Crown fails to get longer sentence for Ontario man who shot at intruders who shot his son

Ontario’s top court has upheld a house arrest sentence for a man who grabbed a gun from armed intruders who shot his son and fired it at them from his porch while they fled.

The Crown tried to appeal Jason Munroe’s conditional sentence from the Ontario Court of Justice. But the province’s Appeal Court dismissed the case.

“Given the exceptional circumstances of the offence and the significant mitigating factors, we see no error in principle in this case. Nor do we find that the sentence was manifestly unfit,” the three-judge panel said in an Aug. 19 decision.

Justice Nathan Baker of the Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Munroe last August to two years less a day of house arrest and three years of probation.

According to the appeal decision, armed intruders entered Munroe’s home in Whitby, Ont., forcing him and his family into the basement.

“There was an altercation during which Mr. Munroe’s son was shot. Mr. Munroe wrestled a handgun from one of the intruders and shot one of them. The intruders fled the house. Mr. Munroe chased them. He then stood on his porch and shot at them approximately three times as they were fleeing in their car.”

Munroe’s shots didn’t hit anyone.

“When the police first interviewed Mr. Munroe, he lied and said that he did not have or use a gun. He subsequently told the police that he used the gun he wrestled from the intruders to shoot at them, saying that he tried to kill them and that, if given the chance, he would have killed them all,” said the appeal decision.

Baker found Munroe “not guilty of any charges related to what occurred in the house while the intruders were still there,” said the appeal decision.

“The trial judge was satisfied that Mr. Munroe was acting in self-defence.”

But Baker found that Munroe “was no longer acting in self-defence when he shot at the intruders from his porch,” said the appeal decision.

“The trial judge found Mr. Munroe guilty of reckless discharge of a restricted or prohibited firearm. He also found him guilty of obstruction of a peace officer for lying in his initial statement to the police.”

Baker found that the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for reckless discharge of a restricted or prohibited firearm “was unconstitutional if applied to the circumstances of this case,” and sentenced him to 729 days of house arrest, said the appeal decision.

The Crown unsuccessfully appealed the length of that sentence, “arguing that the trial judge erred by failing to give proper effect to the principles of denunciation and deterrence and that the sentence is demonstrably unfit.”

The Appeal Court did not agree.

“There is no doubt that weapons offences are very serious and that they should generally carry a significant custodial sentence, especially in circumstances where an accused discharges a firearm in a public place,” said the panel.

“In his reasons, the trial judge recognized that denunciation and deterrence are generally the primary objectives when sentencing an individual for discharging a weapon in a public place.”

But Baker “also found that the circumstances of the offence in this case are exceptional,” said the panel.

“When Mr. Munroe shot at the intruders from his porch, he was no longer acting in self-defence but he was still acting in the heat of the moment after seeing his family under threat and his son shot. In addition, Mr. Munroe used a handgun he had wrestled from the intruders to protect his family; this was not a handgun he acquired unlawfully and brought to the scene.”

There were other “significant mitigating factors, such as Mr. Munroe’s demonstrated remorse and extensive rehabilitative efforts, and that he had overcome a turbulent youth to become a dedicated father and a skilled worker with a stable job and income,” said the appeal decision.

The panel also pointed out that Munroe “is not going unpunished for his convictions. The two years less a day conditional sentence carries onerous conditions, including house arrest (except for going to work) and GPS monitoring,” said the appeal decision.

“The conditional sentence is to be followed by three years’ probation. This is essentially the maximum available conditional sentence short of a custodial sentence.”