|
Criminal - Sentencing - Theft. R. v. Wood [theft of historical and cultural items]
In R. v. Wood (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's sentencing appeal, here in the Chateau Laurier Churchill print theft case where an issue was sentencing regarding "thefts of items of cultural and historic significance":[10] I see no error in the manner in which the sentencing judge referenced domestic and international jurisprudence dealing with thefts of items of cultural and historic significance. As the sentencing judge pointed out, there were limited Canadian precedents dealing with such thefts, making it appropriate to consider the manner in which courts in other jurisdictions have approached such crimes. The sentencing judge relied on this jurisprudence for its normative value, as guidance on the factors or considerations relevant to the determination of an appropriate sentence dealing with the thefts of items of cultural or historic significance.
[11] In United States v. Goldman, 953 F. (3d) 1213 (11th Cir. 2020), the court relied on the fact that the stolen item had an “intangible value” arising from its history, its donation to a museum where it had been displayed for many years, and the enjoyment of the item by the public and their association of it with that museum. These factors were directly relevant to the Roaring Lion, whose value was derived in significant part from the fact that it had been gifted by Karsh, on continuous public display since 1998 and was part of the recent history of the Château Laurier.
[12] Similarly, in United States v. Medford, 194 F. (3d) 419 (3rd Cir. 1999) the court found that the price set by the commercial market was insufficient to “fully capture the harmfulness of the [defendants’] conduct”, given the historical and cultural importance of artifacts that had been stolen. In this case, the monetary value of the stolen objects “[did] not adequately take into consideration the real but intangible harm inflicted upon all the other victims of the offense, including the […] general public.”
[13] The U.K. Court of Appeal in R. v. Stanton, [2013] EWCA Crim 1456, identified the following factors as relevant to sentencing in a case dealing with the theft of cultural property from a museum:(a) The impact of the offence was immense, causing consternation to the museum and raising concerns amongst benefactors that valuable artifacts could not be safely entrusted to the museum;
(b) The museum had been put to significant expense, in the hundreds of thousands of pounds, in improving security;
(c) The offence was carefully planned, and tenaciously and audaciously executed;
(d) The property stolen was of huge cultural importance; and
(e) The offenders had played no role in assisting in the recovery of the property. [14] The sentencing judge did not treat these various cases as binding precedents. Rather, faced with limited Canadian precedent, the sentencing judge relied upon them for perspective and as a source of guidance in identifying the principles that should be taken into account in determining a fit sentence for the accused in this case.
[15] On that basis, the sentencing judge found that the Roaring Lion had intangible value that exceeded its monetary value. The fact that the appellant had forged a replacement copy, damaged, and trafficked the stolen artwork were aggravating factors, as was the fact that he had engaged in these crimes for financial gain. These considerations were appropriately taken into account and supported the sentencing judge’s conclusion to impose a penitentiary sentence for crimes of this nature.
|
