Defence appeal from sentence of 6 years and 3 months’ jail for distribution of child pornography, luring, criminal harassment, sexual interference, and uttering threats. Appellant argued sentencing judge’s credit of the equivalent of 3.6:1 for time spent in remand did not factor in lengthy placement in lockdown for 21-23 hours/day arising from administrative segregation, protective custody & maximum-security time. He sought 20 months’ credit on appeal for 20 months in lockdown conditions, which would equal total credit of 4.6:1.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

Sentencing judge considered time in lockdown circumstances as a qualitative factor which mitigated sentence. The trial judge’s comments that he was not considering systemic or policy issues about the use of lockdown conditions in remand but was instead focussing on specific experiences of the Appellant, did not indicate error.

N. Whitling – Defence Counsel