R. v. Fletcher, 2018 BCPC 290

Citation: R. v. Fletcher 2018 BCPC 290 Date: 20181114 File No: 233883-1TP Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal REGINA v. RYAN FLETCHER REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE H.K. DHILLON Counsel for the Crown: G. Angrove Counsel for the Defendant: C. Massey Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C.

Date of Hearing: September 17, 2018 Date of Judgment: November 14, 2018 [ 1 ] On May 22, 2018 Ryan Fletcher entered guilty pleas to two drug offences, being the unlawful possession of a controlled substance, a mixture of heroin and fentanyl, for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) [Count 1], and simple possession of cocaine and methamphetamine contrary to s. 4(1) of the CDSA [Count 2].

[ 2 ] The pleas were entered with a plan for Mr. Fletcher to undertake supervised treatment with the Drug Treatment Court of Vancouver. Mr. Fletcher was discharged from the treatment program in July 2018 and he is before the court today for sentencing. [ 3 ] The Crown seeks an effective sentence of 9 years less credit for pre-sentence custody of 12 months, resulting in an actual sentence of 8 years. [ 4 ] The defence seeks an effective sentence of 3 years, with 12 months credit for pre-sentence custody, for an actual sentence of two years less a day with probation to follow.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCE [ 5 ] The uncontested facts are that on February 1, 2018, in Colwood, B.C., Mr. Fletcher was stopped by police for driving a vehicle with a suspicious licence plate. Police investigation revealed that he was driving while prohibited and was in possession of a stolen motor vehicle. He was arrested and a search incident to his arrest uncovered drugs, drug paraphernalia, drug packaging materials, a cell phone and $940 cash, all in a backpack on the floor of the vehicle. The drug paraphernalia included used foil. The totality of the items seized indicated that Mr.

Fletcher was both a drug user and a seller of drugs. [ 6 ] The amount of drugs found in Mr. Fletcher’s possession were the following: a. 49 grams of a mix of heroin and fentanyl for resale; b. further 8.6 grams of fentanyl for personal use by Mr. Fletcher; and c. 8.2 grams of cocaine, and 3.9 grams of methamphetamine also for personal use. [ 7 ] The total amount of fentanyl and heroin possessed was approximately 57 grams, however Crown accepts that 49 grams was for the purpose of trafficking. [ 8 ] The expert opinion of Cpl.

David Ryzuk (Exhibit # 3) placed the value of 49 grams of the heroin and fentanyl mixture at $8,330 if sold at the gram level or just under $6,000 if sold at the ounce level. [ 9 ] I accept and find for purposes of sentencing that a quantitative analysis of a substantial portion of the heroin and fentanyl mixture for resale, being nearly 42 of the 49 grams, had an estimated dose of fentanyl ranging between 6.2 mg to 7.1 mg per 100 mg. As noted by Cpl. Ryzuk in his opinion, and as accepted by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in R. v.

Mann , 2018 BCCA 264 , the lethal dose of fentanyl is estimated at 2 mg for a non-tolerant individual. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENDER [ 10 ] Mr. Fletcher’s personal circumstances are as follows. [ 11 ] He is age 31 and was raised on Vancouver Island. His early years were difficult due to family breakdown through his father’s absenteeism and the lack of a proper male role model. [ 12 ] Mr. Fletcher was born without any fingers on his left hand, which understandably made him self-conscious and a target in his youth. This impacted his self-confidence, and led to feelings of insecurity and anxiety.

It no doubt placed him in difficult circumstances growing up. [ 13 ] He has good family support on his maternal side. His mother Sherri Gibson has resolutely supported Mr. Fletcher through his difficulties in life and with the law. She has outlined a number of traumas and personal stresses due to family losses suffered by Mr. Fletcher which have impacted him adversely. [ 14 ] Mr. Fletcher became addicted to illicit drugs in his teenage years, particularly methamphetamine. He did not complete high school. He engaged in poor choices and behaviours leading to a criminal lifestyle to support his addiction.

