R. v. Gagnon, 2012 NBCA 22

COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK 141-11-CA HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN APPELLANT SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE APPELANTE - and - - et - ROMÉO GAGNON RESPONDENT ROMÉO GAGNON INTIMÉ R. v. Gagnon, 2012 NBCA 22 R. c.

Gagnon, 2012 NBCA 22 CORAM: The Honourable Justice Turnbull The Honourable Justice Richard The Honourable Justice Quigg CORAM : L’honorable juge Turnbull L’honorable juge Richard L’honorable juge Quigg Appeal from a decision of the Provincial Court: October 5, 2011 Appel d’une décision de la Cour provinciale : Le 5 octobre 2011 History of Case: Historique de la cause : Decision under appeal: Unreported Décision frappée d’appel : Inédite Preliminary or incidental proceedings: N/A Procédures préliminaires ou accessoires : S.O.

Appeal heard: February 22, 2012 Appel entendu : Le 22 février 2012 Judgment rendered: March 1, 2012 Jugement rendu : Le 1 er mars 2012

Counsel at hearing: For the appellant: Cameron H. Gunn For the respondent: Terrance H. Delaney, Q.C. Avocats à l’audience : Pour l’appelante : Cameron H. Gunn Pour l’intimé : Terrance H. Delaney, c.r. THE COURT The application for leave toappeal the sentence is dismissed. LA COUR La demande d’autorisation d’appeler de la peine estrejetée. The following is the judgment delivered by THE COURT [1] The Attorney General’s application for leave to appeal thesentence is dismissed.

While we acknowledge certain errors in the sentencing judge’sappreciation of the facts, we do not consider these to have played a dominant role inthe crafting of an appropriate sentence. Without detracting from what this Courtstated in R. v. Dunn, 2011 NBCA 19, 369 N.B.R. (2d) 271, we defer to the sentencingjudge’s obvious determination that, in this case, the circumstances of the offenderjustify an exception.

To paraphrase Lamer C.J.C., the sentencing judge serves on thefront lines of our criminal justice system; presiding within the community which hassuffered the consequences of the offender's crime; and possessing a strong sense of theparticular blend of sentencing goals that are "just and appropriate" for theprotection of that community. Considering the delicate art involved in thedetermination of a just and appropriate sentence, and the fact that sentencing is aninherently individualized process, we do not consider this to be a case for appellateinterference: R. v.

M. (C.A.), (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, [1996]S.C.J. No. 28 (QL), at paras. 91 and 92. ________________________________ WALLACE S. TURNBULL, J.A.

________________________________ J.C. MARC RICHARD, J.A. ________________________________ KATHLEEN A. QUIGG, J.A.