: The accused (father, mother, and son) were major players in large family organization that carried out a number of criminal endeavours both in Hungary and then in Canada, including human trafficking, welfare frauds, thefts from mail, and fraudulent dealings with cheques stolen by that method. The organization began trafficking victims from Hungary into Canada after visa requirements were lifted for Hungarian visitors. In total, nineteen victims were brought into Canada by the organization. Once in Canada, the victims were required to live in the offenders’ basements and work for little or no pay in their businesses. The victims spoke no English, were taken to make false refugee claims, were taken to claim social services benefits that the offenders collected, and were taken to open bank accounts that only the offenders could access. The victims’ families in Hungary were threatened and intimidated by the original recruiters to withdraw complaints when charges began to be laid in Canada.

Mitigating factors: All three accused pleaded guilty. The father waived preliminary hearing. Domotar Jr. was in his late teens when offences were committed, played lesser role and was groomed by father, and has no criminal record.

Aggravating factors: Domotar Sr. and Kolompar each have minor criminal records in Canada. The offences were a premeditated, deliberate, and calculated criminal scheme years in the making and which lasted over a long period of time. The offences continued to be perpetrated even after Domotar Sr. was arrested. The welfare fraud offences were a breach of society’s trust. Other members of the criminal organization threatened victims and their families in Hungary. The scheme involved more greed and nastiness than was required to accomplish its purpose.

R v SM, 2010 BCCA 546, aff’ing 2010 BCSC 178

144 months

Total sentence of 95 months: 144 months for one count of kidnapping (s. 279, conviction); 84 months concurrent for one count of unlawful confinement (s. 279(2) , conviction); 60 months concurrent for extortion (s. 346, conviction); 48 months concurrent for assault with a weapon (s. 266, conviction); 48 months concurrent for sexual assault (s. 271, conviction); 36 months concurrent for assault causing bodily harm (s. 266, conviction); 24 months concurrent for threatening (s. 264.1, conviction); minus 48 months credit for pre-trial custody.

Summary: The victim was a 56-year-old drug addict and part-time drug trafficker. In revenge for the victim’s use of some of the drugs and money entrusted to him, the offender and others kidnapped him and held him for five days during which time he was denied food and tortured in numerous horrific ways, including being lifted up by his testicles.

Mitigating factors: The offender had an unfortunate upbringing, showed a willingness to take programs for substance dependency and tendency towards violence, had family support, and had been gainfully employed for most of adult life.

Aggravating factors: The offender had a fairly significant criminal record, used gratuitous violence, had an exceptionally criminal motive, and showed a high moderate risk for antisocial behaviour.

R v Downey and Thompson, 2010 ONSC 1531

168/168 months

  • Downey received a total sentence of 104 months: 168 months for one count of aggravated sexual assault (s. 273, conviction); 120 months concurrent for one count of kidnapping (s. 279, conviction); minus 64 months credit for pre-trial custody. Ancillary orders: Lifetime firearms prohibition (s. 110) and a DNA order (s. 487.051).
  • Thompson received a total sentence of 103 months: 168 months for one count of aggravated sexual assault (conviction); 120 months concurrent for one count of kidnapping (conviction); 240 months concurrent for two counts of sexual assault (s. 271, conviction); minus 65 months credit for pre-trial custody. Ancillary orders: Lifetime firearms prohibition and a DNA order.

Both offenders were also convicted of several offences that were subject to the Kienapple principle: unlawful confinement (s. 279), common assault (s. 265), and additional counts of sexual assault. Both offenders were acquitted of trafficking in person (s. 279.01), theft of identity documents to facilitate an offence (s. 402.2), and addition accounts of sexual assault.

Summary: The two twenty-one- and twenty-two-year-old offenders kidnapped and confined nineteen year old victim for twenty-four hours. The victim was repeatedly and violently sexually assaulted, bound, gagged, burned on various body parts, and left tied-up in a closet overnight.

Mitigating factors: The offenders were relatively young and expressed some remorse.

Aggravating factors: The offenders had criminal records. The offence took deliberation and planning and lasted over a twenty-four-hour period.

R v Davis and Walker (1999), 117 OAC (Ont CA)

192 months

Each offender received a total sentence of 192 months: 180 months for kidnapping (s. 279(1)), 156 months concurrent for sexual assault with a weapon (s. 272), 144 months concurrent for robbery (s. 344), and 12 months consecutive for using a firearm in the commission of an indictable offence (s. 85(1)). The Court of Appeal indicated that these sentences were imposed after considering pre-trial custody; the sentences would otherwise have been in the range of 216 to 228 months. Ancillary orders: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge’s delayed parole order (s. 743.6).

Summary: The two nineteen-year-old co-accused and a third offender approached the male and female victims in their car. The offenders forced them to drive to a secluded location at gunpoint where the female was sexually assaulted multiple times. The victims were subjected to “extreme violence and dehumanizing acts of unspeakable proportions,” “urban terrorism,” and “stark horror.”

Mitigating factors: One co-accused pleaded guilty and co-operated with police.

Aggravating factors: Walker had substantial youth court record, including for sexual assault with a weapon. Davis was on bail for serious firearms offence. Both offenders showed poor prospects for rehabilitation. Both victims were psychologically scarred.

Date modified: