Judge Rejects ‘Unhinged’ Proposed 6-Month Sentence for Edmonton Man Convicted of Stabbing, Says It’s Too Short

An Edmonton judge has sentenced a man to 18 months in jail for stabbing a stranger with a hunting knife, rejecting a six-month sentence proposed by both the defence and Crown.

Shaye Riley Bird, 23, pleaded guilty in Alberta’s Court of Justice in August to assault causing bodily harm and breaching a weapons prohibition order, after the May attack in downtown Edmonton.

Bird and several others attacked a stranger, with Bird stabbing the man in the buttocks and causing heavy bleeding. The offenders stole the victim’s headphones and fled, and the victim reported the incident to police.

Police used video surveillance to find and arrest Bird, who was still wearing the same blood-stained clothing and still had the knife.

During the trial in August, the Crown and defence jointly recommended 180 days in jail for the assault and a concurrent 30-day sentence for the breach.

He sentenced Bird to 14 months in jail for the assault causing bodily harm and four months consecutively for breaching the weapons order. He credited Bird with 258 days in jail already served, leaving the man to serve 282 days.

The judge wrote that “it is no small thing to reject a joint submission.” Case law says a sentencing judge should not depart from a joint submission unless the submission brings “the administration of justice into disrepute” or is “not in the public interest,” he added.

“This case features several errors in principle. They result in a proposition that constitutes one of those rare instances—a joint submission that is unhinged from what would be reasonable,” Bilodeau said.

The judge wrote that the proposed sentence did not adequately reflect the severity of the random group attack with a knife, did not give “meaningful effect to the serious and lasting impact upon the victim,” and the proposed concurrent sentence did not include any “meaningful sanction” for the breach of the weapons prohibition order.

In his Victim Impact Statement, the victim said he had just moved to Edmonton when the group attacked him, leaving him with post-traumatic stress disorder, fear, and distress. He also quit a job because it was a night shift and did not work for months, leaving him to suffer mentally, physically, and emotionally.

“As a new resident in Edmonton, this offence will definitely affect me my whole life somehow but at this moment I want to focus into healing and my future,” the man added. “I hope justice will be served.”

Bilodeau reviewed several past cases to determine a suitable sentencing range, noting that while the cases were different, they showed that 15 to 20 months was suitable.

The judge said Bird’s conduct bore “many of the hallmarks of a street mugging,” while Alberta case law has shown that these incidents “merit significant incarceration.” He called the proposed concurrent sentence for the weapons prohibition breach “indefensible,” saying the offences warranted separate penalties.

The judge also said breaches of release orders “are, sadly, commonplace charges on our criminal dockets.”

Besides the effect on the victim, Bilodeau listed several aggravating factors.

Those factors included Bird’s related criminal record, his use of a knife, the random nature of the attack, the victim’s attempt to flee, the visibility of the attack location downtown, and that “a group or mob” perpetrated the attack.

“Being outnumbered changes the entire dynamic of the assault,” Bilodeau wrote.

Bilodeau also reflected on Bird’s First Nations status, his childhood issues, his mother’s connection to residential schools, and the Gladue report prepared for the trial. The judge said that while higher courts urge judges to consider an offender’s aboriginal background during sentencing, that doesn’t mean offenders receive a “race-based discount on sentence.”

“The personal circumstances of Mr. Bird, derived from his family’s experience as Indigenous people in Canada, are reflected in the restraint applied to the ultimate sentence,” the judge added. “They must be or else the sentence could not be proportionate.”