R. v. Drydgen, 2013 BCSC 1876

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Drydgen, 2013 BCSC 1876 Date: 20130913 Docket: 25187-6 Registry: Vancouver Regina v. Malcolm Jamel Drydgen Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Watchuk Oral Reasons for Sentence Counsel for the Crown: D. SimCounsel for the Accused: H. PateyPlace and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. September 5, 2013Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. September 13, 2013 I. Introduction [1] Malcolm Jamel Drydgen has entered a plea of guilty to Count 1, a charge of break and enter a dwelling house and commitrobbery contrary to s. 348(1)(

b) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, on an indictment which charges him and a co-accused,Ibrahim Ali, with twelve offences on December 5, 2008. [2] This guilty plea follows convictions after trial on seven of the twelve counts, sentencing to a global sentence of seven years,and an appeal which reversed the convictions on five counts.

The findings of guilt on the two offences which were driving offences werenot disturbed on appeal [3] The convictions were entered after trial on: Count 1, breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing robbery, five-and-a-half years in prison; Count 3, the use of the imitation firearm while committing the indictable offence of robbery, one year inprison; Counts 10 and 12, dangerous driving and flight from a police officer, respectively, six months for each such offence to be servedconcurrently, but consecutively to Counts 1 and 3.

Counts 4, 8 and 11 were the subject of a judicial stay pursuant the principles of R. v.Kienapple, (SCC), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729. [4] The issue on this appeal is the length of the sentence for Count 1 in the context that Mr. Drydgen has been released afterserving close to the global sentence for all of the counts on which he was previously found guilty. [5] On the sentencing of Mr.

Drydgen at the conclusion of the trial, he was sentenced to five and one-half years for Count 1, thebreak and enter, in circumstances where it was found that he had participated in a home invasion where the Crown was relying ons. 348.1 of the Criminal Code and Mr. Drydgen was found to have pointed a gun at the victim. This offence therefore differs from theoffence on the original sentencing. [6] Mr.

Drydgen has served three years and one and one-half months in prison in addition to serving six months for the drivingoffences, and a concurrent sentence of ten months for an unrelated charge of possession of stolen property. The time served, by thedoubling principle then in effect, is six years and three months. [7] The Crown submits that the fit sentence for the break and enter offence is five and one-half years or 33 months of the actualtime served in prison. On behalf of Mr.

Drydgen it is submitted that the fit sentence to be recorded on his criminal record is three years,or 18 months of actual time served. [8] As the six-month concurrent sentence for the two driving offences was not affected by the appeal, the resulting global sentencewill be increased by six months. II. Circumstances of the Offence [9] I will set out the circumstances as described in the Oral Reasons on Sentencing dated October 21, 2011 and then note thedifferences in the facts as a result of the appeal:

[4] On December 4, 2008, the police learned of a possible break and enter in the area of East 21st Avenue and Ontario Street in Vancouver. Based on this information, members of the Vancouver Police Department took up surveillance of the home of a Mr. Ibrahim Ali. Shortly after midnight on December 5, 2008, an individual now known to be Mr. Drydgen was observed with Mr. Ali. Mr. Drydgen left in what is now known to be his mother's van. He returned to Mr. Ali's home at approximately 5:30 a.m. that morning driving the same van. Both individuals then left. At all material times, it was Mr. Drydgen who drove the van.

At all material times, the two were being followed and observed by different members of the police department. [5] Mr. Drydgen drove to the Edmonds SkyTrain Station where he picked up a third individual. The three individuals ultimately made their way to the area of East 21st Street and Quebec Street. They circled the block at least twice and then parked in a laneway behind the residence at 83 East 21 st Street. The three men walked down a walkway adjacent to the home at 83 East 21 st Street and then returned to the van.

They were then joined by a fourth male. [6] The four individuals drove off, but returned shortly thereafter and parked in the same area. By this point it was about 6:50 a.m. The four individuals again walked down the walkway. There was a series of loud bangs and the police saw the door to 83 East 21 st Street swing open. It was later determined that the metal cladding on the front door of the residence was dented and that the frame of the door by the lock had splintered. [7] At this point, the evidence of Mr. Mourtazaliev, which I accepted, becomes important. Mr.

Mourtazaliev is an approximately 40- year-old gentleman who emigrated from Russia a little more than a decade before the events in question. He shared the apartment with a roommate, Mr. Bapo. Mr. Bapo was not present during any of these events. Mr. Mourtazaliev, who was awake but still in bed, heard a series of bangs. He got up to see what was happening. As he got to his bedroom door, three individuals entered his room. He was punched several times, pushed backwards onto his bed, and covered with a blanket.

He was shouted at, struck several times, and kicked while under the blanket. [8] He pulled the blanket off several times and, on one such occasion, saw three men. One individual, who was Caucasian, held a nine millimetre black gun close to his head. Another individual, a black man, pointed a smaller double-barrelled silver .22 calibre pistol at him. That black man was Mr. Drydgen. When Mr. Mourtazaliev saw the two pistols, he stopped resisting and stayed under the blanket. At one point, he was asked, "Where the safe was”, and responded that he did not know anything about a safe. Shortly thereafter, when Mr.

Mourtazaliev heard no further movement, he got up and went outside. The police were then called. [9] The four individuals were observed by the police as they left the residence and returned to the van. They had been inside the residence for about two minutes. The police had intended to try to hit the van and pin it with their own vehicle, but they were unable to do so. The van accelerated away and was pursued by two separate police vehicles, each of which had its police lights on and one of which had its siren on. The ensuing chase took place over several city blocks and down a laneway.

Police estimates placed the speed of the van at from 50 to 60 kilometres per hour and at up to 80 kilometres per hour. Ultimately, Mr. Drydgen lost control of the van as he tried to navigate a turn and he crashed into a parked vehicle. [10] The four individuals fled the van and were further pursued by the police. Police dog teams were called in. Mr. Drydgen was located and arrested within minutes. Mr. Ali was located and arrested a little more than an hour later. One of the other individuals, [Mr. L.S.-L.], was apprehended shortly after he was observed throwing something in a dumpster.

The police subsequently recovered a can of pepper spray from that dumpster. [11] The police also recovered a nine millimetre handgun from the driver's foot well in the van. The gun contained a magazine and its hammer was cocked back. The van also contained a crowbar and vice grips, three black hoods or masks, and some baseball caps and gloves. The evidence also established that the lock on the door to Mr. Bapo's bedroom had been broken and that each of Mr. Bapo’s and Mr. Mourtazaliev's bedrooms had been searched and ransacked. The small silver gun which Mr. Mourtazaliev had seen Mr.

Drydgen point at him was never recovered. [12] Finally, Mr. Mourtazaliev testified, and I accepted, that when he was covered by the blanket, he was struck by something heavy over his eyebrow. When he later went to the hospital, he was given the option of having the cut over his eye stitched or closed with some sort of adhesive. Mr. Mourtazaliev said, and the relevant photos established, that he had numerous other bruises and abrasions on his face, shoulders, and torso. Other photos confirm that the blanket which covered Mr. Mourtazaliev was somewhat bloodied during his attack.

Finally, he said that he had headaches for some weeks after the attack. [ 10 ] Mr. Drydgen is not now before the court for sentencing on weapons charges. There is no allegation that he possessed or used any weapon or committed any assault. He was the driver of the minivan which took three of the participants to the residence and left the scene two minutes later after the break and enter with all four participants in the vehicle. [ 11 ] The four participants in the break and enter were Mr. Drydgen, Mr. Ali, Mr. C.

S-L., and a young offender. [ 12 ] The circumstances which give rise to the two driving offences, dangerous driving and failure to stop, arose after the minivan driven by Mr. Drydgen left the residence pursued by the police. III. Circumstances of the Offender [ 13 ] Mr. Drydgen is now 24 years old. He was 19 at the time of the offences. He was born in Vancouver and is of Jamaican descent. Since his release from custody in August 2013 he has been living with his mother and four brothers who are 27, 20, 13 and 4. Mr. Drydgen had always understood that his father left the family when he was seven.

However, in recently applying to replace his birth certificate, he discovered that that individual is not his biological father. That has been a difficult discovery. [ 14 ] Mr. Drydgen’s mother is a very hard-working person but due to her many responsibilities, she is often not able to be present as parent. His grandmother is close to him and also active in the community.

[ 15 ] Mr. Drydgen took advantage of the educational opportunities while he was in custody. He completed Grade 11, 20 hours towards a millwright apprentice, obtained his Fall Protection Certificate, his World Host Certificate, as well as his Level 1 First Aid credentials. He completed a 30-hour restorative justice program and the high intensity program which is 20 hours per week for five months and covers violence prevention. Although Mr.

Drydgen became eligible for parole, he was advised that his application would not be supported because of the outstanding appeal of his conviction. [ 16 ] After all of his identification which was lost while he was in custody is replaced, both a family friend and his prior youth worker have offered to assist him to get a job. [ 17 ] Mr. Drydgen has a serious criminal record with most of the offences being on his youth record. His first conviction was in 2004 for robbery. His co-accused stabbed the victim and Mr. Drydgen remained with the victim after the stabbing until police arrived. Mr.

Drydgen was 15 years old at the time of the sentencing. In 2005 when he was 16, he was convicted of possession of a dangerous weapon, pepper spray. Later in December 2005, he was convicted of aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, pepper spray, and wilfully resisting arrest. One and one-half years later, in June 2007, when Mr. Drydgen was 18, he was convicted of possession of a prohibited weapon and carrying a concealed weapon, a 45-calibre unloaded pistol, and a failure to comply. His first adult conviction was in April 2008 when he was 19 for a breach of undertaking.

Two months later he was convicted of possession of a controlled substance. While he was on bail for the offences of this indictment, he was convicted of two breaches of bail, a breach of curfew and failure to abstain from alcohol. Lastly, he was convicted in 2013 for possession of stolen property under $5,000, an offence committed in 2010 while on bail for these offences. [ 18 ] At the sentencing after trial, Mr. Drydgen addressed the court. Paragraph 51 of the sentencing reasons states: [51] In addition, Mr. Drydgen addressed me at somewhat greater length than is common.

He said that the time he has spent in prison has enabled him to reflect on his behaviour. He said that he regretted that behaviour and the harm he had caused Mr. Mourtazaliev. He said he was determined to change. He said he was ashamed. He said he was capable of making good decisions. He said he appreciated that he was at a fork in his life. Finally, he said he wanted to be a better example for his younger brothers. I accept what Mr. Drydgen told me and that he is remorseful for his actions. I am also mindful that Mr. Drydgen is a young man. He has the love and support of his mother and his brothers.

He has a young woman in his life who has remained committed to him. [ 19 ] Again at this sentencing, Mr. Drydgen spoke at some length about what he called his learning experiences while in prison and his commitment to doing better and to living a healthy life with his family and in society. He expressed remorse and regret. I took those expressions to be sincere. IV. Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances [ 20 ] The aggravating factors are firstly that the break and enter offence was planned and deliberate. The four participants intended to enter an unoccupied residence, find a safe and remove it. Mr.

Drydgen was the driver both to the residence and leaving the residence. The group cased the residence prior to entering and when they entered, they ransacked it and demanded the whereabouts of the safe. [ 21 ] Although the group was armed with pepper spray and a loaded 9mm handgun, Mr. Drydgen had no knowledge of the presence of weapons and was not a party to any of the weapons offences. Weapons are not an aggravating factor in this sentencing. [ 22 ] The serious criminal record of Mr. Drydgen is an aggravating factor in this sentencing. [ 23 ] The mitigating factors include that Mr.

Drydgen was a youthful offender as he was only 19 years old at the time of this offence. [ 24 ] The guilty plea is also a mitigating factor. The victim has testified about the events of December 5, 2008 on four court appearances. That Mr. Drydgen pled guilty has relieved the victim of the need to testify for a fifth time. [ 25 ] The remorse expressed by Mr. Drydgen eloquently on this sentencing is a mitigating factor.

That his remorse expressed at the prior sentencing in 2011 has been followed by hard work while in prison to further his education, his vocational training, and his understanding of his offending gives the expression of remorse greater weight. V. Discussion [ 26 ] It is well established that sentencing is an individualized process which involves consideration of a particular offence and a particular offender. In determining a fit sentence for this offence, the first task is to characterize the offence to which Mr. Drydgen has pled guilty. The offence is break and enter and commit robbery contrary to s. 348(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code . As the place broken into and entered was a dwelling house, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. [ 27 ] Mr. Drydgen and the other three participants expected the residence to be unoccupied. The break and enter offence was planned and deliberate as described above. Mr. Drydgen met with Mr. Ali the night before. The intention was to take a safe, and the residence was cased before entering. [ 28 ] The role of Mr. Drydgen was to drive the group to and from the location where the safe was thought to be.

As he was sentenced separately for the offences as a result of his manner of driving, I will not deal further with the driving offences. [ 29 ] When entrance was gained by the group to the residence, an occupant was unexpectedly present. He was awake but still in bed in one of the bedrooms. As a result of the findings on appeal, Mr. Drydgen is not now alleged to have participated in the offences resulting from the actions of other members of the group in assaulting the victim or the use of the weapons.

[ 30 ] The offences on the indictment together form what is commonly known as a home invasion which is not a separate criminal offence but is a description of a type of break and enter of a dwelling house where an occupant is present and may be threatened, assaulted, confined or terrorized. [ 31 ] Unlike at the sentencing after trial, the Crown in this sentencing is not relying on the statutory aggravating factor in s. 348.1 which states: Aggravating circumstance — home invasion 348.1 If a person is convicted of an offence under

section 98 or 98.1, subsection 279(2) or

section 343, 346 or 348 in relation to a dwelling-house, the court imposing the sentence on the person shall consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the dwelling- house was occupied at the time of the commission of the offence and that the person, in committing the offence, (

a) knew that or was reckless as to whether the dwelling-house was occupied; and (

b) used violence or threats of violence to a person or property. [ 32 ] With regard to the offence in Count 1 to which Mr. Drydgen has pled guilty, the circumstances fall within the definition of a home invasion because it was a break and enter of a residence where, although it was unexpected, one of the residents was present at the time of the break and enter. [ 33 ] The case of R. v. Bernier , 2003 BCCA 134 is the seminal case in British Columbia with regard to sentences for home invasions. The Court of Appeal sat as a panel of five justices in order to address prior sentences for this type of offence.

The reasons in Bernier are summarized R. v.

Brossault , 2009 BCSC 464 : [79] In Bernier , supra , there were three sets of reasons all of which agreed that the sentence for break and enter in committing an indictable offence should be reduced from 14 to six years. [80] With regard to the perceived conflict between D.A.W., supra , and N.P.D., supra , Southin J.A. (Hollinrake J.A. concurring) said at paras. 36 - 38: [36] The difficulty arising from them is, with respect, two-fold -- one is the use of the term "home invasion" and the other is the use of the term "range". [37] As to the first, the Criminal Code does not speak of "home invasion" crimes.

The phrase is useful for the press.

It is not useful in the administration of the criminal law because it lacks precision as to the exact crime committed. [38] But the criminal law has long considered that breaking and entering an occupied dwelling house is more heinous than breaking and entering an unoccupied dwelling house. [81] Further, at paras. 40 and 42 Madam Justice Southin said this: [40] As to the term "range", in sentencing cases its proper use, in my opinion, is only as a short way of describing what the court has done in previous appeals in which the offence and the offender were similar to those in the case at bar. . . . [42] A "range" does not preclude on grounds of deterrence or denunciation or the gravity of the particular offence a sentence different from that "range".

Nor does a "range" preclude a lesser sentence if some special circumstances warrant such a course. When considering any particular case similar to R. v. D.A.W. or to R. v. N.P.D. or to this case, trial judges and this court will have in mind those sentences as part of the "range". The "range" is not conclusive. [82] Madam Justice Prowse (Levine J.A. concurring) also made the point that a range of sentences is a guideline.

At para. 66 she said: [66] Thus, the question of whether a sentence falls within an "acceptable range" is clearly a factor for the trial court to consider in imposing sentence, and for an appellate court to consider on reviewing the fitness of the sentence. It is, however, only one of many factors which the courts must take into account. And at paras. 73 through 75, Prowse J.A. said this: [73] … This Court does not set "minimum and maximum sentences" which it is "the duty" of trial judges to fit their sentences within, or have the sentence declared unfit.

Rather, this Court suggests a range of sentences for similar offences and similarly situated offenders, drawn largely from its own prior decisions, supplemented, in some instances, by decisions of trial judges. [74] … [B]ecause sentencing is an inherently subjective and individual process, ranges suggested by this Court are simply that -- suggestions. They are guidelines, not rules.

They are not, nor could they be, mandatory minimum and maximum sentences which demand compliance by trial judges. [75] I agree with my colleagues that references to ranges of sentence should not distract the court from giving appropriate weight to the other principles of sentencing set forth in the Code, or from adjusting each sentence to the specific circumstances of the offence and the offender.

The goal of the Court in each case will be the same -- to determine whether the sentence is fit for this offender committing this crime. [83] Madam Justice Prowse went on to note at para. 78 that in N.P.D., supra , Levine J.A. took into account that prior decisions of the

court reflected a range of between five to eight years for “similar offences and similarly situated offenders”. She then noted at para. 80 that while the sentence in D.A.W., supra , was outside the suggested range of sentences identified in N.P.D., supra , the circumstances of the offences in D.A.W. were far more egregious than those in N.P.D. She then said at paras. 80 and 81: [80] … In my view, D.A.W. should not be read as requiring a new range of sentence for "home invasions" at large, without regard to the individual circumstances of the offences or the offender.

Such a reading would not be compatible with the principles set forth in the Supreme Court of Canada authorities to which I have referred. [81] As noted by my colleagues, the difficulty with a discussion of range of sentences with respect to home invasions is that there is no single crime known as "home invasion".

Rather, that term is loosely used as a shorthand expression for a combination of offences involving a breaking and entering with intent to commit theft or robbery, with knowledge or recklessness as to whether the dwelling is occupied at the time, and frequently involving an assault on one or more occupants. [84] Finally, with respect to range, Madam Justice Prowse remarked at para. 92: [92] In terms of range of sentence, and bearing in mind the need for caution in searching for ranges of sentence for "home invasions", the authorities to which we have been referred indicate that the circumstances of these offences and this offender lie closer to the lower end of the suggested range of five to eight or nine years referred to in N.P.D ., than to the 10-year sentence imposed in D.A.W. , where the circumstances were far more egregious. [85] Madam Justice Newberry commented on ranges at para. 105 of her reasons as follows: [105] With respect to the matter of ranges, they are general guidelines, not hard and fast categories.

They do not preclude lesser or greater sentences, if the circumstances or applicable principles in the particular case warrant. [ 34 ] In Brossault , Mr. Justice Joyce, after reviewing the three sets of Reasons in Bernier , concludes that the majority of cases of home invasions will fit somewhere in the range of five to eight years but a case may warrant a sentence in excess of that range or below that usual range.

