Docket: CACR2104 Her Majesty the Queen Appellant - v. -, 2012 SKCA 126

THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2012 SKCA 126 Date: 2012-12-19 Between: Docket: CACR2104 Her Majesty the Queen Appellant - and - Philip Edward Mullins Respondent Coram: Vancise, Richards and Caldwell JJ.A. Counsel: Wade McBride for the appellant Joelle Graham and Lori Dunford for the respondent Appeal: From: 2011 SKQB 478 Heard: September 6, 2012

Disposition: Dismissed Written Reasons: December 19, 2012 By: The Honourable Mr. Justice Richards In Concurrence: The Honourable Mr. Justice Vancise The Honourable Mr. Justice Caldwell Richards J.A. [ 1 ] The respondent, Philip Mullins, was convicted of drug offences and sentenced to a term of imprisonment on December 19, 2011. He was released from custody on April 19, 2012. [ 2 ] The Crown appealed Mr.

Mullins’ sentence, arguing both that the sentence was demonstrably unfit and that the trial judge had made a reviewable error in relation to granting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody. [ 3 ] The Crown’s factum was not filed until May 17, 2012 and it took no special steps to ensure that the appeal was heard at an early date. In the end, the appeal came on for hearing on September 6, 2012. By that time, Mr. Mullins had been out of prison for almost five months. We were advised by his counsel that, while incarcerated, he had completed addiction programming. We were also advised that Mr.

Mullins had been working since his release. Counsel filed positive letters of reference from his employer. [ 4 ] In light of this history, we were strongly disinclined to grant the Crown’s appeal because that would have meant sending Mr. Mullins back to jail. Nonetheless, because of the general significance of the issues concerning credit for pre-sentencing custody, we reserved our decision on the thought that it might nonetheless be appropriate to provide some clarification with respect to those matters.

Having reflected further on the question, we are of the view that the pre-sentencing custody issues would be better addressed in the context of a case where they affect the bottom-line result of the appeal. [ 5 ] As a consequence, the Crown’s appeal is dismissed. DATED at the City of Regina, in the Province of Saskatchewan, this 19 th day of December, A.D. 2012. “Richards J.A.” _________________ Richards J.A. I concur “Richards J.A.” ____________________ For Vancise J.A., as per authorization I concur “Caldwell J.A.” ______________________ Caldwell J.A.