 |
| John L. Hill |
Public safety rather than punishment is the primary focus. Conversely, our courts of law emphasize punishment, and the potential for future harm to others is not even considered. That is the unfortunate outcome in the case of R. v. Lee, 2025 BCCA 292.
On March 16, 2024, Jae Won Lee, 23, attacked a middle-aged resident outside a Surrey, B.C., social housing complex after being confronted for removing a motorcycle cover. Lee told the resident to “mind your own business.” Lee then produced a six-inch knife and stabbed the older man in the arm as he tried to retreat. Lee then followed the victim inside, cornered him in a stairwell and stabbed
francescoch:ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
Lee was born in 2000 in Canberra, Australia, and was raised in New Zealand and later Canada. Although a permanent resident, he never obtained Canadian citizenship. His parents separated in 2015. He had a difficult relationship with his mother at home and was involved with the youth justice system early on. His youth record from 2017 to 2020 included possession of weapons, property crimes and breaches of release conditions.
He showed potential as a capable student involved in competitive ski racing, but his education was interrupted by family and behavioural issues. He began heavy use of Xanax and alcohol, resulting in blackouts and five overdoses, four of which happened in 2023. He claimed to have no memory of the 2024 stabbing because he was intoxicated at the time.
He had enrolled in several recovery programs since 2019 with limited success. At sentencing, he had been eight months sober and was working in flooring. He continued counselling and was assessed as having a low-to-moderate risk of violence, which could increase if he relapsed.
His adult criminal record includes two thefts under $5,000 committed in 2019, for which he received a conditional discharge and 12 months’ probation. Two months before the March stabbing, he threatened a passenger with a switchblade on the SkyTrain, saying, “I could have taken your life right there.” He was arrested and released on an undertaking that prohibited him from possessing weapons.
In December, after the stabbing, he was convicted of possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose and received a 60-day conditional sentence. In April, he pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and possession of a dangerous weapon related to the March stabbing. He was sentenced to two years less a day to be served in the community, followed by three years’ probation.
It was evident that the sentencing judge focused heavily on the immigration consequences of a jail sentence. As a permanent resident, his conviction for aggravated assault rendered him inadmissible under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). A prison term exceeding six months would eliminate any appeal against deportation. However, a conditional sentence order (CSO) would maintain his right to appeal removal. It can also be assumed that it would motivate him to continue rehabilitative treatment.
The Crown argued that the sentencing judge made an error by overly emphasizing immigration issues, leading to a sentence that was clearly inappropriate. The Crown proposed that a proper sentence would be four years of imprisonment.
The reasons for the sentence were not reported, but the Abbotsford News quoted the sentencing judge as saying, “Mr. Lee knows nothing of Australia, his country of birth. He has no family connections or other supports there. I have struggled to determine the weight I should attach to these immigration consequences in fashioning a fit sentence.”
The Court of Appeal determined that the sentence imposed was clearly unreasonable. An appropriate sentence would be between two and four years. The Appeal Court adjusted the sentence to 42 months (three and a half years) for the aggravated assault, with a concurrent one-year term for possession of a dangerous weapon. The sentences will run from the original sentencing date, April 17, 2025.
When Lee has served two-thirds of his sentence, he becomes eligible for statutory release and will then be deported to Australia. Throughout the Appeal Court’s reasons, there is no consideration of the rehabilitative programs he will face in prison or how he might be motivated to seek treatment, especially given that he will have no support network and knows nothing of the society he will encounter once removed from Canada. There is also no discussion of the risk he might pose to Australian society. Instead, the focus was on proportionality in punishment rather than the risk to public safety.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. His most recent book, Acts of Darkness (Durvile & UpRoute Books), was released July 1. Hill is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.