R. v. Lasaga, [2005] N.J. O. 398 (PC)
Introduction
R. v. Lasaga illustrates how Canadian courts apply sentencing principles in cases involving violent offences against elderly individuals. The decision highlights the consideration given to factors such as the victim’s vulnerability, the deliberate planning behind the crime, and the court’s emphasis on deterrence when determining an appropriate sentence.
Facts of the Case
In the case of R. v. Lasaga (2005), Jerome Alfred Lasaga pled guilty to robbery and unlawful entry into the home of Mr. Ted Kennedy, an elderly man living alone in Lark Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador.[1] The incident occurred on July 27, 2005, when Mr. Lasaga and his accomplice, Timothy Sheppard, carried out a premeditated plan to rob Mr. Kennedy, who was believed to have recently received a substantial sum of cash. During the course of the robbery, Mr. Lasaga was masked and armed and violently assaulted Mr. Kennedy, who was already in a vulnerable state due to recovering from a stroke. The assault rendered Mr. Kennedy injured and unconscious, and the perpetrators stole $1,600 from his home.[2]
The Law
The court applied several sections of the Criminal Code to this case. Mr. Lasaga was charged under sections 344(b) and 349(1), which pertain to robbery and unlawful entry with intent to commit an indictable offence, respectively.[3] Section 344(b)[4] addressing the robbery as an indictable offence punishable by life imprisonment in certain cases, emphasizing the gravity of the crime.[5] Section 349(1)[6] addressing the unlawful entry into a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence, carrying a maximum penalty of ten years.[7]
The court referenced several significant cases to support the sentencing decision. In R. v. Matwiy[8], the Alberta Court of Appeal emphasized that home invasion robberies merit a higher starting point for sentencing due to their impact on the victims’ sense of security[9]. Similarly, in R. v. Fraser[10], the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal highlighted the increasing targeting of elderly individuals in rural areas and the necessity for severe penalties to deter such crimes.[11] These cases, among others, illustrate the judiciary’s recognition of the unique vulnerabilities of elderly victims and the corresponding need for stringent legal responses.
Decision
Justice Gorman sentenced Mr. Lasaga to eight years of incarceration, reflecting the seriousness of the offences and the need for a denunciatory element in the sentence.[12] The court considered the planned nature of the crime, the vulnerability of the victim, and the violent assault as aggravating factors.[13] The sentencing also took into account Mr. Lasaga’s personal circumstances, including his difficult childhood and addiction issues, but ultimately prioritized the protection of the elderly and the need for a strong deterrent message.[14]
Concluding Comments
R v Lasaga underscores the critical role of the criminal justice system in safeguarding vulnerable members of society, particularly the elderly, from violent and targeted offences. The case highlights the importance of applying legal provisions in a manner that reflects the profound impact such crimes have on victims. By emphasizing deterrence and denunciation, the court affirmed its commitment to protecting the safety and dignity of older adults, reinforcing public confidence in the justice system’s ability to respond effectively to crimes against vulnerable populations.
—
[1] R v Lasaga 2005, para 1
[2] Ibid, at para 5
[3] Ibid, at para 1
[4] Criminal Code RSC, 1985, c C-46, s 344
[5] Supra Note 1, para 11
[6] Criminal Code RSC, 1985, c C-46, s 349(1)
[7] Supra Note 1, para 11
[8] R v Matwiy (S.B.) and Langston (J.D.), (1996) 178 AR 356 (CA)
[9] Supra Note 1, para 48
[10] R v Fraser (S.A.), (1997) 158 NSR(2d) 163 (CA)
[11] Supra Note 1, para 49
[12] Supra Note 1, para 53
[13] Supra Note 1, paras 9 – 12
[14] Supra Note 1, paras 14 – 15
Menu
Written by: Chhavi Monga
Posted on: April 21, 2025
Categories: Commentary, WEL Newsletter
R. v. Lasaga, [2005] N.J. O. 398 (PC)
Introduction
R. v. Lasaga illustrates how Canadian courts apply sentencing principles in cases involving violent offences against elderly individuals. The decision highlights the consideration given to factors such as the victim’s vulnerability, the deliberate planning behind the crime, and the court’s emphasis on deterrence when determining an appropriate sentence.
Facts of the Case
In the case of R. v. Lasaga (2005), Jerome Alfred Lasaga pled guilty to robbery and unlawful entry into the home of Mr. Ted Kennedy, an elderly man living alone in Lark Harbour, Newfoundland and Labrador.[1] The incident occurred on July 27, 2005, when Mr. Lasaga and his accomplice, Timothy Sheppard, carried out a premeditated plan to rob Mr. Kennedy, who was believed to have recently received a substantial sum of cash. During the course of the robbery, Mr. Lasaga was masked and armed and violently assaulted Mr. Kennedy, who was already in a vulnerable state due to recovering from a stroke. The assault rendered Mr. Kennedy injured and unconscious, and the perpetrators stole $1,600 from his home.[2]
The Law
The court applied several sections of the Criminal Code to this case. Mr. Lasaga was charged under sections 344(b) and 349(1), which pertain to robbery and unlawful entry with intent to commit an indictable offence, respectively.[3] Section 344(b)[4] addressing the robbery as an indictable offence punishable by life imprisonment in certain cases, emphasizing the gravity of the crime.[5] Section 349(1)[6] addressing the unlawful entry into a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence, carrying a maximum penalty of ten years.[7]
The court referenced several significant cases to support the sentencing decision. In R. v. Matwiy[8], the Alberta Court of Appeal emphasized that home invasion robberies merit a higher starting point for sentencing due to their impact on the victims’ sense of security[9]. Similarly, in R. v. Fraser[10], the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal highlighted the increasing targeting of elderly individuals in rural areas and the necessity for severe penalties to deter such crimes.[11] These cases, among others, illustrate the judiciary’s recognition of the unique vulnerabilities of elderly victims and the corresponding need for stringent legal responses.
Decision
Justice Gorman sentenced Mr. Lasaga to eight years of incarceration, reflecting the seriousness of the offences and the need for a denunciatory element in the sentence.[12] The court considered the planned nature of the crime, the vulnerability of the victim, and the violent assault as aggravating factors.[13] The sentencing also took into account Mr. Lasaga’s personal circumstances, including his difficult childhood and addiction issues, but ultimately prioritized the protection of the elderly and the need for a strong deterrent message.[14]
Concluding Comments
R v Lasaga underscores the critical role of the criminal justice system in safeguarding vulnerable members of society, particularly the elderly, from violent and targeted offences. The case highlights the importance of applying legal provisions in a manner that reflects the profound impact such crimes have on victims. By emphasizing deterrence and denunciation, the court affirmed its commitment to protecting the safety and dignity of older adults, reinforcing public confidence in the justice system’s ability to respond effectively to crimes against vulnerable populations.
—
[1] R v Lasaga 2005, para 1
[2] Ibid, at para 5
[3] Ibid, at para 1
[4] Criminal Code RSC, 1985, c C-46, s 344
[5] Supra Note 1, para 11
[6] Criminal Code RSC, 1985, c C-46, s 349(1)
[7] Supra Note 1, para 11
[8] R v Matwiy (S.B.) and Langston (J.D.), (1996) 178 AR 356 (CA)
[9] Supra Note 1, para 48
[10] R v Fraser (S.A.), (1997) 158 NSR(2d) 163 (CA)
[11] Supra Note 1, para 49
[12] Supra Note 1, para 53
[13] Supra Note 1, paras 9 – 12
[14] Supra Note 1, paras 14 – 15
Author
View all posts