R. v. Beddow Date:, 2013 BCPC 324

Citation: R. v. Beddow Date: 20131025 2013 BCPC 0324 File No: 223530-1-V 223530-1-V Registry: Vancouver New Westminster 201457-1, Surrey Registry IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. TANNER ISAAC BEDDOW EXCERPTS FROM PROCEEDINGS REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE G. M. RIDEOUT Counsel for the Crown: R. Flannigan Counsel for the Defendant: D. Song (Agent for K. Westlake, Q.C.) Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C.

Date of Hearing: October 25, 2013 Date of Judgment: October 25, 2013 Introduction [ 1 ] THE COURT: Tanner Beddow, the accused, is to be sentenced in relation to participation in a riot and for an assault of Robert Mackay on June 15th of 2011 at what has become to be known as the Canuck riot. He also must be sentenced in relation to two theft- unders which postdate the swearing of the Information in relation to the riot. That Information was sworn January 31st of 2012, at Vancouver, British Columbia.

Background [ 2 ] On June 15th of 2011, following Game 7 of the Boston-Vancouver Stanley Cup, a riot broke out in the core of Vancouver involving literally thousands of people. As a result of the riot, there was significant property damage to the City of Vancouver in the core of the city. The reputation of the City of Vancouver suffered as a result of the riot. Individuals who became engaged in the riot simply as bystanders or Good Samaritans became victims of the riot. [ 3 ] The context of the riot has been discussed in numerous cases and need not be reviewed by this court.

Sentences with respect to other individuals reveal that a fit, just, and proper sentence will be based upon the level of participation by those involved in the perpetration of the riot. The seminal case that deals with the approach is found in R. v. Peepre , 2013 BCCA 115 at paragraph 30 . [ 4 ] In this particular case, the accused initially was at the live site by GM Place and, at or around 8:30 in the evening, a fire broke out on a vehicle that was located near the live site. The accused was seen at 9:03 in front of The Bay on West Georgia Street.

It was here that there was significant damage visited upon The Bay. Other businesses likewise sustained significant damage. The hooliganism ran through the crowd and as activities of the crowd heightened, so ramped up the crowd rowdiness. [ 5 ] There were many Good Samaritans that night. One who stood out was Mr. Robert Mackay. Initially, he observed rioters smashing the windows of The Bay and looting. It is clear from the video that Mr. Mackay put himself in a position of trying to fend off attacks on The Bay by the windows of the displays.

At one point, an individual with a pole appeared to be attempting to smash a window, at which time, Mr. Mackay grabbed that pole pushing that individual back into the crowd. [ 6 ] The accused was one of two people who engaged Mr. Mackay and several punches were delivered by the accused upon Mr. Mackay. Within seconds, Mr. Mackay went to the ground and he was swarmed by other individuals who saw fit to attack Mr. Mackay for no other reason than he was a Good Samaritan. At all material times, the accused was in or around the area of this assault and indeed afterwards, without providing any assistance to Mr.

Mackay, came back to the area, broke a window with a newspaper box, went into The Bay and stole several purses from a display. [ 7 ] As a result of police investigation, the accused became a person of interest and he was identified as a suspect on September 13th of 2011, and subsequently arrested on September 14th of 2011, by members of the riot squad. The accused was interviewed and he was quite candid with the police, though tended to minimize some of his involvement based upon alcohol use, but he did recall punching a man in the back of the head who he thought was a security guard.

As a result of that blow, other people got involved and, in his words with respect to Mr. Mackay, "I think he fell down and he like turtled kind of." [ 8 ] Since the swearing of the Information, unfortunately, the accused has found himself involved in other criminal difficulties which included three theft allegations between June the 27th of 2012, through August 13th of 2013. Those allegations were disposed of and various penalties imposed.

He has also pled guilty to two theft-unders here today with respect to merchandise taken from Canada Safeway on June 30th of 2013, and merchandise taken from Real Canadian Superstore on July 27th of 2013. [ 9 ] In relation to his bail status, he was in breach of bail on the riot and assault charges when these other offences took place. He is currently in custody as a result of a breach under s. 524 of the Criminal Code . His time in custody now totals, as of today's date, 52 days. Position of the Parties [ 10 ] Mr.

Flannigan takes the position that a fit and proper sentence globally is six to eight months and that there be a credit of the 52 days with respect to that global sentence. Mr. Flannigan notes the aggravating circumstances surrounding the accused's involvement, firstly, the scope and size of the riot; that the actions of the accused would incite others; in this instance, there was the act of violence against Mr. Mackay who was a Good Samaritan; the circumstance that the accused offered no assistance to Mr.

