R. v. Escott, 2022 BCPC 201

Citation: R. v. Escott 2022 BCPC 201 Date: 20220825 File No: 71084-2C Registry: Chilliwack IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. WILLIAM TREVOR ESCOTT ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE P.D. WHYTE Counsel for the Crown: A. Burns Counsel for the Accused: Z. Myers appearing by videoconference Place of Hearing: Chilliwack , B.C. Date of Hearing: July 29, 2022 Date of Judgment: August 25, 2022 [ 1 ] On June 2, 2022, Trevor William Escott entered a guilty plea before me to the offence of assault causing bodily harm, contrary to s. 267 (

b) of the Criminal Code . Mr. Escott was originally charged on this Information with manslaughter of victim Carlton George Leith. The plea was entered after the conclusion of the evidence portion of a preliminary inquiry. The maximum punishment for this

offence when the Crown proceeds by way of indictment is 10 years imprisonment. There is no mandatory minimum sentence. [ 2 ] Counsel presented a joint submission consisting of a conditional discharge of 12 months duration to be followed by a three-year probation order. [ 3 ] There are two main issues to be determined on this sentencing hearing.

First, can the court endorse the joint submission for a conditional sentence; and two, if so, can the court endorse the terms of the conditional sentence proposed by counsel. [ 4 ] I will pause to note that the conditions jointly proposed have changed from where they were at the time that I heard original submissions from Mr. Escott. I understand counsel continue to jointly propose these new conditions. They are more onerous on Mr. Escott than they were before and that is the result, I am told, of a recent incident that involved a relapse by Mr.

Escott and his return to being before the court facing an allegation. He is presumed innocent of any criminal allegation unless proven otherwise at this stage. He enjoys the presumption of innocence; however, in what I consider to be an appropriate way, counsel have discussed the imposition of conditions that would be more onerous on Mr. Escott. [ 5 ] The court had the benefit of hearing direct evidence during the preliminary inquiry into this matter. In

summary, late on December 26, 2020, Carlton Leith left his family's home. He had a terrible toothache and wanted to spend time in downtown Chilliwack. Mr. Leith was diagnosed with schizophrenia. He spent much of the last three years of his life, according to his mother, in and out of psychiatric institutions as his mental state had decompensated to the point where an admission was deemed to be necessary. [ 6 ] In the early morning hours of December 27, 2020, Mr. Leith came across Mr. Escott, a person struggling with his own challenges related to addiction, and a Ms. Dawn Schott (phonetic). Mr.

Escott was known in the community as Shirtless Trevor. He was described as a person in the throes of active addiction, lacking the ability to extricate himself from that lifestyle. On December 27, 2020, he was shirtless, stumbling about and kicking at shrubs. [ 7 ] A portion of the interaction between Mr. Leith and Mr. Escott was caught on various surveillance cameras and played during the preliminary inquiry. Mr. Escott appeared to become involved in a verbal altercation with Ms. Schott. The specifics are unclear. Ms. Schott had no real memory of her interaction with Mr. Escott that night.

She was intoxicated and in emotional distress because she had been arguing with her boyfriend earlier in the evening. Nonetheless, the nature of their communication appears to have caused Mr. Leith concern. He was known in his family and by others as a protector, particularly of women. [ 8 ] Mr. Leith engaged with Mr. Escott. Mr. Leith was carrying a stick with him that evening. At one point during the verbal altercation he raised the stick to around mid-body height. Mr. Escott grabbed the stick and a short struggle ensued. Mr. Escott then let go of the stick and punched Mr.

Leith once in a manner described by witnesses as being a "light jab." Mr. Leith fell backwards, striking his head on the pavement and sustaining a head injury. [ 9 ] On December 27, 2020, Carlton Leith tragically lost his life due to that head injury. [ 10 ] To his family, Mr. Leith was a much loved father, son, and brother. His death has left an indelible mark upon those family members. No sentence imposed by this court can assuage the grief that has been visited upon Mr. Leith's family by his untimely passing. The Court's role here is to determine what is the appropriate sentence for Mr.

