R. v. Taylor, 2021 BCPC 325

Citation: R. v. Taylor 2021 BCPC 325 Date: 20211110 File No: 21084-5-C Registry: Western Communities IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. ALEXANDER NORMAN JONATHAN TAYLOR ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE R. BROWN Counsel for the Crown: P. Cheeseman Counsel for the Accused: N. Brooks Place of Hearing: Colwood , B.C. Date of Hearing: October 19, 2021 Date of Sentence: November 10, 2021 A Corrigendum was released by the Court on January 12, 2022. The changes have been made to the text and the Corrigendum is appended to this document.

[ 1 ] THE COURT: The accused has entered a guilty plea to Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 9 on Information 21084-C-5. The Crown is seeking a global sentence of five-and-a-half years. The defence do not state a specific sentencing position. [ 2 ] The circumstances of the offence are, on January 10, 2019, a break and enter was reported at an RV park in Colwood . On January 27, a civilian saw the accused driving a truck pulling a trailer containing items including military equipment the civilian suspected were stolen. He reported the matter to the military police.

On February 6, 2019, the military police searched a small cabin pursuant to a search warrant. The accused was present in the cabin. He admitted to the police he used fentanyl earlier that day. The military police seized the following: 1. A loaded semiautomatic rifle. Part of the barrel was cut off reducing its length making it a prohibited firearm. The rifle had a bullet in its chambers and nine bullets in a 20-bullet magazine. The magazine capable of holding that many bullets is a prohibited device. This rifle was located on the couch about five feet from the door of the cabin.

It was missing a part, and as a result, could only fire one shot at a time. 2. A shotgun hidden in the dresser in his bedroom. The barrel had been cut to a reduced length making it a prohibited weapon. The shotgun was located in bedroom dresser. The shotgun was missing a screw and was operational when the missing screw was inserted. 3. A small amount of methamphetamine, brass knuckles, two nine millimetre bullets, a BB handgun, a five round magazine and ammunition for various types of firearms. 4.

A trailer which contained stolen military equipment and clothing and other property stolen from Alberta. [ 3 ] The accused was on bail at the time of the offence. The recognizance included a term that he was not to possess any weapons and he was also subject to a 10-year order made July 15, 2015, prohibiting him from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, or explosive substance. [ 4 ] He was released on bail on these matters on October 9, 2019, with a term that he attend New Roads Treatment Centre.

Two days prior to the trial date, he tested positive for drugs following a urine test. After the accused was told by a staff member at the treatment centre that the police would be called, as a result of the failed drug test, he fled from the treatment centre to Alberta. He was arrested in Alberta a number of months later for aggravated assault after living there using a false name. He was detained on the Alberta charges. [ 5 ] He was returned to BC and the matter was reset for a two-day trial. Just before the new trial date, the accused entered the guilty pleas.

The Crown was ready to proceed to trial on both occasions the matter was set for trial. Principles and Purpose of Sentencing [ 6 ]

Section 718 of the Criminal Code states that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to the respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society.

The objectives of sentencing are denunciation, a statement of society's condemnation of the offender's conduct; a general deterrence, a sentence imposed is intended to discourage potential offenders; specific deterrence to discourage recidivism in the individual offender; separation of the offender from society if it is appropriate where neither deterrence nor rehabilitation will have a significant impact on the offender; rehabilitation, this is the best protection society has but cannot be the primary objective where the offender has no remorse and denies responsibility; reparation which means returning the victim or community to the position it was before the offence.

Aboriginal Offender [ 7 ] Under s. 718(2)(e), this

section directs the court to consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable, taking into account the serious social problems facing Aboriginal people. I must consider systemic and the personal circumstances which resulted in the commission of the offence. Promotion of a sense of a responsibility is also a matter to be factored in when fixing the appropriate sentence. Sentencing Principles Proportionality [ 8 ] A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

Restraint [ 9 ] An offender should not be deprived of their liberty if less restriction sanctions may be appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances. Totality [ 10 ] Combined sentences should not be unduly long or harsh. Parity [ 11 ] Sentences should be similar for similar offences committed by similar offenders in similar circumstances. Step-up [ 12 ] Escalated though measured approach to address continued recidivism and to deter further criminality.

[13] The gap – old records are not given much weight where there has been a long gap between the last conviction. Multiple Counts: Consecutive or Concurrent Sentences [14] Guidance is provided by Justice Punnett in R. v. Edwardsen at paragraph 33 where he states as follows: The Crown relies on R. v. Li, 2009 BCCA 85, a sentence appeal for five drug-related offences, as authority for the approach to be takenon multiple conviction sentencing. That is, to determine the appropriate sentence for each count and then address totality.

At paragraphs26 to 28, Justice Smith for the court stated: [26] Whether sentences for multiple offences are made consecutive or concurrent, it is the task of the sentencing judge to fix anappropriate global sentence that reflects the specific circumstances of the offences and the unique circumstances of the offender.

Theimportance of this balancing is reflected in the principle of proportionality, which has been codified in s. 718.1 of the Criminal Codeunder the heading “fundamental principle”: A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [27] The principle of totality also factors into the imposition of an appropriate aggregate sentence for multiple offences.

In M.(C.A.),Lamer C.J.C. described the principle: [42] In the context of consecutive sentences, this general principle of proportionality expresses itself through the more particular formof the “totality principle”. The totality principle, in short, requires a sentencing judge who orders an offender to serve consecutivesentences for multiple offences to ensure that the cumulative sentence rendered does not exceed the overall culpability of the offender.As D.A.

Thomas describes the principle in Principles of Sentencing (2nd ed. 1979) at p. 56 … [28] Thus, there is a two-stage approach to sentencing an offender convicted of multiple offences. The first stage is to determine theappropriate sentence for each offence, and decide whether the individual sentences should be made consecutive or concurrent. Ifconsecutive sentences are imposed, then the second stage is to determine whether the sentences, in the aggregate, offend the totalityprinciple.

If the sentence, as a whole, is unduly harsh or disproportionate, then the length of the individual sentences should be adjustedin order to arrive at an appropriate global sentence. See R. v. P.P.H., 2003 BCCA 591. [Emphasis added.] Aggravating Circumstances [15] There are a number of aggravating circumstances. The accused was subject to a 10-year prohibition relating to firearms,prohibited firearms, prohibited devices, ammunition and he was found in possession of prohibited firearms, a prohibited device,prohibited weapon, and the ammunition.

In addition, the bail order he was subject to prohibited him from having firearms or drugs. Headmitted to consuming fentanyl earlier in the day of the execution of the warrant. It was very concerning that military police attended tothe residence of the accused to carry out their duties when he had a loaded prohibited firearm within five feet of the door of theresidence. [16] The accused had a related criminal record.

He was sentenced in July 2015 in Alberta to two years less a day followed by 18months' probation to be served by way of a conditional sentence for various offences including unauthorized possession of a firearm andpossession of a prohibited weapon. His conditional sentence was collapsed. He was given credit for five months and directed to serve injail 14-and-a-half months. His probation order had just expired when he committed these offences. [17] The accused absconded from a treatment centre when he failed a drug test a few days before his scheduled trial date on thismatter.

He resided in Alberta using a false name for a number of months when he was arrested on a new Alberta charge and latertransported back to this jurisdiction. Mitigating Circumstances [18] The Crown referred to R. v. R.M., [2019] B.C.J. No. 2246, noting that paragraph 6 and 7 states that: … a guilty plea is, in general, treated as justifying a discount from the sentence that otherwise would have been imposed [19] The court noted that it is generally taken as a sign of remorse which may be a step towards rehabilitation.

At paragraph 12, thecourt states that the weight given to a guilty plea as a mitigating factor is within the discretion of the trial judge, who gave no credit tothe accused for that plea in the circumstances that were not in accord with a principled basis to recognize the plea. The Crown submitsthat the late guilty plea after missing the first trial date when the Crown was ready to proceed with overwhelming evidence should not beviewed as a mitigating circumstance. [20] It may be in the circumstances that, the location of the various items seized provide a compelling circumstantial case.

However,the admissibility of the seized stolen property evidence relies on the validity of the issuance of the search warrant. That issue is often afertile and time-consuming area for exploration of issues during a trial that may be raised with leave of the court even if improper or nonotice has been provided. The accused by his guilty plea has given up to the right to raise those potential Charter issues and not compelthe Crown to call any evidence, avoiding any trial time. This allowed the court to use valuable court time on other matters.

Further, thewitnesses were no longer obligated to attend and remain in court until they had testified. [21] In my opinion, the accused is entitled to some credit for the guilty plea, albeit on the eve of trial. Cases Referred to by the Defence [22] In R. v. Wickes, 2019 BCSC 1373 , 2019 B.C.S.C. 1373, a court imposed a global sentence of five-and-a-half years forthe possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, being Count 1, and six months consecutive for the possession of the firearms, ammunition,

and a device while prohibited from doing so, and other concurrent sentences for other counts. Mr. Wickes had a loaded revolver in hiswaistband. Mr. Wickes was addicted to drugs and stated he carried a gun for self-defence and had what was described by the court as avery lengthy criminal record as a youth and adult, including possession for the purpose of trafficking, possession of a restricted orprohibited weapon, many breaches of undertakings, breaking and entering, committing an assault on more than one occasion. He hadbeen in jail many times.

The court stated: The description of his father and his relationship with the family reflects the challenges that a Gladue assessment is designed to address: alienation, separation from cultural heritage, mental health issues, addiction issues. [23] The court continues stating that: These, of course, have an intergenerational effect, and Mr. Wickes has suffered the impact. [24] In R. v. Homeniuk, 2019 BCSC 2068 , 2019 B.C.S.C. 2068, the accused was found in possession of a rifle with the stockand barrel sawed off and an oversized ammunition magazine attached to the rifle with live ammunition.

Police also seized a .22 rifle. Theaccused was prohibited from possessing these items pursuant to a s. 109 Criminal Code prohibition order. There were other chargesincluding those related to possession of stolen property. [25] Mr. Homeniuk had a drug addicted mother and was in various foster home placements. He became involved in drugs anddeveloped what was described as a substantial criminal record. The court had a Gladue report which indicated Mr. Homeniuk'sgrandmother and great grandmother were blended Métis and Cree and attended at Indian residential school.

The report stated thatsubstance abuse and unlawful conduct had persisted for generations in the family of the accused and provided some context for his ownbehaviour. The court further stated that: The systemic legacy of racism, colonialization and institutional discrimination is an important factor in considering an appropriatesentence, in part because it bears on the voluntariness of your actions. [26] The court expressly referred to the personal circumstances of the accused including his Aboriginal heritage and imposed a globalsentence of five-and-a-half years. [27] In R. v.

Sellars, 2018 BCCA 195 , 2018 B.C.C.A. 195, the accused was sentenced for possession of a loaded handgunand being the occupant of a motor vehicle in which he knew there was an unregistered handgun and transporting the handgun in acareless manner. He had a prior dated conviction for possession of a weapon for which he received a fine. The court described theaccused since the time of the offence as a productive member of society working in a mine and living with his spouse and son.

Inparagraph 30, the court said that: Assessing the moral culpability of Aboriginal offenders requires special consideration of their unique historical, systemic, or backgroundfactors that may have played a

part in their offending conduct … The court continued at paragraph 31 and stated that: A disparity between sentences for Aboriginal offenders and other offenders can be justified where there are circumstances unique to theAboriginal offender … The court continued, and said: Similarly, a sentence outside the established range of sentences for an offence can still be a fit sentence if it is proportionate to thegravity of the offence and degree of responsibility of the offender … At paragraph 34, the court stated: In addition to the Gladue factors, exceptional circumstances can justify a sentence outside the established range for [a sentence].

MadamJustice Bennett explained what may amount to exceptional circumstances in R. v. Voong, 2015 BCCA 285 as follows: [59] …Exceptional circumstances may include a combination of no … record, significant and objectively identifiable steps towardsrehabilitation for the drug addict, gainful employment, remorse and acknowledgment of the harm done to society as a result of theoffences, as opposed to harm done to the offender as a result of being caught. The sentencing judge expressly found that: Mr.

Sellars had “a multigenerational family history of substance abuse, familial instability, fragmentation and breakdown, and prematuredeath”; (ii) which “legacy continues to impact the lives of successive generations within Mr. Sellars’ family including Mr. Sellarshimself" … [28] At paragraph 38, the Court of Appeal imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day which would reflect the paramountprinciples of denunciation and deterrence, Mr.

Sellars’ diminished moral culpability in his unique circumstances as an Aboriginaloffender, and the exceptional rehabilitative steps he has successfully undertaken in the face of his challenging youth. [29] In R. v. Buffalo, 2020 ABQB 41 , 2020 A.B.Q.B. 41, the accused pled guilty to possession of a restricted handguncontrary to s. 92(1) of the Criminal Code, being an occupant of a motor vehicle knowing there was a restricted firearm, and possession ofa restricted weapon and thereby being in breach of a prohibition order. Mr.

Buffalo's record was described as continuous from 1994 until2007 when he was convicted of manslaughter with a firearm. He was released in 2011 and had no further convictions until the matterbefore the court. [30] A Gladue report was filed indicating the accused was a member of the Samson Cree Nation. Justice Mah pointed out a number of

findings that were significant in determining the appropriate sentence. He found that the accused was a reformed person. He had livednine years of a crime-free life. Justice Mah stated that, but for this one incident, he had followed a restorative path as evidenced by astable family life, success as a businessman, and being recognized as both a family man and a positive contributor to his community.Justice Mah further considered that Mr.

Buffalo's Indigenous background: … [he had] done much to overcome an all too familiar background of alienation from his own culture, family violence, substance abuseand immersion in a criminal lifestyle … [being] the inter-generational negative effects of colonialism [31] He referred to Mr. Buffalo as being immersed at a young age to such circumstances, but he had engaged in a struggle toovercome that negativity. Justice Mah stated that a redeemed life does count for something and proceeded to impose a global sentence of24 months to be served in the community. Cases Referred to by the Crown [32] In R. v.

Kachuol, [2017] B.C.J. No. 1591, at paragraph 15, the court referred to R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15 , 2015 S.C.C.15, and R. v. Holt, 2015 BCCA 302 , 2015 B.C.C.A. 302, which involved sentences of 40 and 30 months, respectively, for first-time offending for offences contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Kachuol had a loaded .350 magnum handgun on the centreconsole of the car he was operating and a prior conviction for possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking.

At paragraph 29,the court described: … the serious nature of his offence, his degree of moral culpability and the paramountcy of deterrence and denunciation, and despite hispositive personal attributes and rehabilitative prospects, a sentence below … the “criminal range” established in [R. v.] Holt cannot bejustified. [33] He received a sentence of three years of jail which was described as the bottom of the range.

In paragraph 25, the court stated: Guns are inherently, often lethally, dangerous, all the more so when they are possessed for an illicit purpose. [34] The court continued referring to the need to ensure public safety, express society's condemnation, and punish offenders andcourts should strive to achieve those goals when imposing sentences for firearms-related offences: … by prioritizing deterrence and denunciation, following customary sentencing ranges in all but exceptional cases and fully accountingfor aggravating factors where they exist. [35] In R. v. Endean, [2017] B.C.J.

No. 529 the accused was found guilty of possessing a loaded restricted firearm and possessing afirearm knowing the serial number had been removed, and possessing a firearm while prohibited. The trial judge imposed four years forpossession of the restricted firearm and one year concurrent for possessing the firearm knowing the serial number was removed. Thesentencing judge noted the accused had a relatively limited record, but it was not full of violent offences. The Court of Appeal upheld thesentence and stated the Judge did not error in given primary weight to denunciation and deterrence. [36] In R. v.

Padda, [2019] B.C.C.A. No. 351, the judge imposed a 30-month sentence for wrongful possession of a loaded prohibitedfirearm. The accused was described as a mature responsible member of the community. He had purchased a handgun for protection in hisrestaurant.

While intoxicated by cocaine and alcohol, he pointed the loaded firearm at his female employee and struck that employee.The defence emphasized his non-criminal lifestyle before the incident, his performance on bail, his rehabilitative efforts, and hisremorse, charitable work, and low risk to reoffend. [37] The Court of Appeal stated the judge correctly identified the relevant range and the rational for it and the sentence reflected thejudge's assessment of the seriousness of the incident and the accused's moral culpability in bringing danger to the employee.

The courtthen further found that sentence imposed fell within the conventional range, was at the bottom of the range, and significantly reducedfrom what it would have been, but for the mitigating factors. [38] In R. v. Do, [2003] O.N.C.A. No. 175, the accused was sentenced to two years less a day for possession of heroin and cocaine forthe purpose of trafficking and possession of a prohibited firearm. The firearm was unloaded, but the bullets were nearby. The accuseddid not have a criminal record and had good behaviour while on bail for three years, and was employed.

He had made positive changesin his lifestyle since his arrest. The Court of Appeal held the trial judge erred in failing to give pre-eminent consideration of specific andgeneral deterrence. Further, the Court of Appeal found there was no reason to depart from the ranges set out in R. v. Holt and R. v.Kachuol. The sentence was increased to 36 months. [39] In R. v. Mills, 2021 BCCA 86 , 2021 B.C.C.A. 86, the accused was 65 and subject to a lifetime prohibition frompossessing a firearm. He was found in possession of a loaded gun in his car. He had a prior record for kidnapping, assaults, anddisobeying court orders.

The Court of Appeal upheld a six-year sentence which they described as the midpoint spectrum of true crimeand the bottom being three years. [40] In R. v. Hiscock, [2020] B.C.J. 2025, the accused was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for unauthorized possession of afirearm, five years for unauthorized possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, two years for careless use, and one year for possession ofa firearm while under a prohibition order. Ultimately, the global sentence was six years. The accused fired seven shots from asemiautomatic rifle from the interior of a house.

Three shots struck an unoccupied vehicle parked in front of the residence and the otherspenetrated into the walls of the residence. His record was described as moderate and included two lifetime prohibition orders. [41] The mother of the accused was First Nations. She had a number of dysfunctional relationships with men who drank and useddrugs. One of these men was violent towards the accused. His mother was a drug user with mental health challenges.

The connectionbetween the systemic factors identified in the Gladue report, including intergenerational trauma, emotional and physical abuse, loss ofconnection with her Indigenous heritage and culture, criminal involvement, early death of family because of the substance abuse, andviolence, family breakdown, witnessing violence, were all evident in the life of the accused. The Court of Appeal found that the

connections were not properly recognized in crafting the appropriate sentence. The Court of Appeal stated that the accused's background must have a mitigating effect on the sentence and reduced the global sentence to five years. [ 42 ] In R. v. Ball , [2014] B.C.J. No. 545 at paragraph 24 , the BC Court of Appeal provides that generally, although not necessarily, a sentence on a s. 117 breach will be consecutive to a s. 95 offence and the typical range is six to 12 months. [ 43 ] The Crown also referred to R. v Lambert , [2021] B.C.J. No. 2433 , being a decision in the Supreme Court on October 14, 2021.

Madam Justice Horsman dealt with an accused who had a loaded handgun, who, while waiting sentence progressed to the Right Living Unit at the Vancouver Island Correction Centre. This is a pathway to get on a new road. He produced a letter from a counsellor to confirm the progress of the accused. Justice Horsman described the positive steps taken by the accused as mitigating, but not amounting to exceptional which is required to remove him out of the normal range of sentences for his offence. [ 44 ] The accused identifies himself as having First Nations ancestry.

The accused indicated to the author of the PSR that he suspects his father may have an Indigenous background . The author of the presentence report states this was never confirmed. His mother indicated, when asked by defence counsel, that the biological father of the accused has a First Nation background. [ 45 ]

Section 718.2 (

e) of the Criminal Code directs the court to consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. I find guidance on the impact on this sentence when a person identifies themself as an Indigenous person in R. v. Hamer at [2021] B.C.J. No. 1662 . In that case, the court in paragraph 114 referred to the need to show: … systemic and background factors such as described in Gladue and Ipeelee operate in a way in the accused's life or affecting his moral culpability for the crime.