Mackay when he is clearly on the ground and has been injured; that the accused remains in the area of the riot and becomes further involved by breaking a window at The Bay and stealing some purses. [ 11 ] Mr. Flannigan notes the impact of the riot on innocent bystanders and, in particular, the behaviour of the accused and others on the community. Victim impact statement letters have been filed. Clearly, there were many people terrorized by the riot. [ 12 ] In mitigation, it is noted that the accused remains a young man. He has gone through very difficult times with respect to his heroin addiction.

He has lost a father as a result of drug addiction. He has lost a brother through violence when he was shot by police in a domestic scenario. [ 13 ] While the guilty plea did not come at an early stage, Mr. Flannigan notes, it remains a guilty plea that deserves credit as it indicates remorse by the accused.

[14] Mr. Song for the accused does not particularly argue with the range proposed by Mr. Flannigan, but asks this court to look atthe lower end of the range and cites many of the mitigating circumstances as noted by Mr. Flannigan and noted in the Pre-SentenceReport. [15] Ranges of cases were also discussed by Mr. Song and he noted that a range is simply that, a range of sentence, and that thecourt must look at parity with respect to a fit and proper sentence and refers to several of the other individuals who were involved withMr. Mackay and their level of participation in the riot and the level of their involvement with Mr. Mackay. Analysis [16] There is no question that taking

part in a riot is a serious offence and, by its very nature, is a serious threat to civil society. Within a riot setting, actions of one will be inextricably linked to others. It is the very nature of a riot that the energy of the riot will bedrawn from the size of the crowd and the nature of the incitement within the crowd. [17] Here, I find that the actions of the accused would be described as actions which incited others. He clearly was enjoying himselfand he was clearly running with the crowd outside of The Bay and elsewhere.

He was actively involved as others were around him indamaging property. [18] It is established in Peepre that deterrence and denunciation must be paramount and that, in the usual case, a jail sentence will bea consideration for sentence of the court even with respect to a first offender, again, of course, dealing with the level of his or herparticipation. A sentence must always be determined on the circumstances of the offender and circumstances of the offence. [19] The guiding principles are set out in s. 718 through 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

A constellation of factors must always betaken into account in relation to crafting a fit and proper sentence. There is no one size that fits all. Madam Justice Arbour, as she thenwas, in R. v. Wust, 2000 SCC 18 , [2000] 1 S.C.R. 455 has identified factors which include reparations, denunciation, generaldeterrence, specific deterrence, circumstances of the victims, if any, and here, there clearly is a victim, being Mr. Mackay. There is agreater victim, as well, being the City of Vancouver and the reputation of this city. [20] Here, it is my view that those factors require the imposition of a jail sentence.

The criminal record of the accused is asignificant aggravating feature. It is also significantly aggravating that he was on conditions of bail and that he breached by not keepingthe peace with respect to the theft allegations. It is significant that he was one of the first individuals to assault Mr. Mackay which led tothe swarming. That individual action along with another individual effectively engaged the crowd around Mr.

Mackay to swarm Mr.Mackay and beat him. [21] I am mindful that the accused is a drug addict and that he needs ongoing counselling and assistance if he is to regain his abilityto socialize in our community.

This requires that the sentence be proportionate by application of s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code,balancing those interests with needs of the accused, but identifying the fact that general and specific deterrence must be paramount andthat denunciation requires a jail sentence. [22] Accordingly, in relation to Count 1, participation in a riot, there will be a sentence of 68 days with the record to reflect timeserved of 52 days. [23] In relation to Count 2, the assault, it is serious and does require a consecutive sentence of 60 days to the 68 days. [24] In relation to the theft-under with respect to June 30th of 2013, there will be a consecutive sentence of 10 days, and in relation tothe theft-under with respect to July 27th of 2013, there will be a consecutive sentence of 20 days. [25] It is an effective sentence of seven months, but less the time served of the 52 days. [26] While I can still do it, I will exempt you from the victim fine surcharge, sir.

You have struggles ahead of you. [27] There will be one probation order. That will attach to 223530-V-1.

