Date: 19961202 Docket: CA020732 Registry: Vancouver COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hinkson December 2, 1996 The Honourable Mr. Justice Gibbs The Honourable Madam Justice Rowles Vancouver, B.C. BETWEEN: R E G I N A APPELLANT AND: ARNE SIGHOLT BJORDAL RESPONDENT E. Bennett, Q.C. appearing for the (Crown) Appellant D. Pothecary and E. Ferbey appearing for the Respondent [1] HINKSON, J.A.: At trial the appellant was convicted of sexual assault involving sexual intercourse with an 11 year old female. Earlier today we heard his conviction appeal and dismissed it. The Crown has sought leave to appeal the sentence imposed by the trial judge. That sentence was a term of 90 days intermittent to be followed by a period of two years probation. [2] The Crown sought a sentence in the range of one to three years at trial while the defence argued special circumstances which would reduce the degree of seriousness the offence and limit the extent of the term of punishment. The Crown has taken us through a number of authorities seeking to establish the appropriate range and as well counsel for the respondent on this appeal has indicated a number of authorities in this Court. [3] The appellant was 33 years at the time of the offence. He had an alcohol problem at that time and on the occasion in question he was severely intoxicated but the trial judge nevertheless found that the defence in Daviault did not apply and that he was guilty of the offence charged. [4] In my opinion, in the circumstances disclosed here, namely, rape of an 11 year old girl, a sentence of 90 days intermittent is not a fit sentence. While counsel for the respondent has made reference to special circumstances, the kinds of special circumstances discussed in the authorities deal with offences that occurred many years before sentencing which has resulted in a lower sentence than otherwise would be imposed. Those considerations do not apply here. In my opinion, as I have indicated, this sentence was unfit and I would grant leave to appeal, set aside the sentence, and impose a sentence of one year imprisonment and two years probation. [5] GIBBS, J.A.: I would dismiss the appeal. [6] It appears to me that the overriding consideration to be undertaken in the circumstances of this case is the justice of the matter. For whatever reasons and I do not think the reason matters, the case has dragged on too long before being heard. No one can be said to have been culpably dilatory but time has gone by to the point where, in my opinion, the justice of the matter must be taken into account. [7] The circumstances now as we are advised by Crown Counsel are that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on this appeal was completed a year ago. As well as the sentence of imprisonment, the appellant was sentenced to two years of probation. One year of the probation is now over so that he has remaining only one year of probation and then he will have paid his debt to society. It appears to me that to increase this sentence now is almost equivalent to imposing a second sentence. I know that in law it is not and it is probably extreme to express it in that fashion but that is the way it appears to me. In any event, I would say on this appeal that because of the passage of time justice requires that the sentence imposed by the trial judge be left in peace and the sentence appeal dismissed. [8] ROWLES, J.A.: I would grant leave to appeal and allow the appeal for the reasons given by Mr. Justice Hinkson. [9] HINKSON, J.A.: The appeal is allowed with Mr. Justice Gibbs dissenting. "The Honourable Mr. Justice Hinkson" "The Honourable Mr. Justice Gibbs"