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.

Previous
Previous

Do I Need To Attend Court In Manitoba During COVID-19? (January 2021)