R. v. Sawicki Date:, 2012 BCPC 411

Citation: R. v. Sawicki Date: 20121025 2012 BCPC 0411 File No: 223500-2-VC Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. JOHN ANTHONY SAWICKI EXCERPTS FROM PROCEEDINGS REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE D. ST. PIERRE Counsel for the Crown: D. Porte Counsel for the Defendant: M. Rowan Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: October 25, 2012 Date of Judgment: October 25, 2012

[ 1 ] THE COURT: Much has been said about June 15, 2011, that day, and the number of cases that have now moved through the system. There are a number of judges who have commented on the context of the riot and the very serious nature of the civil disobedience and the lawlessness that swept through the downtown core that evening. [ 2 ] As I mentioned in Mr.

Long's case, the reputation of our city and the province was quite negatively and seriously impacted by what can only be described as a rampaging mob of people who, for a few hours in any event, completely disregarded the law and the safety of their fellow citizens, and their own safety, for that matter. Most of the people, for the most part, are of previous good character. In fact, there were, over that night, 150,000 people in the downtown core at various venues. Mr.

Sawicki was part of the Live Site which we have described as the big screen that was set up by the City outside of the library there for people to watch the game, the Stanley Cup final. [ 3 ] That night, after the game, to put it bluntly, all hell broke loose. Many people made the decision to walk away from the riots that were taking place. However, like Mr. Long, Mr. Sawicki did not make that decision, and that is a decision he will no doubt regret for the rest of his life. [ 4 ] There were some admissions of fact filed in this case. They are placed in the file. The admissions describe the scene and Mr.

Sawicki's involvement in the ensuing mayhem. [ 5 ] Again, the context of this riot has been discussed in several cases prior to this one, and I will refer to R. v. Dickinson , which was, I think, the first one, Judge MacLean's decision, 2012 BCPC 40 ; R. v. Alviar , 2012 BCPC 181 ; R. v. Patillo , 2012 BCPC 299 ; most recently, R. v. Dorosh , which is Vancouver File Number 223511. That was Judge Kitchen's decision handed down the other day. I will refer to that case later on. [ 6 ] There is a document entitled "Impact of the Riot," and that was filed as Exhibit 4 in these proceedings.

It sets out the seriousness of this incident from a statistical point of view. The other incalculable costs to the victims and to the City in general are really not easily articulated but not lost on this court. Mr. Sawicki's Participation in Riot [ 7 ] Mr. Sawicki participated in the initial scene of the damage that was to start and to continue on for several hours downtown. Mr. Sawicki was watching the game from the Live Site with some friends. He was not one of those individuals who had come into the downtown after the game looking to be part of what was fast becoming quite an unruly crowd. He was drinking.

He said he was intoxicated. It was suggested by counsel that he does not have a great deal of experience with alcohol and its negative effects and its effects on the capacity to make reasoned decisions, and there is nothing to suggest otherwise. I accept that. [ 8 ] He was present when the riot commenced, and that is the case, I think, probably with all the people on this particular information because it probably relates to the same general incident, which was the damage and destruction of those first two vehicles. [ 9 ] There was a Nissan Versa and GMC pickup, and both of those vehicles belonged to a Mr.

Roy Hermanus, and they were parked in front of the post office building at the Live Site. Mr. Sawicki engaged in kicking at the Versa when people started to initially attack that vehicle. He was throwing things at it. This Versa was eventually set on fire by others. [ 10 ] Mr. Sawicki then, with other people, turned his attention to the GMC pickup truck, and he, along with others, attempted to overturn the GMC. On two occasions, he is seen in the video picking up garbage from the ground and lighting it and throwing it into the cab area of the GMC pickup truck. Obviously, that action distressed Mr.

Easterbrook, who was one of the few good people down there who was actually trying to prevent others from damaging property, because the second time Mr. Sawicki tries to throw some lit garbage - it is on fire - into the cab of the GMC pickup truck, he is seen in the picture, in the video, being punched squarely in the jaw by Mr. Easterbrook, who is trying to prevent that damage from taking place. Mr. Easterbrook, right after that, was subsequently attacked by other members of this mob. [ 11 ] Shortly after that, the police move in, but once some of the mob disperses, Mr.

