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

The Court of Appeal has upheld the sentence for a man who fired shots at armed intruders during a home invasion at his Whitby residence. Jason Munroe had been sentenced to two years less a day in jail, followed by three years of probation, after being found guilty of recklessly discharging a firearm.

“

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 Crown had appealed the sentence, arguing that the trial judge did not adequately consider the principles of denunciation and deterrence, and that the sentence was too lenient. The incident occurred in the early morning of June 17, 2022, when intruders entered Munroe's home. Munroe and his family were forced into the basement, where an altercation led to his son being shot.

Munroe managed to wrestle a handgun from one of the intruders and subsequently fired approximately three shots from his porch at the fleeing intruders as they escaped in their car. While he did not hit anyone, he later admitted to police that he had tried to kill them. The trial judge had found Munroe not guilty of charges related to the events inside the house, deeming his actions there to be self-defense. However, the judge ruled that Munroe was no longer acting in self-defense when he fired shots from the porch.

“

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 acknowledged that while Munroe was not acting in self-defense when he shot from the porch, he was still acting in the heat of the moment after his family was threatened and his son was injured. The judges also noted that Munroe used a weapon he had taken from the intruders, not one he brought unlawfully. The court found other significant mitigating factors, leading them to uphold the original sentence.

“

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.