R v R.P., [2005] OJ No 2896

This is the sentencing decision for the accused, RP, on conviction for various offences arising from RP’s participation in the shooting of two horses, one of which died, and the subsequent mutilation of the dead horse’s body.

RP pleaded guilty but later claimed he did not remember committing the acts. At a previous hearing, the judge determines that the plea would stand and he would proceed to sentencing.

The judge considers the following evidence in making his sentencing decision:

-victim impact statement;

-pre-sentence report;

-the sentence imposed upon the co-accused;

-after RPs arrest, he was subject to restrictive bail conditions and complied with them;

-he started college;

-he underwent a psychological assessment which concluded that RP was not a significant threat to society and was a good candidate for community supervision; and

-the judge found the offences shocking and inhumane.

RP is sentenced to a six-month deferred custody and supervision order, with all statutory conditions as well as a non-contact order prohibiting RP from associating with the other person involved in the offences. He was also prohibited from consuming alcohol and non-medical drugs and was confined to his home except for permitted absences for work, school and other reasons permitted by his supervisor. Following his custodial term, RP would be placed on 18 months’ probation, with the same alcohol and drug prohibitions, as well as a prohibition on him having the care and control of any animals. He was also prohibited from possessing weapons for 10 years.

Source: Case Law

Jurisdiction: Ontario

Topics: deathguilty pleahorsesMutilationsentencingshootingyouth

Report a Broken Link