Sawicki was assisting in turning the GMC pickup truck onto its side. Other people managed to eventually fully overturn the vehicle onto its hood, and Mr. Sawicki's involvement at that point in time is essentially over. Someone else eventually succeeds in lighting the GMC on fire by throwing what looked like a burning mannequin of some kind onto some leaking gas. [ 12 ] Later Mr. Sawicki tells the police that at the time he and his friends simply walked around after that and, as he put it, watched the "chaos." He says he left downtown by public transit around midnight.

Crown's Position [ 13 ] The Crown takes the position that Mr. Sawicki's actions are aggravated in the sense that he was involved at the beginning of the riot and, most seriously, attempted to light the GMC pickup truck on fire. The Crown takes the position that a jail sentence in the range of six to nine months in real jail is the appropriate sentence in this case given Mr. Sawicki's aggravated involvement, which was more serious than Mr.

Long's where the Crown sought a sentence of four to five months. [ 14 ] They also seek a probation period, including 150 hours of community work service, and the Crown opposes the granting of a conditional sentence order. Defence Position

[ 15 ] The defence argues that a conditional sentence order would be appropriate in this case. In the alternative, they say that the sentence should be less than 90 days so that it could be served intermittently. [ 16 ] Mr. Rowan concedes that while Mr.

Sawicki's involvement is aggravated by the attempt at lighting the vehicle on fire, it is his youth, inexperience with alcohol, the guilty plea, his proven contrition, the public shaming that took place, his willingness to engage in the restorative justice process, his support in the community, and the lack of any need for specific deterrence all militate in favour of a conditional sentence order. [ 17 ] The impact to, again, not the City but the individual victims was great. Mr. Hermanus suffered a major setback to his business.

His lost not only those two vehicles but some $7,500 worth of equipment that was stolen or destroyed. I read a victim impact statement from Mr. Hermanus. Mr. Sawicki's Personal Circumstances [ 18 ] Well, as the case is with many of the mostly young men that come before the court with respect to this riot, he is of previous good character, by all accounts. I was provided a book of documents by the defence, and in that book there are a couple dozen letters, mostly from friends and family and employers in the community. [ 19 ] Mr. Sawicki himself read out an apology.

He was 18, turned 19 in August that summer; is that right? Yes, 18 years old at the time of the incident. So he had not been an adult, in the eyes of the law, for a very long time when he is involved in this, what he calls, "pointless toxic event." He read an apology letter that he took some time, obviously, to draft, and it is compelling. It indicates that he has a great deal of insight into the damage that was caused, not only physical damage but the damage to the community and the sense of safety and peace that the community enjoys in large gatherings. [ 20 ] That is the beauty about Canada.

You know, people may take it for granted, but it is a very hard-fought-for advantage that we have in this country that massive groups of people can meet in large gatherings, and they are largely peaceable gatherings where nobody has to worry about getting hurt or have to worry about property damage or destruction, and that really is a benefit of living in a free and democratic society like the one we have here in Canada. [ 21 ] Mr.

Sawicki writes, and I am going to quote from his letter, and he is talking about the lessons that he has learned, and he says [as read in]: One that I am very happy about, too, is maturity and self-confidence. After having gone through this whole ordeal, I can honestly say I feel very grown up. All my ridiculous teenage opinions, all the feelings of indestructibility, all the times I would act out just to seem cool, all for the striving of acceptance, all the bad attitudes, temper and all, they have all somehow just melted away. I finally see what's important to life, and finally I'm happy.

I'm just happy with me, myself in general. My parents would always tell me, just as any others would tell their kids, "As a teen you think you're invincible," and I would nod and say, "I know I'm not." The difference between then and now is, I have realized I'm not. [ 22 ] He also writes that he makes no excuses. He deserves to be here in this situation. He says being part of that disgusting act will always haunt him. He let down the City.

