What the Court Weighs in Sentencing the Two Accessories in the Sharif Rahman Case
The two men convicted of accessory after the fact in Sharif Rahman's death will be sentenced today. Here's how credit for time served and joint submissions are being considered.
Two of the three men who pleaded guilty Friday in the death of Owen Sound restaurateur Sharif Rahman could leave court this afternoon having effectively already served their sentences.
Robert Busby Evans Sr., 49, and Barry Evans, 55 — each convicted of accessory after the fact to manslaughter — learn their fate at 2 p.m., when Justice C. Chorney delivers the two decisions.
Robert Evans Jr., 25, who pleaded guilty to the manslaughter itself, will be sentenced separately on July 10.
The Crown and defence have already told the court what they think those sentences should be: a jointly proposed 24 months for each of the two accessories, and 42 months for Evans Jr.
Those figures are the benchmark against which to measure whatever the judge hands down — and because of how Canadian courts credit time already spent in custody, both accessory proposals amount in practice to time served.
Here is what the court weighs in reaching the two decisions this afternoon, and why.
A different offence than the killing
Neither man was charged with causing Sharif Rahman’s death; Busby Evans Sr. was not in Owen Sound the night of the assault. Accessory after the fact means helping someone who has committed a crime escape detection or prosecution, knowing they did it.
Both admitted assisting Robert Evans Jr. after the fact, and the court sentences them for that conduct — not for the death.
The offence is still serious: because manslaughter is punishable by up to life imprisonment, accessory after the fact to it carries a maximum of 14 years under s. 463 of the Criminal Code. It has no mandatory minimum, leaving the court wide latitude.
A joint submission narrows the likely result
The Crown and defence reached a resolution and put a joint position to the court. The Supreme Court of Canada set a deliberately high bar for rejecting one in R. v. Anthony-Cook: a judge cannot decline a joint submission simply because they would have chosen a different sentence, but only where the agreed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest.
So the practical question this afternoon is less what number the judge would pick alone, and more whether the agreed proposal clears that bar.
Credit for time served, much of it in Scotland
Both men have been in custody since 2024: Busby Evans Sr. since his July 30, 2024 arrest in Edinburgh, Barry Evans since his Oct. 29, 2024 arrest in Dalkeith. Each spent the bulk of that time in Scottish prisons awaiting extradition, returning to Canada only last December.
Canadian law lets judges credit pre-sentence custody at up to 1.5 days for each day held (Criminal Code s. 719; R. v. Summers), and defence counsel asked the court to apply that enhanced rate to the whole period, including the months in Scotland.
By Friday, Busby Evans Sr. had spent about 22 months in custody and Barry Evans about 19; credited at 1.5 to 1, those figures climb to roughly 33 and 29 months — each beyond the 24-month sentence proposed.
Crediting time held in a foreign jail before extradition is discretionary, and during the Edinburgh proceedings the court heard a letter from Canadian authorities stating a recommendation would be made to credit the Scottish time, though not as a guarantee.
That is why the resolutions amount, in practice, to time served.
What weighs for and against
On the mitigating side, defence counsel pointed to the early guilty pleas — which spare Rahman’s family and the community a trial and signal accountability — along with remorse, family circumstances and what counsel described as overcrowded, difficult custody conditions in Scotland and Ontario.
Against that, the court weighs the seriousness of helping a homicide suspect evade police and leave the country, and each man’s prior record. Both apologized in court Friday.
The added orders
The Crown is also seeking a DNA order and a weapons prohibition. A judge can impose those even when they are not part of a joint submission, because they are set by statute.
The defence asked the court to waive the victim surcharge, a fee once mandatory on every conviction until the Supreme Court struck that requirement down in R. v. Boudreault; Parliament has since restored judges’ discretion to decline it where payment would cause hardship.
What this afternoon will not settle
A time-served sentence does not necessarily mean either man walks free. Both are UK citizens, and removal from Canada is a separate process handled by immigration authorities, not the sentencing court; Crown counsel told the court the Canada Border Services Agency had placed an immigration hold on the men.
Robert Evans Jr.’s manslaughter sentence, meanwhile, will not be decided until July 10.
Whether Justice Chorney accepts the joint submissions, exactly how much credit each man receives, and how the court rules on the DNA, weapons and surcharge requests will be known at 2 p.m.
Related:
