The equivalent is the indictable offence, just like how misdemeanours are synoymous with summary convictions.
Kind of. Summary is 2 years less a day, and the criminal record is either expunged if a discharge or conditional discharge is made, or removed if the suspect successfully applies after five years and the person reviewing the application decides that removing the criminal record won't be a threat to the customers of any jobs of vulnerable people that require background checks. Only an RCMP (Candian FBI) record exists for him.
Indictable is
much worse. You are permanently stuck with your record, but you
might be able to appeal it after ten years. They have your DNA and fingerprints, and you will lose out on a lot of jobs. Many jobs are starting to open up and include everyone minus pedo's and sex offenders, but you will still have that stigma.
Can any legal kiwis chime in on the sentencing of Bobposting? Because when I tried to research for it , I didn't get any conclusive answers.
The honest answer is that it does not look good for Dongy Dong.
Robbery in Canada is defined as theft but with some sort of overt or covert threat. Theft is simply taking it without assault, threats, or a firearm. The judge concluded with previous court cases, notably
1983 CanLII 3496 (ON CA) that the letter had an implicit threat.
According to the
Criminal Note Book (written by an actual lawyer, godsend for Canadian law students by the way, really good supplement) the average sentence in Alberta for this exact type of crime (robbery by bank note) is
FOUR YEARS and possibly a fine. This is the provincial average. Unless Dongy Dong gives a legitimately good reason, this is the sentence he will get. I cannot find any mitigating factors stated in the document.
He is fucked unless he's mentally ill enough to be considered Not Criminally Responsible, in which case the judge will determine the most "unintrusive" way to keep him in control and away from society (probably a regimin with either pills or daily check ins with a psychiatrist).
I also don't see a way for him to get the evidence excluded by unreasonable search and seizure with section 24(2) of the Canadian Charters and Freedoms. All the evidence was gotten with a warrant with CCTV, and a good prosecutor can argue that the clothing was in exigent circumstances and could have been easily destroyed, and that's if they didn't enter in with a warrant.
He would also have to prove that this evidence being found illegal would put the administration of justice into disrepute, and who the fuck is going to think that some pants being seized are reputation destroying for the justice system?
You reap what you sow, Dongy Dong.