The court noted that the Gladue report which the accused tried to introduce at the appellate stage as fresh evidence did not spell out the circumstances that would have affected his criminality. [ 46 ] Paragraph 117 states that it is not the role of the court to specifically comment on whether or not a person is Indigenous. The court continues by referring to the role of the court: … to evaluate relevant information about the significance of a person’s Indigenous identity and the individual’s circumstances as an Indigenous person. [ 47 ] I find myself in the same situation as R. v. Hamer .

In particular, there is no relevant information or evidence about Mr. Taylor's Indigenous circumstances to evaluate. This was the same problem in R. v. Taylor , [2021] B.C.J. No. 1566 . The court noted at paragraph 26 that the court: … had no evidentiary basis upon which to find that the systemic background factors had “impacted the appellant’s own life experiences. [ 48 ] In this case, as was the situation described in paragraph 27 of R. v. Taylor , I do not find any specific information about the unique systemic background factors which may have played a

part in bringing Mr. Taylor before the court or any sentencing procedures or sanctions that may be appropriate for Mr. Taylor. In cases cited by the defence, the court found the substance abuse and unlawful conduct to have persisted in the particular accused’s family for years. [ 49 ] In three of the four cases cited, the court found that evidence of the link in the Gladue report and that connection permitted the court to find a diminished moral culpability on the part of the accused and imposed a sentence below the range for similar offences. In R. v. Hameniuk and R. v.

Buffalo , the court found exceptional circumstances of the kind contemplated by Madam Justice Bennett in R. v. Voong thereby providing a further avenue for the proposed sentence lower than were made for other offenders for similar offences. [ 50 ] The evidence does indicate that the accused has the support of a significant number of people including old friends and family members who have authored letters that have been filed. There is a general theme that the accused can be a respectful hard worker and a thoughtful engaging person.

His stepfather and mother indicate they are willing to have him live with them following his release from jail and help him develop his own business. His stepfather clearly has the academic credentials to assist the accused along that path. [ 51 ] Mr. Taylor has been addicted to opioids his entire adult life and that addiction has blinded him from accessing this potential significant support system to, his one friend states, pull himself out of his nose dive. He has attended treatment centres staying clean for many months.

Sadly, the addiction has a horrible grip on him and he succumbed to temptation and took drugs while in the treatment centre. This resulted in the failure to complete the programs. [ 52 ] It is significant that the accused has made good use of his time in custody by completing numerous programs and attending counsellors who are positive in indicating his willingness to engage. His counsellor described the accused as having childhood trauma which relates to his first stepfather who was abusive and grief counselling since he still struggles with the loss of his biological father.

Further, he was connected to an Aboriginal worker who confirms the accused has been to smudge and pipe ceremonies and a Coast Salish ceremony. [ 53 ] He disclosed to a counsellor that he was bisexual. He described this part of his person as a long time secret he struggled to accept. He thoughtfully stated to the court secrets keep you sick. [ 54 ] I find that the accused has taken positive steps in addressing his various issues and completed numerous programs while in custody.

However, those steps and the support he has are mitigating factors and do not rise to the level necessary to be characterized as exceptional circumstances to permit the court to impose a sentence below the range of sentences for these offences. I do not find that the accused has a significant insight with respect to these offences.

I do not find he truly appreciates the seriousness of these offences or the danger to himself, the public in general, and specifically the military police when they entered the cabin where he resided pursuant to a search warrant and there was a loaded prohibited firearm which was about five feet from the doorway a shotgun in the bedroom. The accused had taken fentanyl. This is an extremely dangerous, addictive, powerful, destructive mind-altering drug and has destroyed so many lives.

[ 55 ] I question any genuine remorse given the statement of the accused, "I didn't think I would get caught". I find the words of the accused that he had no intention of using the firearms for any nefarious purpose to ring hollow. [ 56 ] Why would the accused put on his couch a prohibited rifle with a sawed-off barrel and a prohibited clip with a bullet ready to fire in the chamber and a sawed-off shotgun in the bedroom and have numerous rounds of ammunition and brass knuckles. [ 57 ] I adopt the words of the prosecutor in R. v.

