R. v. Atkinson (R.K.) et al., 2014 MBCA 116

Citation: R. v. Atkinson (R.K.) et al., 2014 MBCA 116 Date: 20141219 Docket: AR14-30-08123 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Mr. Justice Alan D. MacInnes Madam Justice Diana M. Cameron Mr. Justice Christopher J. Mainella BETWEEN : HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) A. G. Cellitti ) for the Appellant Respondent ) ) R. N. Malaviya - and - ) for the Respondent ) RUSSELL KEITH ATKINSON ) ) Appeal heard and ) Decision pronounced: (Accused) Appellant ) December 19, 2014 MAINELLA J.A. (for the Court): [ 1 ] After a trial, the accused was convicted of assault cause bodily harm on an innocent bystander in a hotel bar.

He seeks leave to appeal his five-year sentence because of alleged disparity of his sentence with those imposed on the co-accused. In his reasons, the trial judge imposed lesser sentences for the co-accused based on factors he articulated.

The accused, unlike the others, used a weapon (a baseball bat) during the assault, he displayed callous disregard for the senseless beating of the victim in a statement to the police and, at the time of the assault, he had just recently completed a seven-year sentence for manslaughter for a beating death. [ 2 ] To obtain leave on a sentence appeal, the accused must demonstrate that his grounds of appeal present an arguable case that the sentence was “demonstrably unfit or clearly unreasonable or that it was arrived at as a result of an error in principle” ( R. v. Gill , 2010 MBCA 92 at para. 2 ).

We are of the view that he has failed to meet that threshold. [ 3 ] The application for leave is dismissed. J.A. J.A. J.A.