S.C.C. No. 02279 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA APPEAL DIVISION Clarke, C.J.N.S.; Hart and Matthews, JJ.A. BETWEEN: GREGORY MICHAEL JEWETT and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Ann Copeland for the Appellant Gordon S. Gale, Q.C. for the Respondent Appeal Heard: January 29, 1991 Judgment Delivered: January 29, 1991 THE COURT: Leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed, per oral reasons for judgment of Matthews, J.A.; Clarke, C.J.N.S. and Hart, J.A. concurring. The reasons for judgment of the Court were delivered orally by: MATTHEWS, J.A.: The appellant, after guilty pleas on April 17, 1990, was sentenced by Judge R. E. Kimball to eight months incarceration on each of seven counts of break, enter and theft into dwelling houses in the city of Dartmouth. He now appeals from those sentences which total 56 months, alleging that they are harsh and excessive in his circumstances. In his factum he adds a further ground: the disparity with the sentences for offences imposed upon his co‑accused, three months on each count, for a total of 21 months. The first four of the offences occurred between February 12 and 21, 1990. The guilty pleas to those took place on February 26, 1990. From March to 28, 1990, while awaiting sentencing set for April 17, 1990, the appellant and his co‑accused committed the other three offences. The appellant is 22 years old, with Grade 8 education and single. He had sad and stormy upbringing. He has prior criminal record of nine convictions, including four break and enters. Judge Kimball sentenced the appellant and his co‑accused at the same time. In some detail he considered all of the arguments placed before him and the appropriate principles of sentencing. Break and enter into private dwelling is considered to be of such serious nature that the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. The trial judge considered the benchmark set by this Court in R. v. Zong (1986), 72 N.S.R. (2d) 432 of three years for one such break and enter. He considered that the appellant pled guilty; the extent of his cooperation with the police; the rather negative presentence report; remorse; rehabilitation; whether the sentences should be consecutive or concurrent; his reasons for choosing consecutive; the principle of totality; deterrence, both specific and general; that some of the stolen goods were recovered; that a substantial number, of value approximately $16,000, were not recovered; the effect of such crimes on the victims; the prevalence of crimes of this nature in the community; that the appellant has not learned much from his previous dispositions; and that three of the offences occurred while the appellant was waiting sentencing for the first four. Judge Kimball adequately and properly set out his reasons for the disparity of the sentences. Briefly put, the co‑accused was three and a half years younger; the appellant was the leader and the co‑accused the follower in the offences for which they were jointly charged; the appellant negotiated the disposal of some of the stolen items; and that the co‑accused had virtually no record, one breach of an undertaking when he was a youth. The trial judge said, respecting the co‑accused: “... But again say by way of summary, you're three and half years younger; you have no record to speak of at all; there is more in your case to justify us in thinking that you need not as much individual deterrence. So hopefully you will learn from this lesson and in that sense be unlike Mr. Jewett who never learned thing from, or very much at least, from the previous dispositions made in other Courts at other times earlier in his life. You too will go to jail. It will be substantial period of imprisonment." By virtue of s. 687(1) of the Code this Court must consider the fitness of the sentences appealed against. After considering the submissions made by counsel, the record before us which includes the decision of Judge Kimball and the submissions made to him both on behalf of the appellant and his co‑accused, it is our unanimous opinion that the trial judge made no reversible error in law. The total sentence imposed is neither manifestly excessive nor unfit having regard to all of the circumstances. Accordingly, although we grant leave to appeal, we dismiss the appeal. J.A. Concurred in: Clarke, C.J.N.S. CANADA PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA APPEAL DIVISION on appeal from THE PROVINCIAL COURT HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN versus GREGORY MICHAEL JEWETT HEARD BEFORE: His Honour Judge R. B. Kimball DATE HEARD: April 17, 1990 PLACE HEARD: Dartmouth, N. S. COUNSEL: John Feehan, Esq., for the Crown Anne Copeland, for the Defence (Jewitt) APPEAL ON SENTENCE S.C.C. No. 02279 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA APPEAL DIVISION BETWEEN: GREGORY MICHAEL JEWETT and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: MATTHEWS, J.A. (orally)
22 year old male pled guilty to seven counts of break, enter and theft - prior criminal record of nine convictions, including four break and enters -  co-accused sentenced to three months for each count totalling 21 months  -  eight months on each count for a total of 56 months upheld on appeal  -  the trial judge properly considered that the appellant pled guilty, the extent of his cooperation with police, the presentence report, remorse, rehabilitation, whether the sentences should be consecutive or concurrent, his reasons for making them consecutive, the principles of totality, deterrence, and other relevant factors - the co-accused was three and one half years younger with no record and was not the ringleader.