R. v. Naqvi

Summary

Following guilty pleas to three child-sexual-offence counts, the court allowed the Crown’s sentence appeal. The sentencing judge materially understated the adult respondent’s blameworthiness by using relationship-oriented language and by failing to recognize grooming as aggravating. Applying established sentencing principles, the court increased the global sentence from two and a half to four years. The complainant remains unidentified under a publication ban.

Outcome

The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the Crown appeal. It held that minimizing the respondent’s blameworthiness and treating proven grooming as relationship-building were material errors in principle. Sentencing afresh, it increased the sexual-interference sentence from 24 to 42 months, producing a global sentence of four years’ imprisonment instead of two and a half years.

Why this case matters

Sentencing language that minimizes an adult offender’s blameworthiness or treats proven grooming as relationship-building can constitute reversible error.

Paragraph references

Paras. 51-61: the sentencing judge materially minimized moral blameworthiness; hearing exchanges may inform appellate review when reflected in the reasons (para. 56), and language that normalizes adult sexual abuse of a child is impermissible (paras. 57-60). Paras. 62-65: grooming is fact-driven and aggravating; assess the character, content and consequences of communications and resulting psychological manipulation. Paras. 66-75: the errors permitted fresh sentencing; aggravating and mitigating factors supported four years. Para. 76: appeal allowed and sentence increased.