Hello, I am curious as to how sentencing for a charge of…

Witness reliability is always an issue but you have identified the primary question. There is someone dead and who or what caused it?

That can be answered through witnesses but also autopsy evidence and other forensic evidence at the scene. If the non witness evidence is strong, then the credibility of those present may not be important.

Alas, I think if you told me the facts, it may identify people because the facts may have been covered in the press. So, lets leave the facts for the lawyer. Any outcome is all fact based.

What I am referring to is something known as a conditional sentence. This is technically a jail term but it is served in the community and not in a real prison. It could be like house arrest but at the least will have many conditions and if any are breached, the person risks spending the rest of the sentence behind real bars.

Below is a real court case summary of where a conditional sentence was given in a manslaughter case. You may get a sense of the types of facts that a court has considered in granting such a sentence.

I would approach such a case hoping that the facts may support such a sentence but, again, it is always fact based best left to the lawyer in charge of this case.

Having said that, if there are defences like self defence or there are legal defences to be explored, the accused has an important decision to make. The accused has a right to demand that the Crown prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if he went to trial and fought it and was still convicted, it may be less likely that a court will accept that the person understands what happened and that he should be considered for a community based sentence.

Please accept my answer. Here is the summary of just one case and just one judge considered.

Tom

Accused sentenced to a conditional sentence of two years less a day followed by three years probation. Although the accused threw no punches, her role in inciting the two persons was significant. The murder was senseless and brutal. A penitentiary term of imprisonment was not necessary to achieve the objectives of sentencing. The jointly proposed sentence was reasonable in the circumstances, not contrary to the public interest and did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The accused was remorseful, had a very positive pre sentence report, had no criminal record and had made significant efforts at rehabilitation.