Court of Appeal upholds sentence for man who shot at armed intruders during Whitby home invasion

A GTA man who was found guilty of recklessly discharging a firearm after an armed home invasion has had his conditional sentence upheld by the Court of Appeal.

In August of last year, Jason Munroe was sentenced to 729 days (two years less a day), followed by three years’ probation.

The Crown appealed the sentence, arguing that the trial judge erred by failing to give proper effect to the principles of denunciation and deterrence and that the sentence was demonstrably unfit.

It was approximately 3:50 a.m. on June 17, 2022, when armed intruders entered Munroe’s home on Underwood Drive in Whitby. Munroe and his family were forced into the basement. There was an altercation during which Munroe’s son was shot in the leg.

Munroe wrestled a handgun from one of the intruders and shot one of them. The intruders fled the house and Munroe chased them. He stood on his porch and shot at them approximately three times as they were fleeing in their car. Munroe did not hit anyone.

When police first interviewed Munroe, he lied and said that he did not have or use a gun. He subsequently told police that he used the gun he wrestled from the intruders to shoot at them, saying that he tried to kill them and that, given the chance, he would have killed them.

“The trial judge found Mr. Munroe not guilty of any charges related to what occurred in the house while the intruders were still there. The trial judge was satisfied that Mr. Munroe was acting in self-defence. However, the trial judge found that Mr. Munroe was no longer acting in self-defence when he shot at the intruders from the porch,” the three-judge panel said in its decision.

The trial judge also found that the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for reckless discharge of a restricted or prohibited firearm was unconstitutional if applied to the circumstances of this case. The Crown did not appeal that finding, only the length of the sentence imposed on Munroe.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the trial judge did not make an error in sentencing.

“In his reasons, the trial judge recognized that denunciation and deterrence are generally the primary objectives when sentencing an individual for discharging a weapon in a public place. However, the trial judge also found that the circumstances of this case are exceptional,” the Court of Appeal said.

The Court of Appeal found that when Munroe shot at the intruders from his porch, he was no longer acting in self-defence, but he was still acting in the heat of the moment after seeing his family under threat and his son shot.

“In addition, Mr. Munroe used a handgun he had wrestled from the intruders to protect his family; this was not a handgun he acquired unlawfully and brought to the scene,” wrote the appeal judges.

The panel found other significant mitigating factors, such as Munroe’s demonstrated remorse and extensive rehabilitative efforts, and that he had overcome a turbulent past to become a dedicated father and a skilled worker with a stable job and income.

The Court of Appeal pointed out that Munroe is not going unpunished for his convictions.