He let down everybody in his family, everybody who has had some positive regard for him, who held him in high esteem, he has let them down, and he is completely deserving of the consequences. He hopes he can have a chance to redeem himself, he says. [ 23 ] The other letters really attest to his general good character in the community. He has letters from neighbours, from family members. Everyone speaks highly of Mr. Sawicki. He has letters from the shop foreman where he has been working as a cabinet maker for some, I guess it is, almost three years; is it? The shop foreman there says he knows about Mr.

Sawicki's legal problems, and quite frankly, with the media spotlight on the people that were apprehended, and there are many of them and they are still coming in, it would be impossible for anyone who knew Mr. Sawicki not to be aware of what he has done. However, the shop foreman says that he shows respect for him and for his co-workers and that he has seen, at least from his perspective, the remorse that Mr. Sawicki has shown after this incident and how humiliated and embarrassed he was. [ 24 ] The letters I read out are indicative of all the letters here, which are fairly detailed in their description of Mr.

Sawicki. They are not the standard couple of lines. They are detailed about the circumstances that they have observed with respect to Mr. Sawicki and the changes they have observed. He was, by all accounts of these people, after this incident, quite humiliated and despondent to the point where people were worried about his mental health state. [ 25 ] There was a reference made to NightShift Ministries. Ms. MaryAnne Connor testified in the sentencing proceedings, and she works with NightShift Ministries.

This is an organization that works with homeless and addicted persons and people who have served sentences in institutions, convicted criminals, and she works with them trying to assist them in becoming reintegrated into society. She testified that she met Mr. Sawicki in July of 2012, and she confessed that she had her doubts about him because she had seen the videos of this incident and the horrific scenes of violence and mayhem by young men that seemed to be enjoying what was going on around them. I got the impression that she was quite cynical when she first met Mr. Sawicki.

She thought that he may have been sent to her in order to try to attract some favourable credit that he could use at a sentencing hearing, so she was aware of the possible ulterior motives that may exist for Mr. Sawicki to see her. Yet, after the period of time that she got to know him, she became convinced that he was not one of those individuals who had an ulterior motive. [ 26 ] She described that there was a palpable sadness around him. He had great sorrow and shame for what he had done.

There was no cockiness or arrogance, as opposed to some of the other young men that she deals with, and I got the impression that the other young men hold much less ability or aptitude to rehabilitate because of that cockiness or arrogance. She did not see that in Mr. Sawicki. He was always diligent in getting what she called "homework" done. During the counselling process, there is homework to be done.

[27] She said that she found him genuinely repentant and that her hope is that he stops at some point beating himself up and havinghis shame consume him, which would not be helpful for him to become a productive member of society. [28] She says that there are lots of community services that can be done, and he has already started talking to others about what hashappened and that he is willing to do whatever it takes to restore and to provide some kind of payback to the community, includingscrubbing toilets. [29] She was a compelling witness.

Like her, however, you know, you see the videotapes, and I am sure every judge is the same,you see the videotapes, and they are really bad. They exhibit such bad behaviour that one can only, after seeing those tapes, beconvinced that only the most harshest of penalties is appropriate. That has to be tempered by reason and rationality after that initialreaction. Analysis [30] The question here is not whether jail is appropriate. It is. It has to be in these circumstances. The principles of generaldeterrence and denunciation are the primary factors.

The question is, is whether that jail needs to be served in an institution with otherinmates or can be served at home in the community with hopefully other law-abiding citizens. Can the principles be met with aconditional sentence order? [31] As with other riot cases, the Crown relies heavily on the Loewen decision. This is a 1992 B.C. Court of Appeal decision whichreally sets out why riot cases are taken so seriously and that there has to be a proper response to people that participate in those riots. InLoewen, the response there was a real jail sentence.

