A Windsor judge has taken the unusual step of rejecting a joint sentencing proposal from prosecutors and defence lawyers, instead doubling the prison term to four years for a man who carried out a string of knife-point robberies at local convenience stores.
Judge Rejects Joint Submission as 'Unacceptable'
In a decision read on Christmas Eve, Ontario Court Justice Scott Pratt sentenced 37-year-old Luke Lachance to four years behind bars. This came after both the Crown and defence, citing Lachance's struggles with mental illness and drug addiction, had jointly recommended a two-year sentence following his guilty plea.
Justice Pratt firmly dismissed the proposed two-year term. "I find the joint submission unacceptable," said Pratt, adding that such a sentence risked bringing "the administration of justice into public disrepute." He emphasized the need to protect vulnerable victims and to send a strong message of denunciation and deterrence to others.
A Month-Long Crime Spree Targeting Circle K Stores
Luke Lachance pleaded guilty to a robbery spree in the spring that targeted nine Windsor convenience stores, most of which were 24-hour Circle K locations. Over approximately one month, Lachance, brandishing a knife, would threaten lone clerks and demand cash.
He typically fled with small amounts of money, and sometimes took cigarettes and beer. In most incidents, he did not wear a mask, allowing security cameras to capture his image clearly. The spree ended on May 9 with a robbery at a Circle K on Lauzon Road.
The judge noted that the crime wave stopped only due to Windsor police work. Lachance had dropped a package of cigarettes bearing his fingerprints, which were on file from a prior criminal record.
Mental Illness vs. Drug Habit: The Judge's Reasoning
While defence and prosecution lawyers argued Lachance was "self-medicating" for his mental illness during the robberies, Justice Pratt saw a different motive. The judge pointed to Lachance's own admission that he targeted the stores to get cash to feed his drug habit.
"I see almost no connection between his mental illness and these offences," Justice Pratt concluded on December 24. He stated that arguing for leniency based on mental illness as the cause "is, respectfully, to ignore the facts of this case."
The judge's rejection of a joint submission is exceedingly rare in Canadian courts, where such agreements are common and usually accepted following a guilty plea. Prior to his final decision, Justice Pratt had expressed concern over the initial proposal and asked both legal sides to return with further arguments and case law to support their recommended two-year sentence.
Despite his firm stance in this instance, Justice Pratt acknowledged that joint sentencing submissions remain "essential" for resolving criminal cases efficiently and managing the overwhelming workload faced by Canadian courts.
