Law on presentence reports

Presentence reports should be limited to a recital of the facts with regard to the antecedents and background of the accused. Their purpose is to reflect the accused as a person in society: their background, family, education, employment record, physical and mental health, associates and social activities, and their potential and motivation.[1]·

A report should not contain the views of the accused, the investigator, or anyone with respect to the facts relating to the offence, whether for good or bad. If it does, the trial Judge should disregard it in considering sentence.[2]·

Reports should not contain any information about other offences, whether they are reflected in the record or not.[3]·

Reports should not contain a copy of the accused’s criminal record. It is up to the Crown to provide details about the accused’s record.[4]·

Punishment is a matter that lies exclusively within the preserve of the trial Judge and should remain outside the ambit of any probation officer's report unless their views are sought.[5]·

Reports should be strictly factual. They should not speculate, nor should they reach any conclusions, whether warranted or not. They should not contain the author’s opinions.[6]

1. R. v. Silk, [1979] N.J. No. 1 (Nfld. C.A.); R. v. Urbanovich (1985), 19 C.C.C. (3d) 43 (Man. C.A.); R. v. Rudyk, [1975] N.S.J. No. 33 (N.S. C.A.); R. v. Bartkow, [1978] N.S.J. No. 35 (N.S. C.A.); Ruby on Sentencing, 6th Ed. (Butterworths: 2004), at pp. 95 to 103.

2. R. v. Urbanovich, supra; R. v. Rudyk, supra; R. v. Arsenault, [1981] P.E.I.J. No. 94 (P.E.I. C.A.).

3. R. v. Arsenault, supra; R. v. Urbanovich, supra; R. v. Rudyk, supra; R. v. Murphy, [1979] N.J. No. 36 (Nfld. C.A.); R. v. Rohatuk [1976] N.S.J. No. 487 (N.S. C.A.).

4. R. v. Martell, [1984] P.E.I.J. No. 67 (P.E.I. C.A.); R. v. Murphy, supra.

5. R. v. Silk, supra; R. v. Arsenault, supra; R. v. Rohatuk, supra.

6. R. v. White, [1978] N.J. No. 31 (Nfld. C.A.); R. v. Arsenault, supra.