At that time, of course, conditional sentences did not exist. [32] In 2000, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a few decisions but most importantly Proulx, 2000 SCC 5 , [2000] S.C.J.No. 6, talked about and recognized that a conditional sentence regime that was brought in by our Parliament was a response to the over-incarceration in Canada, and it reflected a desire to lessen the use of jail as a sanction.

It is also recognition that sentencing is veryindividual. [33] In Proulx, the Supreme Court of Canada deferred to a sentencing judge who had sentenced a reckless driver, a driver who haddriven drunk and recklessly, and he had caused the death of one person and he had severely injured another person.

That person the trialjudge gave a real jail sentence to, 18 months' jail, I believe, but reflecting the fact that there are alternatives that can meet the sameprinciples, Chief Justice Lamer deferred to the sentencing judge's decision, but he said, at paragraph 130: In fact, were I a trial judge, I might have found that a conditional sentence would have been appropriate in this case.

The respondent isstill very young, he had no prior record and no convictions since the accident, he seems completely rehabilitated, he wants to go back toschool, he has already suffered a lot by causing the death of a friend and was himself in a coma for some time.

To make sure that theobjectives of denunciation and general deterrence would have been sufficiently addressed, I might have imposed conditions such ashouse arrest and a community service order . . . [34] The court in Proulx is careful to stress that there are occasions where the only way to suitably express society's condemnationwas to give a jail sentence, and that is also expressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the C.A.M. case which talks about denunciationand its important role in sentencing, in this case, the primary role. [35] However, denunciation, as I indicated in cases that came before this one, can be met in other ways.

R v. D.E.S.M., which is a1993 decision from our Court of Appeal, a five-member panel of our court was talking about a Crown sentence appeal for historical sexassault, and they said this: [20] There is no suggestion that the accused is a danger to anyone so he need not be isolated in order to protect the public. Byconvicting him, society has already stigmatized him as a person who has committed a serious offence, and has denounced his offence.Quite recently, the Supreme Court of Canada has expressed itself quite strongly on the importance of stigma as a consequence ofcriminal proceedings.

The court has been saying what most lawyers and criminologists have known all along, that a public charge, trialand conviction for a serious offence brands a person for life, constitutes serious punishment, and is an important part of the way societybrings offenders to account for their misconduct. [36] I should note here that this is a very public charge. I am told that and I accept that if you Google Mr. Sawicki's name, the firststories that come up are stories involving Mr. Sawicki and his involvement in the Stanley Cup riots of 2011. He can never escape that.

He can never escape the fact that he is going to have a criminal record. That has to be a significant deterrent in modern society. Employers are conducting criminal record's checks on a much more frequent basis these days than they had in the past, and that has to beseen as a significant deterrent. [37] Judge Harris said in the Alviar case, 2012 BCPC 181 , [2012] B.C.J. No. 1179: [30] It must be remembered that Mr. Alviar will now have a criminal record. This record will brand Mr. Alviar as a person who hastranscended societal values.

The criminal record will impact his ability to travel, and it will make it difficult for him to pursue variousemployment options. Given Mr. Alviar's age this is a significant consequence. [38] The deterrent effect of going through this process cannot be understated. It is the humiliation not only of being caught, charged,and sentenced, but it is all under the bright light of public and media scrutiny that is attached to this case, and is deservedly attached tothis case because it is part of the denunciation that society shows for the actions that these mostly young men have gotten themselvesinvolved in.

[ 39 ] The vitriol that was directed towards the participants in this riot was extraordinary, and Mr. Sawicki was the subject of that, and deservedly so. It is part of the denunciation that society shows. [ 40 ] The discovery, the likelihood of being discovered with respect to the commission of a criminal offence, is - and I am quoting from the report of the Canadian Sentencing Commission in 1987 - is the most effective deterrent. It is not the severity of the punishment; it is the likelihood that people get caught.

