- 注册
- 2002-10-07
- 消息
- 402,312
- 荣誉分数
- 76
- 声望点数
- 0
If, on a drunken lark, you fired three bullets from a handgun inside a highrise apartment — piercing a neighbour’s wall — what kind of penalty would be reasonable?
Yili Yang, then 18, received a conditional discharge from Ontario Justice Matthew Webber, meaning he would have no criminal conviction if terms were obeyed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal wasn’t impressed. On Friday, it released a decision on the Crown’s appeal of the original sentence, handed down March 23, 2017.
“In our view, a conditional discharge was a demonstrably unfit disposition in the circumstances of this case.”
In its written decision, the appeal panel noted that Yang — “while intoxicated late one evening” — fired three bullets from a semi-automatic, 45-calibre Sig Sauer, in his unit at 171 Lees Ave., a highrise apartment not far from the University of Ottawa.
One of the bullets from the licensed gun owner ended up in a neighbour’s apartment “in the living room area, next to where the neighbour’s child’s toys were stored.
“As the trial judge said, these actions were about ‘as careless as one can imagine’ and could ‘easily have caused immeasurable tragedy.’ ”
Fortunately on that morning — Dec. 28, 2015 — it was about 2:20 a.m. when the shots were fired.
The three-judge panel felt a discharge sent the wrong signal.
“The sentencing judge erred in placing insufficient weight on the primary sentencing principles of general deterrence and denunciation. The trial judge also erred in using the fact of the appellant’s intoxication as a mitigating factor, when in fact it was a significant aggravating factor in this case.”
It also called the multiple shots “aggravating factors” and noted the discharged bullets could have had “catastrophic” results.
Instead, the appeal court imposed a conviction on a charge of careless use of a firearm, suspended the sentence but included a period of probation.
The ruling noted that Yang had spent more than five months in custody before his trial.
The distinction between a discharge and a suspended sentence is an important one, as it hands Yang a criminal record. In his case, this could be especially important, the judges noted.
“Although we are aware of the immigration implications arising from a conviction in this matter, these consequences cannot operate to allow the imposition of an unfit sentence.”
According to a Postmedia story at the time, Ottawa police initially thought they were dealing with the accidental discharge of a firearm in the unit. The call drew patrol officers and the tactical unit.
Further investigation led to a search warrant, which recovered a firearm, and Yang was placed under arrest. He was initially charged with three counts of recklessly discharging a firearm as well as unsafe storage.
Neither Yang nor his lawyer could be reached for comment Saturday.
To contact Kelly Egan, please call 613-726-5896 or email kegan@postmedia.com
Twitter.com/kellyegancolumn
查看原文...
Yili Yang, then 18, received a conditional discharge from Ontario Justice Matthew Webber, meaning he would have no criminal conviction if terms were obeyed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal wasn’t impressed. On Friday, it released a decision on the Crown’s appeal of the original sentence, handed down March 23, 2017.
“In our view, a conditional discharge was a demonstrably unfit disposition in the circumstances of this case.”
In its written decision, the appeal panel noted that Yang — “while intoxicated late one evening” — fired three bullets from a semi-automatic, 45-calibre Sig Sauer, in his unit at 171 Lees Ave., a highrise apartment not far from the University of Ottawa.
One of the bullets from the licensed gun owner ended up in a neighbour’s apartment “in the living room area, next to where the neighbour’s child’s toys were stored.
“As the trial judge said, these actions were about ‘as careless as one can imagine’ and could ‘easily have caused immeasurable tragedy.’ ”
Fortunately on that morning — Dec. 28, 2015 — it was about 2:20 a.m. when the shots were fired.
The three-judge panel felt a discharge sent the wrong signal.
“The sentencing judge erred in placing insufficient weight on the primary sentencing principles of general deterrence and denunciation. The trial judge also erred in using the fact of the appellant’s intoxication as a mitigating factor, when in fact it was a significant aggravating factor in this case.”
It also called the multiple shots “aggravating factors” and noted the discharged bullets could have had “catastrophic” results.
Instead, the appeal court imposed a conviction on a charge of careless use of a firearm, suspended the sentence but included a period of probation.
The ruling noted that Yang had spent more than five months in custody before his trial.
The distinction between a discharge and a suspended sentence is an important one, as it hands Yang a criminal record. In his case, this could be especially important, the judges noted.
“Although we are aware of the immigration implications arising from a conviction in this matter, these consequences cannot operate to allow the imposition of an unfit sentence.”
According to a Postmedia story at the time, Ottawa police initially thought they were dealing with the accidental discharge of a firearm in the unit. The call drew patrol officers and the tactical unit.
Further investigation led to a search warrant, which recovered a firearm, and Yang was placed under arrest. He was initially charged with three counts of recklessly discharging a firearm as well as unsafe storage.
Neither Yang nor his lawyer could be reached for comment Saturday.
To contact Kelly Egan, please call 613-726-5896 or email kegan@postmedia.com
Twitter.com/kellyegancolumn
查看原文...