His criminal record of property and breach offences started in 2006 and he has three prior drug offences convictions. [ 15 ] He was convicted in October 2010 of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking in 2008. In 2014 he was convicted of two counts of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking. He was involved as a courier in taking a package containing 279 grams of methamphetamine and 426 grams of cocaine for transport. He received concurrent two-year sentences of imprisonment for the latter drug offences on December 16, 2014. Mr.

Fletcher was released into the community on completion of his sentence in Spring 2016. [ 16 ] Unfortunately, whilst in custody Mr. Fletcher became addicted to heroin and fentanyl. To make a fresh start after his release from custody, Mr. Fletcher sought admission to Kinghaven Treatment Centre in Abbotsford, B.C. He successfully completed a 90 day residential intensive therapy program. Thereafter, he returned to Vancouver Island and started a janitorial job. He lost this job for reasons he believes were related to his criminal record. Demoralized, he began to fall back into old habits and practices.

Accelerating his spiral downward was the loss of his beloved pet dog through illness which devastated him emotionally. He began to use drugs to get through the day, and began to sell drugs to support his addiction. [ 17 ] Mr. Fletcher states that he has a desire to take counseling and treatment for his substance use disorder. He hopes to undergo addictions counseling on Vancouver Island. Steven Kelly, Addictions Counselor, confirms the long standing intent of Mr.

Fletcher to attain sobriety, referencing his intensive therapy program and a five week employment readiness program through the Kinghaven Treatment Centre. [ 18 ] While in custody awaiting sentencing, Mr. Fletcher has continued to take learning modules in substance abuse education, healthy relationships, and employability skills.

[19] In recent weeks Mr. Fletcher has sought out information on the programming offered at Nanaimo Correctional Centre’s GuthrieTherapeutic Community Programming. He is approved for that program and eligible to attend should he receive a custodial sentence ofless than two years. [20] Mr. Fletcher has written several letters outlining his circumstances, and his hopes for the future. In them, he expresses shameand remorse for being part of trafficking in fentanyl. He explains he has been battling a crystal methamphetamine addiction since age15.

He tried heroin and fentanyl combination for the first time in 2015 while incarcerated at Matsqui Institution and left there addicted tofentanyl. He is still struggling with methamphetamine use. He asks for a sentence which will allow him to benefit from the Guthrietreatment program. LAW [21] Sentencing judges are given statutory guidance under s. 718 to s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 and s. 10 ofthe Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 (“CDSA”).

The case law provides further guidance in interpreting andapplying the statutory principles and sets sentencing ranges to ensure parity. I have considered all the cases and sentencing materialsreferred to by counsel. I rely in particular on recent decisions of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in R. v. Smith, 2017 BCCA 112 and R. v.

Mann, 2018 BCCA 265 . [22] The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respectfor the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the statutorilyenumerated objectives under s. 718 of the Criminal Code. [23] Proportionality is a fundamental principle of sentencing under s. 718.1, requiring the court to assess the gravity of the offenceand degree of responsibility of the offender in determining a just sentence. [24] In addition, under s. 718.2 the court must look at other sentencing principles, including any mitigating or aggravatingcircumstances, and balance all factors to determine a fair, fit and just sentence in all the circumstances. [25] In looking first at the issue of proportionality, it cannot be disputed that trafficking in fentanyl is an extremely serious offence.

The moral culpability of the fentanyl drug offender is very high because fentanyl is a highly dangerous and lethal drug. It hascontributed to many overdoses and deaths in this province and across Canada. As noted by the Office of the Chief Coroner of BritishColumbia, in Exhibit # 4, fentanyl is a deadly drug causing untold harm and tragic consequences. [26] Mr. Fletcher possessed fentanyl and heroin in February 2018 for the purpose of trafficking, at a time when the public healthcrisis in fentanyl was notoriously well known. The objective moral gravity of Mr.

Fletcher’s offending is serious and calls for adenunciatory and deterrent sentence of imprisonment. [27] Counsel are far apart on what period of custody would represent an adequate sanction for Mr. Fletcher. The Crown submitsthat the aggravating factors in the case take the range of sentence for Mr. Fletcher up to 9 years. The Crown refers to B.C. cases ofSmith, Mann, and R v Forsberg, 27 September 2017 [Victoria Docker 167641-2].