Kachuol when he states the unlawful possession of a loaded firearm was nothing short of a tragedy in gestation. The words of Madam Justice Smith in referred to in R. v. Guha aptly apply to this situation. The purpose of the possession can only be to threaten or inflict serious bodily harm or death. I adopt her additional words that: … common sense and human experience suggest no other reasonable explanation or lesser risk posed by possession of this sort. [ 58 ] In all the circumstances, I find the overall culpability of Mr.

Taylor is significant. [ 59 ] I have considered the circumstances of the accused, the circumstances of the offence, and the sentencing principles and objectives of sentencing in s. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code including paramountcy of deterrence and denunciation when imposing sentences for firearm-related offences, the mitigating and aggravating factors including the related criminal record. [ 60 ] Stand up, please, sir. Sir, Mr. Taylor, stand. [ 61 ] Count 1, possession, 95(1), I sentence you to four-and-a-half years. Count 3, s. 92(1), 30 months concurrent to Count 1.

Count 4, s. 92(1), 18 months concurrent to Counts 1 and 3. Count 5, s. 117, six months consecutive to Counts 1, 3 and 4. Count 9, possession of stolen property, six months concurrent to Counts 1, 3, and 4. The global sentence I have imposed is five years. [ 62 ] The accused has spent a total of 573 actual days in jail. He is entitled to accelerated credit resulting in a total credit of 860 days.

I am going to move on to the ancillary orders, but I am going to ask counsel to make sure that my calculations of his credit is accurate, in particular, the number of actual days he has been in jail. [ 63 ] Moving on to the ancillary orders, are Counts 1, 3, 4, and 5 all primary offences, Mr. Cheeseman? [ 64 ] CNSL P. CHEESEMAN: Your Honour, those are all secondary designated offences. [ 65 ] THE COURT: Are they all primary designated offences? [ 66 ] CNSL P. CHEESEMAN: Secondary designated offences, Your Honour. Can you hear me, Your Honour? Your Honour, can you hear me? [ 67 ] THE COURT: Mr.

Cheeseman? [ 68 ] CNSL P. CHEESEMAN: Yes, Your Honour, those counts are all secondary designated offences. [ 69 ] THE COURT: Secondary, all right. [ 70 ] Counts 1, 3, 4, and 5 are secondary offences. After considering the factors set out in 487.051(3) of the Criminal Code , I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to authorize the taking of samples of bodily substances from you. The samples will be taken from you while you are in custody, and you will submit to the taking of the samples. [ 71 ] The next matter I am dealing with is s. 109.

Pursuant to s. 109(3) of the Criminal Code , you are prohibited from possessing any firearm, crossbow, restricted or prohibited weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, or explosive substance for life. [ 72 ] The victim fine surcharge is waived. Given his circumstances, I find he is impecunious. He cannot afford to pay the amounts that are specified, being $200 a count for indictable matters.

He is obviously not in a position given the length he has had in jail and the sentence I have imposed to pay either way. [ 73 ] With respect to the application by the Crown for forfeiture, that is I have a draft order before me. No comment? [ 74 ] CNSL P. CHEESEMAN: Your Honour, just with respect to the draft order, you will see number one was an SKS semiautomatic rifle. I had left the serial number blank because I was not able to type in the serial number. It is zero, and then what looks like a backwards -- kind of like a backwards E, I think it is a European script.

So it is an O, a backward E, and then 3892 is the serial number for that rifle. [ 75 ] THE COURT: Okay. No further comments? In that case, then, the forfeiture of that rifle, the Martin pump action shotgun, the detachable cartridge and magazine ammunition, the brass knuckles, the BB gun, all those items are forfeited to Her Majesty in Right of the Province of British Columbia and shall be disposed of by the Attorney General as defined in the Criminal Code . [ 76 ] CNSL P. CHEESEMAN: And, Your Honour, it is Mr. Cheeseman speaking again.

The only thing I noticed was the BC Supreme Court case that you referred to, you referred to the name as R. v. Horsman and Madam Justice Lambert. It was actually R. v. Lambert and Madam Justice Horsman. [ 77 ] THE COURT: All right. If there is a copy of the decision -- I am sorry, I reversed that, and that will be corrected. [ 78 ] CNSL P. CHEESEMAN: Thank you, Your Honour, and I can advise that the Crown just received the written decision of that yesterday. So I know that will become a reported a decision soon. [ 79 ] THE COURT: Give me one moment, please. All right.

That is corrected then, if there is a transcript ordered, that is to be

corrected as, R. v. Lambert , Madam Justice Horsman. Okay, thank you for pointing that out to me. [ 80 ] CNSL N. BROOKS: And, Your Honour, Brooks, initial N, speaking here for the defence. I can confirm that I arrived at a very similar if not the same mathematical answer as to days credited. So defence takes no position with that. Obviously, with the forfeiture order, again, no position with that, and -- [ 81 ] THE COURT: Okay. Anything remaining then regarding the counts, from the Crown? The remaining counts, Counts 2, 6, 7, 8. [ 82 ] CNSL P.

CHEESEMAN: Yes, Your Honour, Crown directs a stay of proceedings on the remaining counts. [ 83 ] THE COURT: All right. Is there anything further? [ 84 ] CNSL N. BROOKS: Not from defence's perspective, Your Honour. [ 85 ] CNSL P.

CHEESEMAN: And perhaps for Madam Clerk, the firearms prohibition order would also attach to Counts 1, 3, 4, and 5. [ 86 ] THE CLERK: Your Honour, can I confirm that the victim surcharge was waived? [ 87 ] THE COURT: Yes, it was. [ 88 ] THE CLERK: Thank you. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED) CORRIGENDUM - Released January 12, 2022 In the Oral Reasons for Sentence dated November 21, 2021, the following changes have been made: [1] Paragraph 2 should read: The circumstances of the offence are, on January 10, 2019, a break and enter was reported at an RV park in Colwood. . . . . . . 3.

A small amount of methamphetamine, brass knuckles, two nine millimetre bullets, a BB handgun, a five round magazine and ammunition for various types of firearms. [2] Paragraph 6 should read: . . .

The objectives of sentencing are denunciation, a statement of society's condemnation of the offender's conduct; a general deterrence, a sentence imposed is intended to discourage potential offenders; specific deterrence to discourage recidivism in the individual offender; separation of the offender from society if it is appropriate where neither deterrence nor rehabilitation will have a significant impact on the offender; rehabilitation, this is the best protection society has but cannot be the primary objective where the offender has no remorse and denies responsibility; reparation which means returning the victim or community to the position it was before the offence. [3] Paragraph 7 should read: Under s. 718(2)(e), this

section directs the court to consider all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable, taking into account the serious social problems facing Aboriginal people. I must consider systemic and the personal circumstances which resulted in the commission of the offence.

Promotion of a sense of a responsibility is also a matter to be factored in when fixing the appropriate sentence. [4] Paragraph 34 should read: The court continued referring to the need to ensure public safety, express society's condemnation, and punish offenders and courts should strive to achieve those goals when imposing sentences for firearms-related offences: . . . [5] Paragraph 44 should read: The accused identifies himself as having First Nations ancestry.

The accused indicated to the author of the PSR that he suspects his father may have an Indigenous background. . . . [6] Paragraph 47 should read: I find myself in the same situation as R. v. Hamer . In particular, there is no relevant information or evidence about Mr. Taylor's Indigenous circumstances to evaluate. This was the same problem in R. v. Taylor , [2021] B.C.J. No. 1566 . . . . [7] Paragraph 54 should read: . . .

This is an extremely dangerous, addictive, powerful, destructive mind-altering drug and has destroyed so many lives. [8] Paragraph 55 should read: I question any genuine remorse given the statement of the accused, "I didn't think I would get caught". I find the words of the accused that he had no intention of using the firearms for any nefarious purpose to ring hollow.

_____________________________ The Honourable Judge R. Brown Provincial Court of British Columbia