R v Schmitt (ABCA): Impact of sentence on family can’t override all other factors
Mr. Schmitt is a repeat driving offender. When sentenced on the matter that later brought him to the Court of Appeal, he had two convictions for driving with an excess blood alcohol level, eight convictions for driving while disqualified and one for flight from police. He was, as of December 2012, subject to a lifetime prohibition from operating a motor vehicle in Canada. In December 2012, he was stopped while driving a vehicle with several passengers and charged with driving while disqualified. There was no emergency or mitigating circumstance. Mr. Schmitt simply feels, it was revealed in a pre-sentence report, that he needs to drive because he lives in rural Alberta. The Crown sought a sentence of nine months in gaol, plus a further lifetime driving prohibition. This would have been a step up from Mr. Schmitt's recent sentence for the same offence of six months in gaol. The sentencing judge agreed that nine months in custody was an appropriate sentence, but continued: But you know why I’m not going to put you in gaol? [...]