We have had some discussions about how people thought during this riot that their actions might be somehow missed because they were under the cloak of anonymity in a large mob. It was the opposite in this case, and it will continue to be the opposite in the future. There were thousands of cameras out there. [ 41 ] How these young people thought that they could get away with this is beyond me. The main participants are bound to get caught. That is all there is to it. [ 42 ] I accept that Mr. Sawicki is a different person today than he was just prior to these incidents.

He was a good person prior to these incidents. It had to have changed him to go through what can only be described as basically a start from scratch in trying to gain the merit that he once deserved in the community as a good citizen. He has got to start all over again. [ 43 ] As I have already indicated, denunciation and deterrence are the primary sentencing principles to be stressed in these cases. Is it necessary for Mr. Sawicki to be housed in an institutional jail to meet those needs? Well, Judge Kitchen, in the Dorosh decision which was recently handed down a couple of days ago, found it was. [ 44 ] Mr.

Dorosh received a jail sentence of four months. It was found by Judge Kitchen, though, in that case, that Mr. Dorosh's attempt to show contrition and remorse fell short because Judge Kitchen found that he had lied to the police and later the probation officer, even after he entered a guilty plea, about his attempt to light a car on fire. Mr. Dorosh also participated in looting the Bay. Mr. Sawicki's involvement did not include that serious aggravating factor of looting. [ 45 ] Judge Galati also found jail was necessary in Kennedy Williams's case. He is another young man on this information.

He received a 90-day intermittent jail sentence. He smashed out windows of the GMC with a metal pole. I saw him on the video. He helped overturn the GMC. He was responsible for removing the gas cap from that truck, and you could see the gas spilling out onto the pavement. That clearly had the effect of signalling to the crowd that the gas would be lit on fire. When he finally left the scene, he also kicked a window of the post office.

He was depicted as brazenly defiant of the police and was enjoying himself. [ 46 ] There are other cases where jail was not found to be necessary to meet the principles of sentencing. [ 47 ] I want to read a quote from R. v. Gan , which is a case from our Court of Appeal in 2007. That was a case of a marihuana grow operator who had received at trial a 90-day intermittent sentence.

There was an appeal of that sentence, and the Court of appeal says this, at paragraph 13: [13] . . . because of the lack of reasons, it cannot be said that the judge took into account the following direction from Proulx where Lamer C.J. wrote for the Court at paragraph 90: "a consideration of ss. 718.2(

d) and 718.2(

e) leads me to the conclusion that serious consideration [and it is underlined] should be given to the imposition of a conditional sentence in all cases where the first three statutory prerequisites are satisfied." And I find they are in this case, the first three. It is the last one that the Crown says is not satisfied, and that is that it just does not meet the principles. Sections 718.2(

d) and 718.2(

e) of the Code read as follows [and this is the quote from Gan ]: (

d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and (

e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders. [ 48 ] The court goes on to say this, at paragraph 14: [14] I would also note that in Proulx it was said that both denunciation and deterrence can be satisfied with a conditional sentence. In my opinion a sentence of 90 days incarceration served on week-ends cannot be said to send a message of any greater effect on those issues than a conditional sentence of one year.

So in that case, they imposed a conditional sentence of one year. [ 49 ] That case was interesting because it was not a deference case. It was a case where the Court of Appeal had to come up with the appropriate sentence because there was a lack of reasons. Their comments are not lost on this court. In the Court of Appeal's opinion, a sentence of 90 days' incarceration served on weekends cannot be said to send a message of any greater effect on the issues of denunciation and deterrence than a long conditional sentence order. That was that in that particular case.

[ 50 ] There are a number of aggravating factors in this case. Mr. Sawicki was involved in the first incident of property damage. He remained in the vicinity for a time despite efforts of the police to move people away. He attempted on two occasions to start a fire in the cab of the pickup truck. The nature of the offence itself, the rioting, the accepted proposition that the actions of one are the actions of all and that individual actions cannot be separated from the context of a major riot like this one. There are other aggravating factors. [ 51 ] There is also a great number of mitigating factors to consider.

