J. Dated: 19991110 Docket: 7840 THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN Coram: Cameron Sherstobitoff JJ.A. and Wimmer J. (ad hoc) PETER GARY STONECHILD and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN COUNSEL: Mr. E. Neufeld, Q.C. for the Crown Mr. S. Beckie for the Appellant DISPOSITION: On Appeal From: Provincial Court Appeal Heard: November 10, 1999 Appeal Allowed: November 10, 1999 (orally) Written Reasons: November 17, 1999 Reasons By: The Honourable Mr. Justice Sherstobitoff In Concurrence: The Honourable Mr. Justice Cameron The Honourable Mr. Justice Wimmer (ad hoc) SHERSTOBITOFF J.A. (orally) [1] This appeal against sentence must be allowed. The offence is breach of a recognizance made under the authority of s. 810.1 of the Criminal Code, the purpose of which is to prevent further sexual offences against persons under the age of 14 years. The breach consisted in violation of term of the recognizance which prohibited the appellant from consuming alcohol. The Crown admitted that there was no nexus between consumption of alcohol on the part of the appellant and his propensity to paedophilia. In these circumstances, while we agree that a period of probation is an appropriate penalty for his offence, the inclusion of the term which prohibits him from consuming alcohol is inappropriate since it had no relation to the purpose of the original recognizance, and does not have, as far as we can see, any other purpose. Furthermore, the term of the period of probation, three years, is out of all proportion to the nature of the offence. [2] The sentence is varied by reducing the term of probation to one year and by deleting the provisions concerning possession and consumption of alcohol, entry into premises where alcohol is sold and consumed, and submission to breath or blood testing.
An appeal of a sentence for a breach of recognizance made under s.810.1 of the Criminal Code, the purpose of which is to prevent further sexual offences against persons under the age of 14 years. HELD: The sentence was varied by reducing the term of probation to 1 year and by deleting the provisions concerning possession and consumption of alcohol, entry into premises where alcohol is sold and consumed, and submission to breath or blood testing. A period of probation was appropriate but 3 years was out of proportion to the nature of the offence. The inclusion of a term prohibiting him from consuming alcohol was inappropriate since it had no relation to the purpose of the original recognizance.