Escott. [ 11 ] Cases such as these are challenging. As a result of his interaction with Mr. Escott, Mr. Leith lost his life. There may be an expectation by some that the court sanction Mr. Escott for causing Mr. Leith's death despite a lack of intention to do so. It is to be remembered, however, that Mr. Escott has entered a guilty plea to assault causing bodily harm, not to manslaughter as was originally charged. He is to be sentenced for committing that offence and not for a culpable homicide offence. [ 12 ] The court had the benefit of reviewing written submissions supplied by counsel. Mr.

Escott is now 44 years of age. He moved to Alberta at age 20 and then to B.C. around three years ago. While he originally settled in Abbotsford, he now resides, at least up until very recently, in Kelowna. I understand now Mr. Escott will be residing in Surrey. Prior to that very recent move he had rented a basement suite from his brother and sister-in-law. [ 13 ] Mr. Escott is the father to a seven-year-old girl, Annabelle, who lives in Alberta with her mother. [ 14 ] Mr. Escott has a Grade 10 education. He worked primarily in the oil and gas sector, working on oil rigs in Alberta.

Again, up until very recently, I understood that Mr. Escott had worked in construction with a company called ProBuild. While working on oil rigs in Alberta, Mr. Escott got married and had his daughter Annabelle. Unfortunately, he began misusing substances, first alcohol and later other drugs. As a result of his substance misuse, Mr. Escott lost his job, his home and ultimately his marriage. [ 15 ] It was around this time that he relocated to Chilliwack, hoping for a positive change. Regrettably, that did not occur and Mr. Escott lapsed into a cycle of homelessness and addiction.

These were his circumstances at the time of the offence. [ 16 ] Since the offence, Mr. Escott has worked hard toward maintaining his sobriety. In January 2021, he attended VisionQuest, a well-known treatment facility in Savona, B.C. He stayed with that program for six months before transitioning to second stage housing with a program called Ozanam. Mr. Escott was in the Ozanam program until February 2022. [ 17 ] The court was provided with letters of support from staff at both VisionQuest and Ozanam. The reports paint a glowing picture of an individual working diligently toward his recovery.

VisionQuest program facilitator Lonnie Fisher (phonetic) and VisionQuest, The Lake manager David Dixon, informed that Mr. Escott completed all of the agency's core programs. He volunteered to lead a cardio and weights program for other residents. He prepared meals and was promoted to the position of laundry monitor. He completed over 200 hours of volunteer work service through his six-month tenure with the program. [ 18 ] According to VisionQuest office manager, J.C. Sarvor (phonetic), Mr. Escott completed over 700 hours working in the role of kitchen helper and laundry manager. In short, Mr.

Escott appears to have taken his treatment seriously and was tremendously successful

in his efforts towards rehabilitation. [ 19 ] These comments are tempered by the very recent events that led to Mr. Escott's move down to Surrey, and I will say this. I am troubled by that set of circumstances, Mr. Escott. I also recognize that recovery for most people is, at some point, two steps forward and one step back. In fact, all mainstream models of addiction recognize relapse as almost an expected part of the treatment program. I do note that at the time these submissions were drafted you were in a different place than you are today.

My sincere hope for you is that this is one step back in your moving forward again. [ 20 ] A similarly glowing report was received by Jamie Walters, Program Director of Ozanam House. Mr. Walters reported that Mr. Escott completed a one-on-one trauma counselling during his residence. He was described as being a person who appeared intent on completely transforming his life. [ 21 ] Mr. Escott, certainly at the time of submissions, had transitioned to living in his own accommodation.

He had found employment and up until very recently had been sober since January 2021. [ 22 ] The Crown tendered a JUSTIN Conviction List containing a single conviction for March 11, 2022 for possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose. Defence counsel conceded that there are two other convictions not contained in that report; a 2015 conviction for impaired driving and a violent offence, not specified, from 2002. [ 23 ] As noted by defence counsel, Mr. Escott performed well on bail. There were no allegations of breach forwarded to Crown counsel. By all accounts, Mr.

Escott has made all efforts to take his addiction and recovery seriously and has done all that he could to remedy the circumstances that led to the index offence. [ 24 ] Crown and defence jointly propose that a fit and appropriate sentence for Mr. Escott for this particular offence is a conditional sentence of 12 months duration to be followed by three years of probation, together with ancillary orders for the provision of DNA and a weapons prohibition. [ 25 ]

Section 742.1 of the Criminal Code lists four criteria a judge must consider before imposing a conditional sentence. [ 26 ] Firstly, the offence must not be punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment. Second, the court must impose a term of imprisonment of less than two years.

Three, the safety of the community must not be in danger by the offender living his or her sentence in the community; and f our, a conditional sentence must be consistent with the fundamental purposes and principles of sentencing set out in s. 718 through 718.2 of the Criminal Code . [ 27 ] There is no minimum sentence for this offence. [ 28 ] Further, as I am considering a term of imprisonment of less than two years, a conditional sentence is available. [ 29 ] I must also be satisfied that serving this sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community.

It is the risk posed by the specific offender that I must consider and not whether the broader risk of whether a conditional sentence would endanger the safety of the community because it would not provide sufficient deterrence, or would undermine general respect for the law. [ 30 ] I must consider the risk of reoffending and the gravity of the damage done in the event of a repeat of the offence. [ 31 ] I find the safety of the community would not be subject to undue risk by Mr.

Escott and I take into account these most recent concerns and the reason I consider that is that counsel have again addressed the conditions that were in place at the time of original submissions and those conditions would result in a far greater amount of supervision for Mr. Escott. [ 32 ] While the offence here was grave, Mr. Escott has taken all expected steps to deal with the circumstances that led to it. He is engaged in treatment and rehabilitation. He was, up until very recently employed and has performed well on bail without breaches.

As long as he continues with his treatment, he does not pose an undue risk to the community. Once again, the proposed conditions will require of Mr. Escott a good deal more than was the case when he appeared before me for sentencing originally. [ 33 ] The final precondition to assess is whether the imposition of a conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in s. 718 through 718.2.

A conditional sentence can provide significant denunciation and deterrence; however, there will be circumstances where the need for denunciation and deterrence is so pressing that incarceration will be the only suitable way in which to express society's condemnation of the offender's conduct and to deter similar conduct in the future. [ 34 ] Turning next to the purpose, objectives and principles of sentencing. [ 35 ] A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

This is the fundamental principle of sentencing. [ 36 ] The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions. [ 37 ] When considering a sentence, I must be mindful of the objectives of sentencing as outlined in s. 718 of the Criminal Code , particularly to Mr. Escott.

The objectives of sentencing in this case include denouncing unlawful conduct; deterring the offender and others from committing offences; assisting in the rehabilitation of offenders and in particular Mr. Escott; and promoting a sense of responsibility in Mr. Escott and acknowledging the harm done to victims or to the community. [ 38 ] A judge is also guided by a number of principles set out in s. 718.2, including the following which I consider relevant to Mr. Escott.

[ 39 ] Firstly, a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender. [ 40 ] Next, a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders, for similar offences, committed in similar circumstances. [ 41 ] Next, offenders should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances. [ 42 ] And finally, all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders. [ 43 ] I had the privilege of hearing from Mr.

Leith's father, mother, brother and former partner. I also read the victim impact statement from Mr. Leith's daughter. The victim impact statements all describe the excruciating pain endured by Carlton Leith's family because of his untimely and violent passing. Their loss is immeasurable. They all struggle to make sense of these circumstances and contend with anger, depression, and sleepless nights. It is clear to me that Carlton Leith was a much loved member of his family. He is universally described as a kind, caring and gentle man who struggled with mental illness through much of his life.