He was only 18 years old at the time. He had no criminal record of any kind. He had a very positive reputation in the community, evidenced by the people that are here to support him and all the letters that I have read. He is genuinely remorseful. He is willing to make amends and engage the restorative justice process. [ 52 ] It is difficult to parse out all the similar and distinguishing factors affecting sentences given in recent cases, but I have considered them all. [ 53 ] Having regard to the principles of sentencing set out in the Code , the circumstances of Mr.

Sawicki and the offence itself, the sentences that have been imposed recently on other Stanley Cup rioters, I find the appropriate sentence and one that can address all of the sentencing principles, including the primary one, and that being general deterrence and denunciation, is a conditional sentence order, a nine-month conditional sentence order. [ 54 ] I am going to give you the conditions, Mr. Sawicki. Do you want to stand up? You can stand now. [ 55 ] This will be for a period of nine months. There are the statutory conditions. You have to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

Appear before the court when required to do so. You are going to report no later than tomorrow, which is Friday, the 26th, at the probation office on Cordova, and thereafter as directed. You are to remain in the jurisdiction of the court unless you have permission to go outside the jurisdiction by your supervisor. You will notify the court or the supervisor in advance of any change of name, address, or any change of employment or occupation. Those are the statutory conditions. [ 56 ] The optional conditions are -- and these are not easy, Mr. Sawicki.

You wanted to avoid serving your jail sentence in a real institution. Well, this is going to be no cakewalk because you are now 20 years old; are you? Twenty years old. Some of these conditions -- and I see them every day -- every day young men are in the court having breached conditional sentence orders even though they have said at the outset they did not want to go to jail. Yet they come back, you know, months into the conditional sentence order and they have breached it, and then they are going to jail. [ 57 ] So you have got decisions to make over this period of time.

You can follow the order and try to make amends for what you have done. You can not follow the order and sit in a jailhouse. [ 58 ] For the first five months of the order, you are going to remain within your residence 24 hours a day. For the last four months, you are subject to a curfew from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m., seven days a week. [ 59 ] These are the exceptions where you are allowed outside: with the written consent of your supervisor; when you are travelling directly to or returning directly from your place of employment or while in the course of your employment. So you get to work if you want to, and you should.

You shall provide the supervisor with proof of your employment.

If you are going to school, you are allowed to be out for travelling directly to or returning directly from an educational institution for which you are enrolled in and while you are in the course of classes or any extracurricular activities approved of by the supervisor at such educational institution - you will provide the supervisor with written proof of your educational enrolment or your involvement in extracurricular activities - or for any other reason approved of by your supervisor, including counselling and participating in any restorative justice program.

Obviously, in the event of a medical emergency, travelling directly to or from a hospital emergency ward. [ 60 ] You will also be allowed out for four hours a week to be approved of by your supervisor in advance in order to take care of personal matters like shopping and other appointments that may be necessary from time to time. [ 61 ] You are going to present yourself at the door of your residence when any peace officer or supervisor attends there for the purposes of determining compliance with these conditions. [ 62 ] You will respond personally and immediately to the telephone if a peace office or supervisor makes a telephone call to your residence for the purpose of determining your compliance with the curfew or house arrest conditions. [ 63 ] You are not going to possess or consume any alcohol or any controlled substances defined under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act except as prescribed for you by a physician. [ 64 ] You are not to be found within any establishment that holds a licence excluding individuals under the age of 19 years old.

That means any bar. [ 65 ] You shall not be in possession of any weapon as defined in the Criminal Code . [ 66 ] You are going to attend and participate in and successfully complete any counselling or other programs as directed by your supervisor, and that is including but not limited to alcohol abuse counselling. [ 67 ] With respect to reconciliation, subject to the wishes of Mr. Hermanus who owned those two vehicles, you shall participate in a victim-offender reconciliation program under the supervision and direction of your supervisor. So if Mr.

