{"id":11020,"date":"2019-01-16T20:18:05","date_gmt":"2019-01-17T01:18:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/?p=11020"},"modified":"2019-01-16T20:18:05","modified_gmt":"2019-01-17T01:18:05","slug":"des-blessures-subies-en-detention-preventive-considerees-comme-un-facteur-attenuant-pour-la-peine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/des-blessures-subies-en-detention-preventive-considerees-comme-un-facteur-attenuant-pour-la-peine\/","title":{"rendered":"Des blessures subies en d\u00e9tention pr\u00e9ventive consid\u00e9r\u00e9es comme un facteur att\u00e9nuant pour la peine"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"canlii decision mainTitle solexHlZone\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.canlii.org\/en\/on\/onca\/doc\/2019\/2019onca27\/2019onca27.html\">R. v. Fiddes, 2019 ONCA 27<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Dans cette affaire, la Cour d&#8217;appel de l&#8217;Ontario affirme que le juge de premi\u00e8re instance aurait d\u00fb tenir compte, \u00e0 titre de facteur att\u00e9nuant, des blessures subies par l&#8217;accus\u00e9 pendant sa d\u00e9tention pr\u00e9ventive. La Cour d&#8217;appel r\u00e9duit ensuite consid\u00e9rablement la peine donn\u00e9e :<\/p>\n<p class=\"AParaNumbering\">[<a class=\"paragAnchor\" name=\"par8\"><\/a>8]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">Concerning sentence, we accepted the appellant&#8217;s submission that, in the particular circumstances of this case, the trial judge erred by failing to consider, as a mitigating factor on sentence, the serious injuries the appellant suffered as a result of being beaten while in pre-sentence custody.<\/span> Although the trial judge noted that the appellant had been injured while in custody, she did not enumerate his injuries (four broken ribs, two punctured lungs, a brain injury); nor allude to their serious nature (life threatening). <span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">These injuries had a significant impact on the appellant and warranted serious consideration on sentencing.<\/span> Given their passing mention in her reasons, we are unable to accept the Crown&#8217;s submission that it is implicit in the trial judge\u2019s reasons that she gave the fact of the injuries any mitigating effect.<\/p>\n<p class=\"AParaNumbering\">[<a class=\"paragAnchor\" name=\"par9\"><\/a>9]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0In the circumstances, we allowed the sentence appeal and reduced the remaining sentence imposed on count 1 to 300 days and the sentence imposed on count 2 to 300 days, concurrent to the sentence on count 1, such that the appellant&#8217;s sentence was fully served. We also set aside the mandatory victim fine surcharge the trial judge had imposed:\u00a0<em>R. v. Boudreault<\/em>,\u00a0<span class=\"reflex3-block\"><a class=\"reflex3-caselaw\" href=\"https:\/\/www.canlii.org\/en\/ca\/scc\/doc\/2018\/2018scc58\/2018scc58.html\"><span class=\"reflex3-alt\">2018 SCC 58 (CanLII)<\/span><\/a><\/span>. The remaining terms of the original sentence remain in full force and effect.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>R. v. Fiddes, 2019 ONCA 27 Dans cette affaire, la Cour d&#8217;appel de l&#8217;Ontario affirme que le juge de premi\u00e8re instance aurait d\u00fb tenir compte, \u00e0 titre de facteur att\u00e9nuant, des blessures subies par l&#8217;accus\u00e9 pendant sa d\u00e9tention pr\u00e9ventive. La Cour d&#8217;appel r\u00e9duit ensuite consid\u00e9rablement la peine donn\u00e9e : [8]\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Concerning sentence, we accepted [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"yst_prominent_words":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11020"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11020"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11020\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11020"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11020"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11020"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.doyonavocats.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=11020"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}