Background
James David Bond pleaded guilty to perjury arising from testimony he gave at his 2019 jury trial for manslaughter. Bond had punched Sean Dunn outside a Kamloops nightclub, causing Dunn’s death, but was acquitted after advancing self-defence and defence of his then-girlfriend, Sarah Hupe.
During cross-examination at that trial, Bond repeatedly denied having contact with Hupe after his June 2017 arrest. He later admitted that this testimony was false: the two had maintained telephone and physical contact, including sexual encounters. The sentencing judge imposed 20 months’ imprisonment, rejecting Bond’s request for a conditional sentence order because incarceration was required to adequately express denunciation and deterrence.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal granted Bond an extension of time and leave to appeal but dismissed the sentence appeal. The sentencing judge was entitled to find that Bond’s repeated false answers, despite multiple opportunities to correct them, constituted a deliberate and ongoing effort to mislead the court. Although the judge did not expressly state that this aggravating circumstance had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, she was presumed to know and apply the correct standard, and her factual finding disclosed no palpable and overriding error.
The Court rejected Bond’s argument that perjury must be both planned and deliberate before its circumstances may aggravate sentence. The factors identified in R. v. Jordan are helpful, non-exhaustive considerations rather than a rigid checklist. Perjury that was not necessarily planned may still carry greater blameworthiness when it was deliberate and repeated. Bond’s remaining arguments improperly asked the Court to reweigh his rehabilitation and personal circumstances and to substitute its assessment of whether a conditional sentence could satisfy denunciation and deterrence.
Key Takeaways
- The perjury-sentencing factors in R. v. Jordan guide an individualized assessment; they are not mandatory threshold tests.
- Repeated, deliberate false testimony may be aggravating even without proof that the offender planned the perjury in advance.
- A sentencing judge’s weighing of rehabilitation, denunciation, deterrence, and the suitability of a conditional sentence receives substantial appellate deference.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that courts assessing perjury should evaluate the offender’s conduct along a spectrum from sudden temptation to sustained deception, rather than treating advance planning as a prerequisite to aggravation. It also reinforces the narrow scope of sentence appeals: disagreement with the weight assigned to mitigating factors or with the rejection of a conditional sentence does not establish a reviewable error.