He was a protector of others, particularly women. His passing has left an indelible mark on those who loved him. [ 44 ] Mr. Leith's mother, Diane, and father Ronald, asked Mr. Escott to honour Mr. Leith's life by turning his own life around and by working to be a genuinely good person. They implore him to do better, to be better, to live better, and to choose better. [ 45 ] Several of Mr. Leith's family members seek financial restitution from Mr. Escott to mitigate some of their losses.

I note this, despite the fact that restitution does not form part of the joint submission proposed by counsel. [ 46 ] Turning to aggravating and mitigating factors. Firstly, regarding aggravating factors I find as follows. [ 47 ] Firstly, Mr. Escott's record is an aggravating factor. There is a prior conviction for a violent offence, albeit 20 years in the past. Additionally, Mr. Escott was on bail for a May 6, 2020 allegation of possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose when this offence was committed. Mr.

Escott entered a guilty plea to that offence on March 11, 2022, and received a suspended sentence with two years of probation. [ 48 ] Regarding mitigating factors, I note the following. [ 49 ] Mr. Escott entered a guilty plea to this offence. The plea came after evidence was tendered at a preliminary inquiry, at a time when Mr. Escott faced a charge of manslaughter. I accept that counsel worked extensively toward reaching their agreement regarding the offence to which Mr. Escott ultimately entered his plea. A guilty plea is a significant mitigating factor. It is an indication of an acceptance of responsibility.

I also accept that Mr. Escott's plea is a demonstration of remorse as submitted by his counsel. Additionally, the plea spares the justice system the significant resources otherwise required to be spent proving the allegation. Moreover, by entering a guilty plea, Mr. Escott divested himself of any potential defences or Charter challenges that might have been available. This is one reason why courts routinely view a guilty plea as a significant mitigating factor, as I do in Mr. Escott's case. [ 50 ] It is relevant that Mr. Escott was actively engaged in his addiction at the time of the offence.

As noted recently by our Court of Appeal, the impact of mental health and addiction issues on moral culpability is a complicated question. While self-induced intoxication that leads to violence is typically the product of intentional risk taking, which conduct is itself dangerous, irresponsible and blameworthy, a [co-occurring] mental health issue underlying that addiction can be viewed as a mitigating factor: see R. v.

Forner , 2020 BCCA 103 at paras. 26 through 28. [ 51 ] Here, I recognize both the presence of drug addiction and the likelihood of an indirect link to underlying mental health issues, likely depression. I ultimately determine that Mr. Escott's moral culpability is slightly attenuated. His actions are undoubtedly the product of his use of illicit substances, although I do not lose sight of the fact that this intoxication was self-induced. [ 52 ] Next, by all accounts, Mr. Escott fully engaged in treatment for his addiction.

Prior to the events of this week, he had successfully worked through primary and secondary stage programs. At the time he was living, of course, in his own accommodation and that has changed. He was employed. He remains committed to continued outpatient treatment. That has not changed. Mr. Escott is not the homeless and hopelessly addicted individual who roamed the streets of Chilliwack in a drug-induced haze at the time of this tragic incident.

He has taken concrete steps toward rehabilitation and is thus far, until very recently, been successful in this regard. [ 53 ] Having regard to the various mitigating and aggravating factors, including consideration for more recent setbacks that Mr. Escott has had, I still continue to view Mr. Escott as a good candidate for rehabilitation.

He is appropriately remorseful and has shown through his actions a willingness to make amends in the only way that he can, redeeming himself by becoming again a contributing member of society, as he once was, rather than a burden to be carried by the community. [ 54 ] This matter comes before me as a joint submission for sentence. As noted in R. v.