The Crown also relies on a number of Ontario Courtof Justice cases where fentanyl drug offences resulted in sentences ranging from 4 years to as high as 11 years. [28] The Defence submits that the Ontario cases should be viewed with caution, and guidance is best taken from B.C. cases,including the appellate cases of Smith and Mann. The Defence argues that Mr. Fletcher’s personal circumstances, and the absence ofsome aggravating factors found in Mann, sets the sentence range for Mr.

Fletcher at the upper end of the 18 to 36 months identified inSmith. [29] The Defence states that Mann has aggravating factors which are absent in Mr. Fletcher’s case. The offence in Mann was a mid-level, dial-a-dope operation with some aspects of street level distribution. There was evidence of negligent hand mixing of fentanyl by acutting agent using a mortar and pestle found in the home of the offenders, resulting in hot spots containing massively high and lethalconcentrations of fentanyl. The Mann offenders carried on an enterprise motivated by profit. It is submitted that Mr.

Fletcher was astreet level dealer supporting his own addiction. He was not mixing the drugs for resale nor was he was selling drugs for profit. [30] In asking for a sentence at or below 36 months, Defence refers the court to the comments of Justice Newbury at para. 45 in theSmith decision. The Defence submits that Smith sets the parameters for a sentence in excess of 36 months if, among other aggravatingfactors, the offender: a. has a substantial record involving the sale of fentanyl; or b. demonstrates an indifference to the human lives he or she is putting at risk. [31] The Defence submits that although Mr.

Fletcher has three prior drug convictions, he does not have a “substantial recordinvolving the sale of fentanyl.” This is his first fentanyl offence. Accordingly, he should be treated as a first time fentanyl offender andnot sentenced beyond the upper end of the Smith range. [32] I do not accept the Defence’s narrow reading of Justice Newbury’s holding in the Smith case. [33] Prior to Smith, the ranges of sentence for non-fentanyl drug offences were discussed in R. v. Voong, 2015 BCCA 285 and R. v.Lloyd, 2014 BCCA 224.

In Voong, the British Columbia Court of Appeal at para. 44 stated that for offenders without a prior record or aminimal record, the normal range of sentence for “a first offence dial-a-dope drug trafficker is between six to nine months incarceration,and upwards to 18 months in some cases, absent exceptional circumstances.” [34] For addicted, street-level trafficking offenders with prior related records, the British Columbia Court of Appeal in R v. Lloyd, atparas. 59 - 63, noted the sentence range to be between 12 to 18 months imprisonment. This range was not disturbed by the SCC in its

decision on the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentencing in drug trafficking cases (see R. v. Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13). [35] What of a repeat drug offender who is a first time fentanyl trafficking offender? [36] In Smith, para. 49, Justice Harris for the majority noted the starting point for a first time street level drug trafficking offender,other than fentanyl, was 6 months and endorsed sentencing for first time fentanyl offenders to start at 18 months, a substantially higherstarting point than noted in Voong.

His Lordship also indicated that “a very substantial increase in the sentencing range applicable tostreet level dealing in fentanyl” is required. [37] Extrapolating from that, it is in my view that such a “substantial increase” would apply equally to the existing sentence rangethe appellate courts have set for repeat drug offenders, or for those placed higher up in the drug trafficking hierarchy who traffic infentanyl.

As Justice Newbury notes at para. 45 of Smith, the “range may also increase beyond 36 months, or a different range will apply,where the offender is higher up the chain of distribution.” [38] Justice Fitch in Mann specifically refers to factors which may elevate the sentence beyond the Smith range: [87] Smith does not, as the appellants seem to suggest, “cap” the generally applicable range at 36 months’ imprisonment. Moreover,the factual findings made by the judge in this case are precisely the kind of aggravating circumstances the Court in Smith envisioned asrequiring the imposition of a longer sentence.

As noted earlier, the judge found that the appellants were not mere street-level traffickers,but embarked together on an operation that had elements typically associated with a mid-level distribution scheme. Further, the conductof the appellants was found to display an extreme indifference to human life. Both factual findings are grounded in the evidence andwere not seriously challenged by the appellants on appeal. On the facts found by the judge, the sentencing range identified in Smith wasnot applicable to this case.