Hermanus wants to participate in that process, you have already expressed a desire to do that, and I think that would do wonders for you in understanding the impact, the direct impact that those actions had on a human being, in this case, Mr. Hermanus, whose business was devastated. [ 68 ] Following that, you will be on probation for 15 months. You will report to the probation officer when and where as directed. You will provide your residential address to that person and do not change it without written permission from the probation officer.

[ 69 ] Again, no -- this is the tough part for a young man, and this is for the probation period. No alcohol. You are not to consume or possess any alcohol or any controlled substances under the definition

section of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act except as prescribed. [ 70 ] Again, you will not be found during that period of time in any establishment that holds a licence excluding individuals under the age of 19 years. [ 71 ] You shall not possess any weapons as defined in the Criminal Code . [ 72 ] Counselling as well, the same provision, and the reconciliation provision is the same, if Mr. Hermanus wants to participate in that. [ 73 ] You will attend school regularly or work or seek employment.

You will provide your probation officer with any proof of your efforts to do so. [ 74 ] You will perform 100 hours of community work service to be completed at the direction and to the satisfaction of your probation officer within the first 12 months of that order. You can start that right away if your supervisor deems it appropriate. [ 75 ] Anything else, Mr. Porte? I think I might have covered everything but I don't know. [ 76 ] MR. PORTE: Not with respect to conditions, no. [ 77 ] THE COURT: Mr. Rowan, do you have any submissions with respect to the conditions? [ 78 ] MR.

ROWAN: No, those are all what I was hoping for, Your Honour. [ 79 ] THE COURT: Again, Mr. Sawicki, it is not easy, and the part that people always come in here having breached, the curfew section, no alcohol, because young men, it is hard for them to stay away from alcohol. That is all there is to it. You are getting a chance to make proper decisions at this point. On June 15, you did not. You are getting a chance to make proper decisions. If you have changed, as you say you have, you will make the proper decisions in the future. If you do not, Mr.

Rowan can tell you the consequences of breaching a conditional sentence order, but judges do not appreciate it because you are getting a chance to try to redeem yourself. There are some serious punitive measures in that condition, and if they are not met with, those punitive conditions really can only be met by going and living in the big house for a while. That is all there is to it. So don't screw it up. [ 80 ] THE ACCUSED: I thank you deeply for your consideration, Your Honour. [ 81 ] THE COURT: All right. Okay. [ 82 ] MR.

PORTE: Crown directs stays of proceedings with regards to Counts 2, 3, and 4, and the other outstanding issue is the victim fine surcharge. [ 83 ] THE COURT: Okay. All right. You are working now; are you? [ 84 ] THE ACCUSED: Mm-hmm. [ 85 ] THE COURT: All right. You will have to pay the victim fine surcharge. [ 86 ] What else was there? [ 87 ] MR. PORTE: Just the stay of proceedings with regards to Counts 2, 3, and 4. [ 88 ] THE COURT: Yes, you've done that. All right. [ 89 ] MR. ROWAN: What's the amount on the victim fine surcharge, the basic amount? [ 90 ] THE COURT: This is an indictable matter.

I think it is $100. [ 91 ] THE CLERK: $100. [ 92 ] THE COURT: $100. Yes, you will have to pay that. All right. There is a lot of community work service hours, but that money is supposed to go into a pool to help victims. I have heard, you know, rumours that that is not taking place, but I have to assume at this point in time it is, that it is going where it is supposed to be going. [ 93 ] THE ACCUSED: I'd be happy to pay, Your Honour. [ 94 ] THE COURT: Okay. All right. [ 95 ] MR. FORTE: Thank you. [ 96 ] MR. ROWAN: Thank you, Your Honour. [ 97 ] THE COURT: Good luck to you, Mr.

Sawicki. [ 98 ] THE CLERK: And time to pay? [ 99 ] THE COURT: Give him 60 days to pay that.

[ 100 ] MR. ROWAN: Is there a time to pay on the victim fine surcharge? [ 101 ] THE COURT: Sixty days. [ 102 ] MR. ROWAN: Sixty days? Thank you, Your Honour. (REASONS CONCLUDED)