Article content continued

The Crown’s notice of appeal states that Anderson erred when he considered the lack of intoxication and bad legal advice as mitigating factors in Suter’s sentence. At the least, the notice states, Anderson gave those factors undue weight.

“The sentence imposed was demonstrably unfit and not proportional to the gravity of the offence and moral blameworthiness of the offender,” the notice states.

George Mounsef, Geo’s father, applauded the appeal. “I’m definitely happy. Our family feels the sentence is unjust. You shouldn’t get four months for killing a child, for killing anyone. We’re struggling to have faith in the justice system, but it’s good to see the Crown is still fighting.”

Mounsef said he is particularly concerned that the four-month sentence is not enough of a deterrent for future drivers. “It’s not so much about how long Suter goes to jail. We know no sentence brings our child back.”

Suter’s defence lawyer, Dino Bottos, said it was “ridiculous” that prosecutors wouldn’t consider Suter’s lack of intoxication a mitigating factor.

“I wish the Crown and public would accept the ruling and leave Mr. Suter alone,” Bottos said.“I’m frustrated and very disappointed. You’re not going to find a more innocent offender of this section of the Criminal Code than Mr. Suter.”

The notice of appeal only calls for “a fit sentence.” Previously, prosecutor Neil Wiberg had argued for a three-year sentence.

Numerous witnesses said Suter slurred his words and was unsteady and glassy-eyed in the minutes after the crash, visual cues that could have been caused when he was pulled from his vehicle and assaulted by bystanders, Anderson said. Suter admitted drinking two vodkas with orange juice and part of a beer in the hours leading up to the crash.

rcormier@edmontonjournal.com

twitter.com/el_cormier