In the result, he made no error in imposing sentences that exceeded the range identified as being applicable incases like Smith. [39] In setting the sentence range as a guideline, in R. v. Rutter, 2017 BCCA 193 the court affirmed that a sentence mustalways be modulated by the highly individualized and fact-specific nature of the sentencing process: [4] It is clear that going forward, the sentencing range for street-level trafficking in fentanyl begins at 18 months' imprisonment, andextends up to or beyond 36 months' imprisonment.

It is also clear that this range is a guideline, not a straight jacket, and that sentencingjudges retain the discretion to depart from this range where there are case-specific exceptional circumstances (Smith at para. 35). [40] It follows therefore that if Smith does not represent a cap at 36 months for a first time drug offender dealing in fentanyl, then itis equally the case that there is no 36 month cap for a repeat drug offender dealing for the first time in fentanyl. ANALYSIS [41] The concentration of fentanyl in the drug mixture possessed by Mr.

Fletcher represents fentanyl potency which is 3 timesgreater than the median lethal dose, being the dose likely to kill one-half of the subjects of a hypothetical population, as noted in R vMann at para 24. [42] I find it established beyond a reasonable doubt that the concentration of fentanyl at 6.2% can lead to a lethal dose of fentanylhaving regard the amount ingested, the size and sex of the user, and degree of opioid tolerance. [43] Mr. Fletcher argues that he was a careful drug dealer in selling fentanyl. He was an addict, and had built up a significantpersonal tolerance to fentanyl.

He held the highest concentration of fentanyl of 14% for his own use. Because he knew his customerswell and knew them to be tolerant of higher fentanyl dosages, he argues that the risk of death was less likely. He took care not to sell tounknown persons who might be most at risk of overdosing on fentanyl. [44] The exhibits filed by the Crown, including the B.C. Coroner’s Service Reports, show that the highest rates of fentanyl overdosedeaths have been taking place in Vancouver, Surrey, and Victoria and that between January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2017, there were1,156 fentanyl-detected overdose deaths.

In 2017, there was a 73% increase over the number of fentanyl-detected deaths of 670occurring in 2016. The death rate has continued to increase from 2017. As at January 2018 and compared to December 2017 it was 25%higher. In January 2018, B.C. wide, there were 125 suspected fentanyl drug overdose deaths, or 4 deaths each day, caused or contributedby illicit fentanyl-detected drug overdoses. [45] The offence date in the case at bar is February 1, 2018. The public health crisis caused by fentanyl-detected deaths oroverdoses had not abated. [46] Mr.

Fletcher’s argument about taking care to sell to known and tolerant users of opioids does not reduce the moral gravity of hisoffending. It is, in my view, a specious justification when considered within the context of an alarming and tragic public health crisiscaused by fentanyl in this province. [47] First, I find it unlikely that a trafficker such as Mr. Fletcher could truly and accurately know the personal and biological factorsaffecting his buying population so as to reduce the risk of harm or death caused by fentanyl. [48] Second, Mr.

Fletcher is not a pharmacologist nor can he claim to know the levels of fentanyl in the drugs for sale unless he wasmixing the drugs carefully in a laboratory. He denies compounding the drugs found on him. [49] In my view, selling fentanyl-laced drugs is inviting an addict to play a lethal game of chance, akin to Russian roulette. Thegreater the concentration of fentanyl, the more bullets in the revolver’s cylinder.

An addict typically would not know the concentrationof fentanyl in a dose, yet the addiction would drive him or her to pull the metaphorical trigger and use illicit drugs at risk of containinglethal amounts of fentanyl. Knowing one’s clients cannot control for nor reduce the risk of harm or death associated with trafficking infentanyl.

[ 50 ] The Crown submits that Mr. Fletcher was mixing the fentanyl into the heroin in a negligent manner, thereby placing users at an increased risk of overdose. Mr. Fletcher denies that he mixed the drugs found on him. I am not able to find that Mr. Fletcher was personally involved in the negligent mixing of the drugs.

Unlike the Mann case, no mixing paraphernalia was discovered, and insufficient amounts of cutting or mixing agents were found in the vehicle to establish his culpability in negligent mixing or batching beyond a reasonable doubt. [ 51 ] Having regard to the purposes and principles of sentencing, the objectives of deterrence and denunciation are foremost in sentencing drug trafficking offenders. The purpose is to enhance the protection and safety of the community from the harms caused by a deadly drug such as fentanyl and to discourage its community wide distribution. [ 52 ] I find that Mr.

Fletcher knowingly trafficked in drugs he knew contained fentanyl in February 2018, at a time when fentanyl- detected deaths were occurring on a daily basis. The Coroner’s Service recorded 125 deaths province wide in January 2018. [ 53 ] Mr. Fletcher’s offence is serious and his moral culpability for possessing fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking is extremely high: Mann, at para 58. [ 54 ] Mr.

Fletcher’s rehabilitation from illicit drug use remains a relevant sentencing objective but takes less prominence than other sentencing objectives, including the protection and safety of the public through a denunciatory and deterrent sentence, the length of which will be determined on a fact based and individualized exercise in sentencing. [ 55 ] The aggravating factors in this case are that Mr. Fletcher has a relatively recent and related prior record for serious drug offences. He was sentenced to two concurrent two-year sentences in 2014. This is Mr.

Fletcher’s fourth conviction, leading to the inference that he had not been sufficiently deterred from resorting to drug offending even after being sentenced to a significant period of custody. [ 56 ] Also aggravating is that Mr. Fletcher possessed 49 grams of heroin fentanyl mixture, not including the 8 grams for his personal use. These are two

Schedule 1 substances in an amount above the ounce level (1.728 ounces). [ 57 ] The expert opinion of Cpl. Ryzuk is that the amount and value of drugs, along with $940 cash, are consistent with “mid-level” drug trafficking. The value of the drugs is between $6,000 and $8,300. I find the ounce-plus amount and high dollar value of the drugs to be inconsistent with trafficking at the street level. [ 58 ] I am of the view that street level trafficking is generally characterized by an impoverished, street-entrenched addict possessing and selling small amounts of drugs to support a personal addiction.

Mr, Fletcher is not a low level drug dealer, and his involvement in the drug trade is clearly beyond street level trafficking. However, in the absence of other indicia as to where within the chain of drug purveyors Mr. Fletcher might fall, I prefer to confine my finding to his possession for trafficking purposes as being above street level offending. [ 59 ] Moreover, having regard to the thousands of dollars’ worth of drugs found in Mr.

Fletcher’s possession, I am persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that he was operating for personal financial gain and not engaging in subsistence level trafficking merely to get drugs for his own addiction. I make this determination after having considered Mr. Fletcher’s explanation that he lost his employment due to his record, and becoming demoralized, he returned to criminal thinking and behaviours.

Such an explanation does not preclude a financial motive underlying the drug trafficking, even when the individual is struggling with a substance use disorder. [ 60 ] The high concentration of fentanyl in the drug mixture, being three times the median lethal dose, is also an aggravating feature in this case. Although I do not find as a fact that it was Mr. Fletcher who personally mixed fentanyl, he is nonetheless responsible for possessing potentially lethal concentrations of fentanyl, howsoever acquired. [ 61 ] Mitigating circumstances include Mr. Fletcher’s guilty plea, and his expression of remorse.

In his letters, he demonstrates insight into his decisions and actions and a sincere desire to move away from the drug using and selling community. [ 62 ] At age 31, his life circumstances have been defined unfortunately by his congenital hand disability which has adversely impacted his sense of self-worth, and also limited his opportunities. Also mitigating is that Mr. Fletcher is an addict who is struggling with recovery. His resolve to move forward with treatment is to be commended. His ongoing education and counseling whilst in custody show promise of rehabilitation. [ 63 ] Mr.

Fletcher has supportive network of family behind him who can guide him forward should he turn his life around.

I have no doubt that he seeks to overcome his addiction through treatment as evidenced by his prior admission to Kinghaven Treatment Centre. [ 64 ] The Defence has provided the court with a number of cases where the personal circumstances of the offender, usually a combination of mental health disability coupled with long standing addiction, or aboriginal heritage and the strong promise of rehabilitation, has resulted in a suspended sentence or sentences in the reformatory range, being between 18 months to 2 years less a day. [ 65 ] In R v Porter , 2017 BCPC 330 the court imposed a suspended sentence and 3 years’ probation for a 31 year old first nations offender found with 5 grams of fentanyl and five grams of methamphetamine in March 2016. [ 66 ] In R v Abraham , 2017 BCSC 2461 , the court imposed an 18 months sentence on a 29 year old first nations offender found with 15 grams of heroin and fentanyl mixture.

His personal circumstances included an underlying head injury, fractured family history, and addiction to hard drugs. [ 67 ] A 19 month jail sentence was imposed with probation in R v Butler , 2017 BCPC 315 for possession of

Schedule 1 drugs including fentanyl for purpose of trafficking. Butler had 74 prior convictions, including 2 prior drug convictions. [ 68 ] In cases of offenders suffering from underlying mental health disorders overlaid by addiction, sentences of 2 years less a day ( R

v Johnson 2017 BCPC 251 , R v Goesen , 2018 BCPC 140 ) and up to 3 years have been imposed. [ 69 ] As the Crown points out, the amounts of fentanyl in many of the cases relied on by the defence are significantly lower, and more aligned with that of a street level trafficker. [ 70 ] On the other hand, the Crown relies on cases from Ontario where the range for fentanyl sentencing is well above the British Columbia cases.

In Mann , at para. 97, the British Columbia Court of Appeal referenced these cases but declined to expressly adopt them or to opine further on the higher sentence range, noting at para. 100 that it was “premature to identify a range” which would “develop over time, guided by judicial experience.” [ 71 ] In British Columbia, the cases that have followed the 2017 Smith decision, show sentencing for a drug offender involved in trafficking fentanyl to be between a suspended sentence with lengthy probation, to 4 years as recently upheld by the BCCA in the Mann case.

In Mann , first time very youthful offenders possessing 39 grams of fentanyl for purpose of trafficking in a dial-a-dope scheme with indicia of a mid-level enterprise for profit each received a sentence of 4 years. [ 72 ] Mr. Fletcher’s personal circumstances are more aggravating in several respects, including his age, his prior related record, and the greater amount of drugs at 49 grams. Other factors are less aggravating such as the absence of a dial-a-dope operation, and insufficient evidence of his direct involvement in mixing the drugs at source.

I accept that he is struggling with a serious addiction, caused by many factors including his congenital hand disability, which factors were absent or not prominent in Mann . [ 73 ] I have concluded after weighing and balancing all relevant sentencing considerations that Mr.

Fletcher’s sentence must hold him accountable for his unlawful conduct but must also leave open the possibility for him, now age 31, to move forward with his life after completion of sentence. [ 74 ] For the offence under Count 1 of trafficking in heroin and fentanyl, the sentence which best reflects the moral gravity of Mr fletcher’s offending in the context of the aggravating and mitigating factors and his personal circumstances, is imprisonment for 4 years. He is entitled to credit for time served in pre-sentence custody of 365 days. The actual sentence imposed is a sentence of incarceration of 3 years.

For the offence under Count 2, simple possession of cocaine and methamphetamine, I impose a sentence of 30 days concurrent to Count 1. [ 75 ] The Crown seeks a DNA order pursuant to s. 487.051(3) (

b) of the Criminal Code . This offence is deemed a secondary designated offence. The order in the case of a secondary designated offence is discretionary. I am satisfied that such an order is in the best interests of the administration of justice having regard to all relevant factors including the serious nature of the offence and the offender’s record. I order the taking of a number of bodily substances reasonably required for forensic DNA analysis. [ 76 ] A victim fine surcharge under s . 737 of the Criminal Code mandates the payment of $200 on each count .

I therefore order that there will be a victim fine surcharge in the amount of $400 to be paid forthwith, and in the event of default of payment, Mr. Fletcher will serve a sentence of two days’ incarceration concurrent with the sentences I have imposed. [ 77 ] I impose a lifetime ban on the possession by Mr. Fletcher of any firearm, crossbow, restricted weapon and ammunition or other items enumerated under s. 109 of the Criminal Code . _____________________________ The Honourable Judge H. K. Dhillon Provincial Court of British Columbia