In Dr. Seuss’s How the Grinch Stole Christmas, the Grinch perpetrates a long list of serious crimes against the Whos, the citizens of Whoville. If Whoville fell within the jurisdiction of the Criminal Code of Canada, it is unlikely that things would have ended as mercifully for him as they did in the film. Below is a brief summary of how Canadian sentencing principles would apply to the Grinch.
Of the many crimes that he committed on Christmas Eve, the most serious among them were the many acts of breaking and entering. Because he broke into dwelling houses, he could be liable to a sentence of up to life imprisonment for each one of the houses that he broke into, pursuant to section 348 of the Criminal Code. In each of those houses, he also perpetrated a theft, contrary to section 322 of the Criminal Code. In the course of committing these offences against the Whos, the Grinch also would have caused injury to his dog, Max, making him liable to convictions for animal cruelty. According to section 444 of the Criminal Code, a conviction for this offence on its own could result in the Grinch receiving a five-year jail sentence.
Like every person charged with an offence under the Criminal Code, the Grinch would enjoy the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, if the popular film of him committing these offences were admitted as evidence at his trial, he would face a tremendous challenging in defending his charges. Pursuant to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Nikolovski, a trial judge would be permitted to rely on the contents of the film alone to convict the Grinch.
If there wasn’t a film capturing the offences and the Grinch chose to go to trial, this could put the defendant in an even worse position on sentence. The Crown would be required to call each of the Whos who had their homes broken into in order to prove the offences and the value of the goods that were stolen. Chances are that this would diminish any sympathy that a sentencing judge might have have for the Grinch and his last-minute efforts to undo his crimes.
As at any sentencing hearing, a judge would be required to consider the principles of sentencing set out at section 718 of the Criminal Code. Of the principles listed there, denunciation and deterrence would be receive central focus. It would be necessary for a sentencing Court to craft a sentence that would deter the Grinch from committing further offences in the future, while also showing the community that such offences are taken seriously.
Totality is another sentencing principle that would factor prominently in the Grinch’s sentencing. All of the offences mentioned above occurred within a single evening. If each of the crimes were treated as if they had occurred on their own and a judge added each individual sentence together, the total sentence would be too high. Thus, a sentencing judge would need to consider what reduction should be made to the total of all the individual sentences when added together.
Despite his efforts to rectify the harms that he caused and the compassion that was shown to him by the Whos, the Grinch committed a large number of serious crimes. Even in the absence of a criminal record, a single conviction for breaking and entering into a dwelling house will usually result in a jail sentence. Although it is difficult to determine from the film, it appears as if the Grinch committed a wholesale theft of the entire town of Whoville. This is a theft that is unprecedented in Canadian criminal law.
When considering the breadth and nature of the offences committed, most offenders in the Grinch’s situation would receive a sentence in excess of 10 years in jail. However, there are a number of factors that make the Grinch’s case unique. The first is that there was no violence used in the commission of the offences (other than the injuries caused to Max, the dog). To the contrary, the Grinch took great care to ensure that no one was hurt and no damage occurred.
The second is that the Grinch seems to have been successful in returning all of the property that he stole. While this is not a defence to the crime of theft, it is a significant mitigating factor. Thirdly, the Whos appear to have genuinely forgiven the Grinch for his actions, even allowing him to sit at the head of the table of their Christmas day feast. It is essential for a sentencing court to consider the impact to the victims. In this case, it appears to have been minimal.
Unfortunately for the Grinch, none of the mitigating factors in his sentencing overcome the fact that the crimes he committed are very serious ones and he committed many of them. If he were to proceed to a sentencing hearing in a Canadian court, he would likely receive a penitentiary sentence (i.e. a sentence in excess of two years in jail). While his efforts to minimize and undo his offences were commendable and well-received by the Whos, they only go so far to reduce his sentence below what an offender would generally received for offences of this nature.
Brian Eberdt is a criminal defence lawyer with Lockyer Campbell Posner. Find more Reasonable Doubt columns here.
A word of caution: You should not act or rely on the information provided in this column. It is not legal advice. To ensure your interests are protected, retain or formally seek advice from a lawyer. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Lockyer Campbell Posner or the lawyers of Lockyer Campbell Posner.
website@nowtoronto.com | @nowtoronto
