R. v. Friesen 2020 SCC 9 - Case Summary
The Supreme Court of Canada weighs in on the seriousness of sexual offences against children, potentially enabling courts to impose heavier sentences.
Who:
Friesen is a 29 year old male with no prior record.
He has a history of neglect and sexual trauma in his own childhood, including becoming homeless after leaving the care of Child and Family Services (CFS), turning to selling sex to survive.
What:
Friesen meets the victim’s mother on a dating website, who picks him up from a bar at 1:00AM and brings him to her residence.
During consensual sex with the mother, Friesen demands that her 4 year old daughter be brought into the room and that the mother assist him in having sex with her.
The child is removed from the situation by a friend of the mother who was babysitting the child.
Friesen threatens that unless the mother brings the child back, he will fabricate an allegation that the mother sexually abused her other child.
Friesen pleads guilty to sexual interference and attempted extortion.
Friesen asks for 3 years imprisonment, the Crown asks for 7 years, and Judge Stewart imposes a 6 year sentence.
The Manitoba Court of Appeal reduces the sentence to 4.5 years.
The Supreme Court of Canada restores the original sentence of 6 years.
Where:
The case is initially heard in Manitoba’s Provincial Court.
Friesen appeals his sentence to the Manitoba Court of Appeal where his sentence is reduced to 4.5 years.
The Crown appeals his sentence to the Supreme Court of Canada where the original sentence of 6 years is restored.
Why:
Friesen’s appeal rested, in part, on arguing that a sentence should not deviate from a set range.
R. v. Sidwell 2015 MBCA 56 identifies a 4-5 year starting point for sexual offences against a young person where there is a trust relationship
Parent, teacher, coach, etc.
Existence of a trust relationship is a significant aggravating factor
Friesen was not in a trust relationship with the victim and argued that his sentence should be less than the Sidwell range
The takeaway:
In the Court’s own words:
Sentencing ranges and starting points are guidelines, not hard and fast rules.
Appellate courts cannot intervene where a sentence simply deviates from a range or starting point, nor when a sentencing judge fails to refer to a specific range or starting point.
For sexual offences against children:
(1) Upward departure from prior precedents and sentencing ranges may well be required to impose a proportionate sentence;
(2) Should generally be punished more severely than sexual offences against adults; and,
(3) Sexual interference with a child should not be treated as less serious than sexual assault of a child.
It is possible that despite the SCC’s detailed decision, lawyers and judges may mistranslate the case to mean that a new “starting point” has been set for these offences, regardless of the specific circumstances of the case.