Anthony-Cook , 2016 SCC 43 , a judge is not to depart from a joint submission unless the proposed sentence is "so markedly out of line with the expectation that the reasonable person aware of the circumstances of the case, that they would view it as a breakdown in the proper functioning of the criminal justice system." See Anthony-Cook at para. 32 . [ 55 ] Here the proposed sentence is a conditional sentence which is a jail term to be served in the community, followed by a three-year probation order. The sentence provides for Mr.

Escott to be monitored by the criminal justice system for a period of four years on top of the monitoring he has already been subject to on bail. [ 56 ] Furthermore, for the term of the conditional sentence, if Mr. Escott was to breach any of the terms of the order he would face an application to terminate that order and the potential to serve the remainder of the sentence in custody. This is because Parliament intended that there be a real threat of incarceration to increase compliance with conditional sentences: see R. v. Proulx at para. 21. In

fact, the Supreme Court determined that there should be a presumption that the offender serve the remainder of their sentence in custody as the constant threat of incarceration will help to ensure compliance with the conditions: Proulx at para. 39. [ 57 ] Sentencing is always a case specific analysis. For that reason, the sentencing precedents are instructive but not determinative of a fit and appropriate sentence. Nonetheless, I have reviewed the three sentencing precedents supplied by counsel. [ 58 ] In R. v. Hayhoe , 2020 ONSC 8212 , the offender pled guilty to manslaughter.

The offender and deceased were friends who became engaged in an argument. The deceased sent a text to the offender threatening to assault him. After consuming a few drinks, the deceased confronted the offender. The offender struck the deceased with a bat, causing the deceased to tumble down a flight of stairs, ultimately leading to his death. The offender was intoxicated. [ 59 ] Crown and defence jointly proposed a conditional sentence, taking into account credit given for 24 months of pre-sentence custody and time spent on restrictive conditions of bail.

The offender suffered from a precarious medical condition and further incarceration could have led to his death. The court ultimately endorsed the joint submission for sentence. [ 60 ] The offender in R. v. C.C. , 2003 MBCA 51 , pled guilty to manslaughter. He punched the deceased after being provoked by him, causing the deceased to produce a knife. A struggle ensued during which the offender obtained the knife, then stabbed the deceased with it and a beer bottle. The offender had no prior violent history at age 23 and was the father of a young child.

The offence was described as being out of character for him. [ 61 ] The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, to be followed by three years of probation. The Crown appealed the sentence, seeking a penitentiary term of five years. That appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal found that the conditional sentence was within the appropriate range of sentence, given the particular antecedents of the offender. [ 62 ] The final case supplied was R. v. Harper , 2020 BCPC 226 , a decision of Judge Bahen. The circumstances in Harper bear some similarity to those of Mr.

Escott, although they are more egregious. The offender in Harper pled guilty to assault causing bodily harm. He punched the victim in the back of the head causing him to fall to the ground where he was then fatally stabbed by another person. The offender was of First Nations descent and the court had the benefit of a Gladue Report to assist with sentencing.

He had no prior criminal history. [ 63 ] The court ultimately determined that a fit and appropriate sentence was a conditional discharge with probation conditions for a period of two years. [ 64 ] These precedents, again, are instructive insofar as they demonstrate that a conditional sentence can meet the purpose and principles of sentencing even for an offence as serious as manslaughter. The circumstances in each of the cases are objectively more serious as they involve the use of a weapon either by the offender or by an accomplice. As is the case with Mr.

Escott, the Crown acknowledged that there were triable issues in Hayhoe and C.C. , and the outcome of the trials was not certain. [ 65 ] Again, these comments I am about to make are tempered somewhat by what has happened recently, Mr. Escott, but in my view they remain valid in your case. You appear to have turned a corner from the dark circumstances that led to the commission of this offence. Upon your release from custody, you entered VisionQuest where you were bound by strict conditions of release including a curfew. There were no breaches of that release order.

Your progress in that program was described by all individuals who supplied letters as exemplary. You participated fully, you engaged in volunteer activities to assist others in recovery. After a time following that program you moved into independent housing where, by all accounts, you continued to do very well. You secured employment. You were actively engaged in recovery in Kelowna when we last met. [ 66 ] Things have changed and not for the better. However, again, not to repeat what I have already said to you, recovery can be a process of two steps forward and one step back. You are one step back right now.

That causes me concern and it undoubtedly causes counsel concern and the family concern and that must be dealt with in an appropriate way and my fervent hope for you is that you do so. [ 67 ] You have done all you can, Mr. Escott, to change your life. You are not the person you were when these events occurred. You have travelled a good distance down the road to recovery. It is a lifelong journey for you and that you must accept today, if not before.

It is sincerely hoped that you will remember the words of Carlton Leith's parents, Ronald and Diane, who admonish you to honour their son's life by turning your own life around. To do better, to be better, to live better and to choose better. [ 68 ] Having considered the principles of sentencing that are to be punctuated in this case and the thoughtful submissions of counsel, I am of the view that the joint submission for a conditional sentence to be followed by three years of probation is a fit and appropriate sentence. The high bar that is required for me to disturb a joint submission is not met in this case.

If you would now stand, please, Mr. Escott. [ 69 ] For the reasons I have stated, you will be sentenced to a 12 month conditional sentence. That is a jail term that you serve in the community so long as you abide by those conditions. If you do not abide by those conditions expect an application by the Crown to terminate that sentence. If that application is successful, then as I have indicated to you, the first position is it should be terminated. Your sentence is converted to a term of imprisonment, incarceration, and that is the threat that hangs over you in the next 12 months.

Now, I will say, had the events of this week occurred after today, that is what the Crown's application would be. Quite frankly, you would be coming in the back door. That is my belief, basically an application to terminate the order and had that happened within a week of being sentenced to a conditional sentence the door would be open for that application. [ 70 ] So things are on precarious ground for you right now. You have got to take this seriously. I have said what I am going to say about it but this relapse gets dealt with. You sort out how it happened, why it happened. You think about that.

You figure it out. You make sure it does not happen again because the problem you have, Mr. Escott, is you are a risk when you are actively engaged in addiction. You are a big man. You have a predilection to violence. I know this from what has happened here. You are not controllable when you are high and that puts everyone else at risk and that is what jails are for, for people whose risk cannot be managed, so manage it.

[ 71 ] Having said that, there will be conditional sentence of 12 months to be followed by a three-year probation order. The amended conditions, in my view, are appropriate. They are as follows. [ 72 ] Firstly, compulsory conditions. Mr. Escott, you must keep the peace and be of good behaviour. You must appear before the court when required to do so by the court. You must notify the court or your conditional sentence supervisor, in advance, of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the court or your supervisor of any change of employment or occupation.

Additionally, you must remain in the province of British Columbia unless you have written permission from the court, or your conditional sentence supervisor, to leave the province. [ 73 ] Reporting, counsel, will that be here in Chilliwack today? That's the intention? [ 74 ] CNSL A. BURNS: I think probably this will be done by that time and since he's here that will probably be the best and then it can be transferred to where he's residing. [ 75 ] THE COURT: That makes sense to me. Mr. Myers, do you agree? [ 76 ] CNSL Z.

MYERS: Makes sense, Your Honour. [ 77 ] THE COURT: Very good. [ 78 ] You must report in person to the conditional sentence supervisor at the Chilliwack Community Corrections office on Wellington Avenue. I know you know where that is. You must do so by 3:00 p.m. today and after that you must report as directed by the supervisor. [ 79 ] As regards to house arrest and address provisions, you must live at 13516 - 80th Avenue, Surrey, British Columbia, or any other residence operated by the Realistic Success Recovery Society and provide your conditional sentence supervisor with your phone number.

You must not change your address or phone number without prior written permission from your supervisor. [ 80 ] If you are expelled or evicted from the place where you are living, you must tell your conditional sentence supervisor immediately. If the office is closed, you must contact your conditional sentence supervisor immediately when the office opens on the next business day. [ 81 ] You must follow the rules of the Realistic Success Recovery Society program so long as the rules do not conflict with the terms of this order, or the directions of your conditional sentence supervisor.

If there is a conflict you must tell your supervisor about the conflict immediately. [ 82 ] You must obey house arrest by being inside your residence at 13516 - 80th Avenue, Surrey, B.C., or any other residence operated by the Realistic Success Recovery Society, [indiscernible], 24 hours a day, every day. You must present yourself immediately to the door of your residence, or answer the phone, when any peace officer or conditional sentence supervisor attends or calls to check on you during the house arrest. And rest assured, Mr. Escott, they will do that. It is part of their job.

They get on shift to see who is bound by house arrest conditions and they check up on them. [ 83 ] You may be away from your residence during the house arrest hours in the immediate presence of a representative of the Realistic Success Recovery Society, or with the written permission of your conditional sentence supervisor. Such permission is to be given only for employment or other compelling reasons. You must carry the permission with you when you are outside of your residence. [PROCEEDINGS] [ 84 ] THE COURT: Mr.

Escott, you must provide your conditional sentence supervisor with the details of your employment status. You must inform your supervisor within two business days of any change in your employment status. [ 85 ] If you are given permission by your conditional sentence supervisor, that being to be outside of your residence, you must carry it with you in paper or electronic format when you are doing or possessing something that requires permission.

You must show the permission, along with a copy of this order, to a peace officer who either requests to see it or stops you for any reason. [PROCEEDINGS] [ 86 ] THE COURT: You must not possess or consume alcohol, drugs, or any other intoxicating substances except with a medical prescription. Of course you are back in treatment, residential treatment, that would be prohibited, in any event. [ 87 ] There will, of course, be counselling. You must attend, participate in, and complete any intake, assessment, counselling, or education program directed by your conditional sentence supervisor.

This may include but is not limited to counselling or programming for: (

a) anger management; (

b) violence prevention; or (

c) alcohol or drug addiction. [ 88 ] You must attend, participate in, and complete any intake, assessment, program, treatment, or full-time live-in treatment program as directed by your conditional sentence supervisor. This may include programming or treatment for alcohol or drug addiction. [ 89 ] You must apologize to the family of Carlton Leith in a manner directed by your conditional sentence supervisor and to the satisfaction of your supervisor. Is there a timeframe for that, counsel? [ 90 ] CNSL A. BURNS: Probably by January 31st. [ 91 ] THE COURT: You agree, Mr. Myers, January 31 of next year?

[ 92 ] CNSL Z.

MYERS: Yes. [ 93 ] THE COURT: That apology must be provided to your conditional sentence supervisor by January 31, 2023. [ 94 ] For the term of you order you must not possess directly or indirectly any weapon as defined by the Criminal Code including firearms and ammunition, crossbows, prohibited or restricted weapons, or devices, or explosive substances, anything used, designed to be used, or intended for use in causing death or injury to any person, or to threaten or intimidate any person, any imitation of all of the above including any compressed airguns, or BB guns, or pellet guns, or any related authorizations, licences, or registration certificates and you must not apply for any of these. [ 95 ] That conditional sentence will be followed by a three-year probation order.

Now, originally, counsel, there was no reporting on the probation order. That has not changed? [ 96 ] CNSL Z. MYERS: No, Your Honour, that [indiscernible]. [ 97 ] THE COURT: For the term of the probation order there are three conditions, Mr. Escott, they are as follows. [ 98 ] You must keep the peace and be of good behaviour. You must appear before the court when required to do so by the court.

You must notify the court, in advance, of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the court of any change of employment or occupation. [ 99 ] Additionally, you must not possess or consume alcohol, drugs, or any other intoxicating substances except with a medical prescription. [ 100 ] You must not possess directly or indirectly any weapon as defined by the Criminal Code including firearms, ammunition, crossbows, prohibited or restricted weapons or devices, or explosive substances, anything used, designed to be used or intended for use in causing death or injury to any person or to threaten or intimidate any person, any imitation of all of the above including any compressed airguns, or BB guns, or pellet guns, or any related authorizations, licences or registration certificates and you must not apply for any of these. [ 101 ] There are also ancillary orders here. [ 102 ] Firstly, pursuant to s. 109, you are prohibited from possessing any firearm, other than a prohibited firearm, or restricted firearm, and any crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition, or explosive substance for a period of 10 years from today's date, and any prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device, or prohibited ammunition for life. [ 103 ] The amended count or the count to which you entered a guilty plea is a primary designated DNA offence.

For that reason, pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code , I authorize the taking of samples of bodily substances from you for registration in the DNA National Data Bank. That typically happens at the RCMP detachment. You are going to be in Surrey, Mr. Escott, so I am going to propose, counsel, that Mr. Escott attend at a Surrey RCMP detachment for the provision of the DNA sample. No issue? [ 104 ] CNSL Z. MYERS: Yes. [ 105 ] THE COURT: All right. You must attend at the Surrey RCMP detachment in Surrey, British Columbia, no later than Friday, September 16th, and submit to the taking of samples.

This order is valid until it is executed, Mr. Escott. Samples are typically a swab of your cheek. It could be a blood sample, it could be a sample of hair, probably not in your case. Likely, I would think what they call a buccal cell swab. Relatively nonintrusive but you must submit to the taking of that sample. Again, September 16th is the deadline. [ 106 ] Now, Mr. Escott was working at the time he appeared before me last. I assume he is now going to be in full-time treatment without existing employment prospects. Position on victim fine surcharge? [ 107 ] CNSL Z.

MYERS: I'd ask Your Honour to waive it in the circumstances. [ 108 ] THE COURT: The mandatory victim fine surcharge would be $200 for an indictable offence, Mr. Escott. It is mandatory but I do have some authority to waive it and I am of the view that the provision of the order would be an undue hardship on the offender, you in this case. I find that it would be in your case because your focus has to be on treatment and I do not want anything else to get in the way of that. I want your entire focus to be on sorting this out so that you are not back where you were in December of 2020.

To do that, you do not need to be saddled with having to pay a $200 fine when everything in your life has to be focused on getting yourself back to where you were and you can be again. [ 109 ] For that reason, the victim fine surcharge is waived. [ 110 ] Now, Mr. Escott, I have put a variety of conditions on you, both conditional sentence and probation conditions. Do you understand all the conditions as I have ready them to you? [ 111 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes, Your Honour. [ 112 ] THE COURT: Thank you.

And do you agree to obey all of those conditions? [ 113 ] THE ACCUSED: I do, Your Honour. [ 114 ] THE COURT: Thank you. Please be advised that were you to breach any of these terms, firstly with the conditional sentence , as I have indicated, the Crown could seek to have you arrested and if you were found to be breaching the term of the order, you would face an application to terminate that order and spend the remainder of that sentence in custody.

[ 115 ] As regards to a breach of the probation conditions, you would once again be arrested if there was an allegation of breach, be charged with a breach of probation, a separate criminal charge which, of course, brings you back into the criminal milieu. [ 116 ] If you needed to change a term of your orders, you have the right to apply to a judge for that purpose. Do you understand that as well? [ 117 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes, I do. [ 118 ] THE COURT: Thank you. I am satisfied that Mr. Escott understands the terms of his orders. He agrees to be bound by those terms.

It does not need to be read separately to him by a justice of the peace, Madam Clerk. He should receive copies of both orders before he leaves today. (ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)