« Enlèvement d’une jeune (jurisprudence des peines) » : différence entre les versions

{{SCaseLong|{{CanLIIR-S|Jacome|58gt|2002 BCCA 15 (CanLII)}}{{per|MacKenzie JA}} | {{BC}} | CA | {{JailM|3}} | "the child had lived with the mother since birth with the father having regular weekly or semi-weekly access.  When the boy was five, following a dispute, the mother denied access to the father so he went to court for court-ordered access.  He served the mother with his application in May and the matter was set for hearing in August.  Sometime later in May, he became aware that she had cancelled her telephone and bank account so he became concerned about the whereabouts of his son.  In August, he obtained an ex parte order for sole custody of which she became aware.  He continued his efforts through the courts to obtain information regarding the whereabouts of his son throughout which she repeatedly refused to provide any information herself despite the court’s exhortations.  She was arrested the following July and remanded in custody until October 1st when she finally surrendered the boy to his father.  The father had not seen his son for about 21 months.  At the time of sentencing, he was living with his father and attending school.  A conditional sentence was rejected, “on the ground that it would not satisfy the denunciatory requirement of an adequate sentence and general deterrence.”  The court also rejected a conditional discharge.  A sentence of three months in jail plus 3 months’ probation was upheld on appeal with no credit for the time she spent in custody prior to surrendering the boy." {{summfrom|CAS|gs15b#par151|2016 BCPC 162 (CanLII)}}{{atL|gs15b|151}} {{FindSummaries|58gt}} {{keywords|CSO rejected}} }}