It will be for a period of one year. [28] You are to keep the peace and be of good behavior. [29] You shall report forthwith upon your release from custody or, in any event, by 4:00 p.m. of the next business day following yourrelease from custody to a probation officer at 275 East Cordova Street, City of Vancouver, Province of British Columbia; thereafter as,when, and where directed. [30] Provide your address to and reside where directed by your probation officer and not change your residential address without theprior written permission of your probation officer. [31] Having consented, at the direction of your probation officer, you shall take such counselling as directed which may include griefcounselling and substance abuse counselling and, if directed to do so by your probation officer, that you attend at a residential treatmentprogram in relation to substance abuse.

If you are directed to reside at a residential treatment program, you shall obey all rules andregulations of that program and, if you are asked to leave or voluntarily leave that residential treatment program, you shall reportforthwith in person to your probation officer. [32] Now, if I had an abstain clause in there, am I setting you up for a breach? [33] THE ACCUSED: No, I do not think so. [34] THE COURT: Are you sure? You are prepared to abstain from -- it is not alcohol, it is drugs that is your problem. [35] THE ACCUSED: So I would have to do like a regular drug test?

[ 36 ] THE COURT: No, I am not saying that, just abstain. [ 37 ] THE ACCUSED: Abstain? [ 38 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 39 ] THE ACCUSED: No, I think I would be good with that. [ 40 ] THE COURT: You think or -- [ 41 ] THE ACCUSED: I know. [ 42 ] THE COURT: You shall abstain from consumption of alcohol or other illicit substances including drugs except in accordance with a medical prescription. [ 43 ] You shall have no contact or communication directly or indirectly with Robert James Mackay. [ 44 ] You shall not be found at any Hudson's Bay retail outlet, Canada Safeway retail outlet, or any Real Canadian Superstore retail outlet. [ 45 ] Let me just find the PSR here.

That is as far as I am prepared to go, sir. [ 46 ] You shall not have in your possession any weapons as defined by s. 2 of the Criminal Code of Canada including knives except for the immediate purpose of the preparation or consumption of food or for lawful employment purposes. I am doing that in light of Count 2, the assault. [ 47 ] I will recommend on the warrant of committal that your sentence be served at a Provincial Correction Facility that can provide to you counselling in relation to substance abuse and provide to you vocational training. [ 48 ] Anything else, Mr. Flannigan? [ 49 ] MR.

FLANNIGAN: Just one thing and I only raise this because I had trouble once when I was in the Court of Appeal on this. Just so it is clear on the consecutive sentences, so first, the riot, 68 days taking into account 52 days' time served -- [ 50 ] THE COURT: Which would be essentially 120 days, but it is -- [ 51 ] MR. FLANNIGAN: Right -- [ 52 ] THE COURT: -- but is it -- correct, and then consecutive -- [ 53 ] MR. FLANNIGAN: -- and then Count -- Count 2 is consecutive to Count 1 and they should be consecutive to any other sentence. [ 54 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 55 ] MR.

FLANNIGAN: Likewise, the theft-under, it is 10 days, the -- [ 56 ] THE COURT: The first one in June. [ 57 ] MR. FLANNIGAN: The first one in June which is 77226 and that is consecutive -- [ 58 ] THE COURT: To any other sentence. [ 59 ] MR. FLANNIGAN: -- to all other sentences, and the final one is 20 days and that is consecutive to any other -- [ 60 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 61 ] MR. FLANNIGAN: -- sentence. Thank you. I had to deal with Ottawa one time over that. [ 62 ] The other thing is, I would direct a stay of proceedings on Count 3 -- [ 63 ] THE COURT: This can go back to Mr. Flannigan. All right. [ 64 ] MR.

FLANNIGAN: -- on the Information 223530. [ 65 ] MR. SONG: Yes, no objection. [ 66 ] THE COURT: The book of authorities back to you, if they can be used, Mr. Flannigan. [ 67 ] MR. SONG: Your Honour, I was advised by Madam Registrar that when you had earlier imposed a weapons prohibition of Mr. Beddow, that you had referred to s. 109. [ 68 ] THE COURT: Oh, sorry, 110. [ 69 ] MR. SONG: Yes, 110, so I just wanted to make sure that was clarified.

[ 70 ] THE COURT: That is right. It would have been 109 for assault-causing or any of those -- [ 71 ] MR. SONG: Yes. [ 72 ] THE COURT: -- but assault simpliciter proceeded by indictment would be 110 -- [ 73 ] MR. SONG: Yes. [ 74 ] THE COURT: -- and for a period of 10 years. [ 75 ] MR. SONG: Yes, and as you indicated earlier, this is the DNA order, as well. [ 76 ] THE COURT: DNA. [REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED]