R. v. L.J.H., 2018 BCPC 413

Citation: R. v. L.J.H. 2018 BCPC 413 Date: 20181107 File No: 225887-4AC, 225887- 5A, 225887-6C Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal Court REGINA v. L.J.H BAN ON PUBLICATION S. 486.4 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE D.A. JAHANI Counsel for the Crown: A. Willms Counsel for the Defendant: C. St. Germain Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Date of Hearing: October 29, 2018 Date of Judgment: November 7, 2018 [ 1 ] Mr. H. appears before this court for sentencing having plead guilty to the following offences on June 25, 2018:

a) That he committed the offence of sexual interference on a person under the age of 16, on or about October 2, 2017, contrary to

section 151 of the Criminal Code ( Information 225887-6-C);

b) That he committed breach of undertaking or recognizance on or about February 7, 2018, contrary to section 145(3) of the Criminal Code (Information 225887-4-AC);

c) And that he committed breach of undertaking or recognizance on or about March 15, 2018, contrary to section 145(3) of the Criminal Code (Information 225887-5-A); [ 2 ] The complainant at the time of the offence was 14 years old, and the accused was 23 years of age. [ 3 ] Briefly, the facts are that on or about October 28, 2017, the complainant’s mother went to the RCMP, after being alerted by her friend who made the discovery on the complainant’s mother’s laptop, of a video showing the complainant performing fellatio on the accused.

At the time of the offence, the complainant was in the care of Ministry of Children and Family Services. [ 4 ] Mr. H. was arrested on November 9, 2017 and was released on a Promise to Appear. On January 30, 2018, it was alleged that he breached the no-contact provisions of his Promise to Appear, by having contact with the complainant. As a result, he spent 3 days in custody until he was released on his own Recognizance before The Honourable Judge Dohm on February 1, 2018. [ 5 ] On February 7, 2018, Mr.

H. breached his bail order again: a Ministry social worker attended at the complainant’s home to check on her and saw Mr. H. at her residence: Mr. H. had dropped by unannounced to pick up his belongings. This is the substance of the first breach in this sentencing matter. [ 6 ] On February 15, 2018, at the court appearance for the substantive matter, Mr. H. was asked to wait in the courthouse until the breach information relating to the February breach charge could be added. However, Mr.

H. did not stay, and left the courthouse and a warrant was issued for his arrest. [ 7 ] On March 15, 2018, the Surrey Strike Force Target Team attended at the complainant’s residence to see if Mr. H. would be there, so as to execute the warrant on the breach charge and the bench warrant. [ 8 ] Upon attendance at the complainant’s residence, another individual answered the door. They saw the complainant come out of her bedroom and close the door behind her immediately. Their suspicion raised, police went into her bedroom and discovered Mr. H. in bed under the covers.

This is the substance of the second breach in this sentencing. [ 9 ] Mr. H. was detained as a result of the now multiple breaches, which clearly involved breaching the no-contact provisions of his bail orders by having contact with the complainant. [ 10 ] As of today’s date, Mr. H. had spent 241 actual days in custody, which on enhanced credit of 1:1.5 ratio, amounts to 362 days’ jail time. Position of the Crown [ 11 ] Crown seeks 365 days of jail time with respect to the substantive offence of sexual interference alone, and 18 months of probation.

With respect to the breaches, Crown seeks 30 days on each breach to be served consecutively. [ 12 ] With respect to terms of Probation, Crown seeks no contact and no go provisions with the complainant, specific conditions of contact with anyone under the age of 16, meaning that Mr. H. not have direct/indirect contact with anyone under 16 if he is alone, and;

b) that he must not engage in activities, volunteer work or employment that could bring him in contact with anyone under the age of 16, except with the written permission of his probation officer, which he shall carry on his person at all times. Crown also seeks ancillary orders for the following: Discretionary Orders

a) A 5 year prohibition to work/volunteer in a position of trust towards persons under the age of 16, pursuant to s. 161 (1) (

b) of the Criminal Code ;

b) Being alone in the presence of a person under the age of 16, under s. 161 (1) (

c) of the Criminal Code ;

c) No contact provisions with the complainant while in custody except through counsel pursuant to s. 743.21. Mandatory Orders

a) A SOIRA order, pursuant to s. 490.012, that he is required to comply with Sex Offender Information Registration Act for 20 years;

b) DNA Primary Order as the substantive offence is a primary designated offence;

c) Section 109 Firearm prohibition order for 10 years. [ 13 ] The total of the sentence Crown seeks would be 425 days, which would leave 63 additional days to serve, after taking into account the time already served in custody. Position of Defence [ 14 ] Defence counsel seeks 10 months’ jail time with respect to the substantive offence, concurrent to 30 days on each breach, all to

be served concurrently to each other. Defence essentially seeks time served, with such time to be reflected on his record as being 362days for all the offences, regardless of the amount of time served until the delivery of these reasons. [15] With respect to terms of probation, defence submits that the no-contact provisions prohibiting contact with anyone under the ageof 16 is overly broad. With respect to s.161 orders, she submits that a 3-year prohibition is sufficient, as Mr.

H. is a first-time offender;there is no evidence of deviant sexual preferences which puts the protection of public on a different landscape. The Law [16] Mr. H. pleaded guilty to sexual interference pursuant to s. 151 of the Code.

Based on this section, it is an offence to touch“directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of a person under the age of 16, for a sexualpurpose”. [17] Both Crown and defence provided case law to the court, and I have considered all the cases. [18] The mandatory minimum sentence for s. 151 offence, has been previously struck down by our courts (in R. v. Scofield, 2018BCSC 91). In British Columbia, the range of sentence prior to the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences for s. 151 offence andother sexual offences, was 9-18 months (Scofield para. 91).

Crown argues that now that the mandatory minimum has been struck down,the range is still 9-18 months. [19] It is clear from the case law that offences such as the s. 151 offence are intended to punish those engaged in sexual activity oftouching with a child. The age of consent in the legislation was designed to protect the children. It was changed by parliament in 2008from 14 to 16, to protect children from being targeted by online predators and others (R. v.

Norton, 2016 MBCA 79 , [2016] MJ235 para. 22). [20] Pursuant to s. 150.1(1) and subject to s. 150.1(2) to (2.2) as applicable, consent of the complainant is not a defence to thecharge.

Section 150.1(2.1), or the “close-in-age” exception does not apply as Mr. H. and the complainant had 9 years of age difference. [21] Consent of a child, therefore, is not a defence (R. v. Hajar, 2016 ABCA 222 , [2016] A.J. No. 754, para. 6). De factoconsent or factual consent, will not constitute as a mitigating factor (Norton, para. 42, Hajar, para. 9) [22] In R. v. E.J.B., 2018 ABCA 239 , [2018] A.J.

No. 911, in dealing with the offence under s. 153, which carried the samestatutory mandatory minimum as the s.151 offence, the Alberta Court of Appeal stated at para. 42, that the complainant’s participation inthe sexual activity is not a mitigating factor, quoting the comments of Justice Laforet in R. v.

Audet, (SCC), [1996] 2S.C.R. 171, which states that notwithstanding a consent, it is “the adult who has the responsibility to decline having any sexual contactwhatsoever with [a] young person.” [23] Pursuant to the case law and the sentencing principles in s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code, when a court imposes a sentence thatinvolved the abuse of a child under the age of 18, it shall give primary considerations to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. [24]

Section 718.1 requires that the sentence imposed be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of theresponsibility of the offender. [25] Pursuant to s. 718.2, mitigating and aggravating factors ought to be considered in increasing or decreasing a sentence. Pursuant tos. 718.29(a)(ii.1), it is an aggravating factor that the complainant is under the age of 18 years. I will address other aggravating and/ormitigating factors in the analysis. Mr. H.’s background [26] Mr.

H. is 25 years old and does not have a criminal record. [27] A Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”), a Psychiatric Report by the Surrey Regional Clinic of the Forensic Psychiatric ServicesCommission was also done by Dr. Lopes to assist with sentencing. In that report, pursuant to the court’s request, a “risk assessment withan emphasis on the possibility of mental health issues and risk of re-offending” were done, along with recommendations for treatment. [28] A second report was obtained by defence counsel from Dr. Koopman, who also interviewed Mr. H. for the purposes of apsychological and risk assessment for sentencing.

Dr. Koopman also opined and commented on Dr. Lopes’ report. [29] Defence submits that Mr. H. has had mental health and cognitive issues, namely Attention Deficit Order (“ADD”) and AttentionDeficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”), and that he has struggled to cope because of them. It is submitted that Mr. H. has had ADHDsince a young age and was receiving treatment via prescribed medication. As per Mr. H., his medication was discontinued with theagreement of his paediatrician when he was 18 years old because he said it was not effective; Mr. H. reported to Dr.

Lopes that herefuses to take medication and instead smokes marijuana. [30] Mr. H. believes he may also have depression and anxiety, and has stated that he started cutting himself three years ago when hewould get emotional and upset. The cutting stopped when he went to prison. He also attempted suicide once. Dr. Lopes assessed himusing the SAD PERSONAS evaluation form and found that he is at low risk for suicide at the time of the assessment. [31] It is submitted that due to his ADHD and the resulting struggles, he had difficulty at school and hence he has limited education.I note that based on Mr.

H., he was expelled from school in grade 10 because he got upset at a comment a student made about his familyand pulled a knife on that student, threatening to cut his throat. He then attended Foundations, which is a Special Education Program toaddress the unique needs of at-risk youth who have significant learning and behavioural challenges, the primary focus of the programbeing assisting students to identify and explore careers of interest to help them transition from school to work.

[ 32 ] Mr. H. is currently unemployed with limited work experience. He hopes to apply for disability benefits once released. [ 33 ] Mr. H. also has a history of substance abuse since the age of 15. He started using marijuana at 15 and began to drink alcohol. When he found out his grandmother was sick, he started to drink heavily and also began using cocaine and crystal meth. She died when he was somewhere between 19 to 20 years old. Based on the Pre-Sentence Report and Dr. Lopes’ report, he continued using crystal meth until his arrest in November 2017, and relapsed again a week before New Year’s last year. Mr.

H. denied using drugs with the complainant and denied giving her any for her protection. [ 34 ] Defence submits that his drug and alcohol addictions are tied to his mental health and anger issues. [ 35 ] Mr. H. is of Cree heritage, although he was not raised with the Cree culture. His paternal grandfather was an alcoholic and Mr. H.’s father knows little about his own father. Defence counsel asks the court to consider the Gladue component of the effects of colonization being passed on through generations and its impact on the individuals. [ 36 ] In the court Psychiatric Report, Mr.

H. mentioned that his dad would sometimes drink heavily, but denied a history of violence, substance abuse in the home, or being the victim of any type of abuse. He described his childhood as “ok” and indicated that he had his freedom with his dad, although with a curfew. He described being “kicked out “of his father’s home “a number of times” and had ended up on the streets or at friends’ homes. [ 37 ] It is submitted by defence that Mr. H. maintains a good relationship with his father and brother. In the PSR, Mr.

H. told the author that he was not sure if his father would be willing to continue to offer him support (this considering his prior behaviour of stealing from him and doing poorly at a job opportunity). He does hope however, to be able to live with his father upon release otherwise he will be couch surfing. Analysis [ 38 ] As previously mentioned, the range of sentence in BC for these offences is 9 to 18 months’ incarceration. The length of appropriate sentence is determined taking into account the mitigating and aggravating factors set out in s. 718.2.

I will not repeat that the primary principles of sentencing in such cases are deterrence and denunciation, and this obviously does not stop or preclude taking other principles of sentencing into account such as rehabilitation. [ 39 ] Some of the aggravating and mitigating factors to be considered when adjusting a sentence up or down the range have been noted as follows:

a) The relative ages of the child and the accused;

b) The nature of the position of trust between the child and the accused;

c) The exact nature of the conduct involved;

d) The length of the relationship and the frequency of the incidents;

e) Whether the sexual violations were accompanied by physical violence, threats of violence or other forms of extortion or psychological manipulations; and

f) The impact on the child. [ 40 ] It is a statutory aggravating factor that the complainant was under the age of 18. The age difference between the complainant and the accused at the time of the offence was nine years of age. [ 41 ] While I appreciate defence submission that at 14, the complainant was closer to the age of consent (16 and over), she is still under the age of 16 and incapable of consenting. When under the law, a person under the age of 16 has no capacity to consent, it is not a mitigating factor nor a neutral factor that the child is closer to 16 than not.

The fact that the complainant was 14 may have been more relevant, for example, to the close-in-age exception, if that were applicable, which it is not in this case. [ 42 ] As to Mr. H.’s age, it is submitted by defence that although chronologically he was 23 at the time, by all accounts he functions below his age level. I do agree with this submission based on the evidence before the court. Dr. Lopes’ report states that “Mr.

H. comes across as a highly immature man for his chronological age and that it is believed that his level of maturity may have had an influence on his choices of starting a relationship with a 14 year old.” Dr. Koopman opines that Mr. H.’s cognitive limitations were exacerbated by his ADHD, which made it difficult for him to define and resolve problems. Both authors agree that he has difficulty problem solving. Dr. Lopes describes Mr.

H. as being very impulsive and an extremely poor decision maker, someone who has an extremely low coping mechanism and resorts to drugs to deal with stress and anxiety. [ 43 ] Defence further submits that it is because of his below age maturity and also low cognitive abilities that he made disclosures against self-interest to Dr. Lopes. Such an example in the report is regarding some of his conduct for which he was never charged, such as his admission to have stabbed someone.

Other examples which exhibit his lack of insight into understanding the process and lack of ability to problem solve, was the breach of contact with the complainant, where he attended at her house to pick up his belongings, as opposed to arranging through his bail supervisor to attend with a police officer. Dr. Lopes further notes that Mr. H. still struggles with this issue of having no contact, because although he states he will not have any future contact, he had mentioned to Dr. Lopes that she still has a number of his items. [ 44 ] Mr.

H. admitted to the police on November 10, 2017, that he knew the complainant was 14 at the time. By the time he found out her real age, Mr. H. stated that they were emotionally connected and were in a relationship. In the PSR, he stated that he was in love with the complainant and decided to continue with the relationship after finding out she was 14, despite knowing that it was wrong.

Having read all the reports, clearly and in the final analysis, Mr. H. made the conscious choice to maintain the emotional connection and remain in the relationship as opposed to sever it. [ 45 ] Reading the two opinions together, I do accept that Mr.

H. does act below his age and has suffered from the effects of ADHD, and possibly depression and anxiety, which have impacted his decision-making abilities and coping mechanism. [ 46 ] Based on the evidence before the court, I do not find however that his immaturity and lack of insight and understanding is as significant as that of the accused in Scofield , to have the imposition of a sentence below the range, such as was done in Scofield , apply.

I do not have detailed medical reports or formal cognitive assessments done (as was done in the Scofield case) to have the evidence of the extent of his cognitive impairment and a better understanding of his emotional and intellectual age level. [ 47 ] In Scofield , the accused had a “significant cognitive impairment and dysfunction. He suffered from various physical abnormalities that required several corrective surgeries” … having a full scale IQ of 59, placing him in the 0.3 percentile, with overall cognitive abilities in the extremely low range, named “mild mental retardation” (para. 29, 30 and 35).

In Scofield , “an assessment of brain function indicated significant impairment not only in cognition, but also in core academic skills, executive functioning, memory, communication and adaptive function…” to name a few. It was suggested that he may also have incomplete brain development (para. 35). [ 48 ] Mr. H. was on medication until the age of 18. He states that it was with the agreement of his paediatrician that he stopped taking the medication. However, he also openly admits that he refuses to take medication and smokes marijuana instead. [ 49 ] With respect to the nature of the conduct involved.

In Norton at para. 32 , the court cites Hajar , in which fellatio was described as falling into the category of “major sexual interference”, although I appreciate that the range of sentence in Alberta is much higher than in BC, however this does not change the characterization of the conduct involved. I agree with Crown that it is also aggravating that it was video recorded, which could be easily be distributed through social media.

It is the risk of circulation that is aggravating; we already know that the video was seen by the friend of the complainant’s mother who was the one who alerted the complainant’s mother to the existence of the video. Mr. H. knew that their sexual conduct was video recorded, however he also stated that he believed the video was deleted. It is also aggravating that the sexual contact and conduct was unprotected ( E.J.B. para. 47 ). There is no evidence of the degree of frequency of sexual conduct before the court.

The only evidence is the video recording. [ 50 ] The offence was reported to the police by the complainant’s mother who discovered the video recording. The complainant has refused to cooperate with the police, and there is no victim impact statement provided. She is a young person who, at the time of these offences, was in the care of the Ministry of Children. However, she is inherently vulnerable under the offence section, aside from the fact that she is a child in care. Mr.

H. stated in the PSR that the complainant had a hard life and part of the reason he continued to violate his conditions of contact was because she threatened to harm herself. There is very little evidence about the complainant before the court, but clearly the complainant is vulnerable and may have emotional issues. In Hajar , the court notes that sexual activity between a child under the age of 16 and an adult is inherently harmful, and that this applies with equal force to sexual interference (para. 62).

It further notes that where sentencing for a major sexual interference, the focus should be on the interest of the children, and the principles of denunciation and deterrence ( Hajar , para. 129 ), and that a relationship of genuine affection “may” - but not “must”, be a mitigating factor. Based on the evidence before the court, which is only from Mr. H. through various reports, I cannot make a finding that the relationship was one of genuine affection.

I do however note that this case, on its facts, is not the type of case where exploitation, luring or similar conduct is involved. [ 51 ] Regarding the reports done by Drs. Lopes and Koopmen, I will not outline the content of each of the reports and will deal with the relevant points for the purposes of these reasons. The two reports are to some degree consistent although there are some differences. They are consistent in that both authors agree that Mr.

H. discloses some mental health concerns (anxiety, depression), that he has difficulties with impulsivity, problem-solving skills, and his substance addictions were noted. They differ in their assessment of risks of reoffending, sexual proclivity (being emotionally connected to children) and deviant sexual preferences, sex as coping mechanism, and his cooperation with supervision conditions. [ 52 ] Having read both reports concerning Mr. H., I do agree with Dr. Lopes that Mr.

H. may be at high risk of reoffending further criminal offence, because of his impulsivity, his inability to problem solve, his anger which is exacerbated by his substance abuse and mental health issues. [ 53 ] I do not find however, evidence to suggest that he has sexual deviances or uses sex as a coping mechanism. Mr. H. was not in a position of trust vis-à-vis the complainant. He has had prior, more age-appropriate intimate partners.

There is no evidence of manipulation or coercion, threats of violence or other forms of extortion or psychological manipulations, or that the sexual acts involved violence. [ 54 ] Regarding the breaches, it is extremely concerning to the court, however, that not once but three times he breached the no- contact provisions and had contact with the complainant, the last one occurring while a warrant was outstanding. In Scofield , the accused who had significant impairments, while subject to restrictive bail conditions, since December 2013, did not breach those conditions.

The court in Scofield was satisfied that he was unlikely to reoffend. [ 55 ] While clearly Mr. H.’s ability to make decisions and problem solve are affected by perhaps a combination of lack of proper treatment, self-imposed drug use as treatment, along with his own cognitive issues such as ADHD, the terms of his release clearly prohibited contact with the complainant.

And even though it is argued that his previous lack of follow through with supervision conditions may not be the result of a pure flagrant disregard for the law, but rather from the host of problems he suffers, I do find that the evidence before the court has none the less been that he has been non-compliant with clear and simple court orders that have been imposed on him. [ 56 ] That being said, it is positive however that based on the Pre-Sentence Report, Mr.

H.’s behaviour has continued to improve while in custody over the last few months, that he has been meeting with a native liaison worker on a regular basis and has been attending the Essential Skills for Success Program. The only recent concern has been a shank found in his room, which he says it is for

his protection as he fears for his safety. [ 57 ] Rehabilitation of a person, especially for someone such as Mr. H., who is young and without a criminal record, is a principle of sentencing that I have to consider. It appears from his behaviour in the last few months, that Mr. H. has made some progress and the hope is that he will continue to do so with the right support system in the community, which he says he is willing to follow through with. [ 58 ] In terms of mitigating factors, Mr.

H. does not have a criminal record; he has plead guilty to the offences before the court, and has taken responsibility for his actions. He may not have shown remorse in the classic sense, in that he has stated he is upset about the offence because he has had to spend time in custody, however having read the report, I do believe that on his side, he does not wish harm to the complainant. [ 59 ] Mr. H. has spent essentially 11 months in custody.

Looking at all the evidence before me, I believe that the specific deterrence has been met. [ 60 ] Looking at the totality of the facts before this Court, taking into account factors such as Mr. H.’s background, his cognitive and addiction struggles, the Gladue factors, the age of the complainant, the conduct involved, noting the absence of evidence to suggest violence or predatory behaviour, the fact that he was not in a position of trust, Mr.

H.’s behaviour since the offence and the recent improvement in that behaviour, and also taking into account the primary principles of sentencing of deterrence and denunciation, and other principles such as rehabilitation, totality, parity and proportionality, the following sentence is an appropriate sentence in this case: Mr. H. please rise. On the offences before the Court, I sentence you as follows:

a) Time served of 330 days plus one day:

i) On the substantive offence: there will be a sentence of 10 month incarceration or 300 days; ii) On the breaches: on the first breach in time, there will be a sentence of 20 days to run concurrently with the substantive. It is a serious offence to have breached a court order however this is your first breach conviction and a sentence of 20 days concurrent will be appropriate to reflect the seriousness of that breach; iii) On the second breach, there will be a sentence of 30 days to run consecutively.

It is aggravating that within a short time frame, and while a warrant was outstanding with respect to that offence, and again with respect to the same complainant, you have committed another breach. In the circumstances of this case, it would not be appropriate for you, Sir, to be, in effect, technically sentenced only for the substantive, without any consequence of sentence on your additional convictions. As such for this second breach, the sentence will run consecutively to the substantive sentence and the first breach. Probation There will be a period of 18 months of probation imposed:

a) You must keep the peace and be of good behavior;

b) You must appear before the court when required to do so by the court;

c) You must notify the court or the probation officer in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the court or the probation officer of any change of employment or occupation;

d) You must report in person to a probation officer at unit 102-14245 56 Avenue in the City of Surrey, BC, within 72 hours of your release from custody, unless you have obtained, prior to your release, written permission from the probation officer to report elsewhere or within a different time frame. After that, you must report to the probation officer as is directed by the probation officer;

e) You must have no contact or communication, directly or indirectly, with C.F.;

f) You must not be within 200 meters of any place of residence, school, place of worship or employment of C.F., with the following exception: you are permitted to attend once in the presence of a peace officer to retrieve any remaining belonging that you may have in the residence of C.F.;

g) You must reside at a residence approved in advance by the probation officer. You must provide your probation officer with your phone number, and you must not change your residence or your phone number without written permission from your probation officer or a court order;

h) You must have no contact or communication directly or indirectly with, nor be alone in the presence of, any person you know to be or who reasonably appears to be under the age of 16 years, unless you have the prior written permission of your probation officer;

i) You must not engage in activities, volunteer work or employment that could bring you in contact with persons under the age of 16 years without the written permission of your probation officer and when so engaged, you must carry this permission with you at all times;

j) You must carry with you any written permission provided to you by your probation officer at all times;

k) You must attend, participate in and complete any intake, assessment, counselling or program as directed by the probation officer;

l) Pursuant to s. 161(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code , you are prohibited for a period of 5 years from seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment, whether or not the employment is remunerated, or becoming or being a volunteer in a capacity that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of sixteen years;

m) Pursuant to s. 161(1) (

c) of the Criminal Code , again you are prohibited for a period of 5 years from being alone in the presence of a person who is under the age of 16 years;

n) Pursuant to s. 743.21 (1) of the Criminal Code , you must not have any contact or communication directly or indirectly with C.F. while you are in custody except through a lawyer;

o) There will be a mandatory provision for a SOIRA order; pursuant to s. 490.012, you are required to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registry Act for a period of 20 years;

p) There will be a primary DNA order on count 2 on Information 225887-6C, which is a primary designated offence: pursuant to s.487.051(1) there will be an order in form 5.03 authorizing the taking of samples of bodily substances from you for the purposes of registration in the DNA databank;

q) You will attend at the RCMP division by Nov 16, 2018 to have your DNA samples taken;

r) There will be a s. 109 firearms prohibition order: you are prohibited from possessing any firearms other than a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, and any cross bow, restricted weapon, ammunition, and explosive substance for a period of 10 years;

s) There will be a Victim Fine Surcharge imposed on each count, payable forthwith, one day concurrent in default. _____________________________ The Honourable Judge D. Jahani Provincial Court of British Columbia