He states at para. 86: [86] What I take from all of this is that the Court of Appeal has suggested that the majority of cases of "home invasion" will fit somewhere in the range of five to eight years, depending upon the circumstances of the particular offences said to constitute home invasion and the circumstances of the particular offender but that there will be cases that fall on either side of that general range.

A case may warrant a sentence in excess of that range because of particularly egregious circumstances concerning the offence or a particularly high moral blameworthiness on the part of the offender, and the lack of any mitigating circumstances.

Other cases may warrant a sentence under the usual range because the circumstances of the offence are not egregious, and/or the circumstances of the offender are exceptional, such as the lack of any significant record, the youth of the offender, aboriginal status, evidence of remorse, and a clear potential for the rehabilitation of the offender . [Underlining added] [ 35 ] It is the submission of defence counsel on this sentencing that the factors present and the factors not present support a sentence below the usual range of five years. He cites the case of Brossault where one of the co-accused, Mr.

Lagimodiere, was sentenced to two years less a day after a guilty plea to break and enter and use of an imitation firearm. He had a youth criminal record for drug and property offences but that was his first adult offence. Also in Brossault , another co-accused, Mr. Tait, was sentenced to four and one-half years due to his young age, 20, his remorse and high potential for rehabilitation. [ 36 ] At the very low end of sentences for similar offences, in the case of R. v.

Luttman , 2005 BCSC 405 , both co-acuseds who asaulted the victim when there were a baby and a young child in the house were sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years. Neither co-accused had a criminal record and there were no weapons used. [ 37 ] In R. v. Hockley , 2013 BCSC 113 , both co-accuseds beat the resident of the home to which they were convicted of breaking and entering. The victim had been hired as a subcontractor on a renovation project. Neither co-accused had criminal records. Both were sentenced to 90 days intermittent imprisonment. [ 38 ] Counsel for Mr. Drydgen submits that the case of R. v.

Ross , 2009 BCSC 1831 , is most instructive. The accused pled guilty to break and enter and two counts of assaults with a weapon, a baseball bat. The court noted that a sentence of 45 months was appropriate if there had been no pre-trial custody. Mr. Ross was a 23-year-old aboriginal who did not have a criminal record. The offences, however, were committed while he was on bail and in breach of bail conditions on an outstanding offence. [ 39 ] The defence also refers to the case of R. v. Parsons , 2010 BCCA 377 .

The Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of five years imprisonment in aggravated circumstances where there had been no plea. Mr. Parsons was convicted of a break and enter, sexual assault, and uttering a threat to injure an animal in circumstances where he went to the female victim’s home at a time when he knew the male occupant would not be home, he broke down a barricaded door, sexually assaulted the victim, and during the assault, threatened to kill her cat to force her to comply with his wishes. He was 42 years of age and had no criminal record other than an assault in the 1980s.

The Court of Appeal noted at paragraph 14 that this was “about as bad a case of circumstances as one can conceive” and upheld a sentence of five years, which, it is noted, is at the low end of the range suggested in Bernier . [ 40 ] Crown counsel submits that the principle of parity of sentencing is important in these circumstances. The co-accused Mr. Ali, who was18 at the time of the offences, was sentenced to a global sentence of six and one-half years on Counts 1 to 7 on the indictment. The circumstances of that offence were more aggravated because wiretap evidence had been played at his trial and Mr.

Ali was found to have been the mastermind of the home invasion as well as having supplied the firearm. [ 41 ] Mr. Ali’s criminal record was not as serious as that of Mr. Drydgen. That criminal record included convictions as a youth for assault, uttering threats, and four counts of failure to comply. As an adult, Mr. Ali was sentenced for possession of drugs for the purpose

of trafficking, and possession of a prohibited or restrictive firearm with ammunition. He was on bail and in breach of bail at the time that the home invasion offences were committed. [ 42 ] The other adult co-accused on the indictment was sentenced to a five and one-half year global sentence for the break and enter and having been found a party to the weapons charge with regard to the loaded prohibited weapon. [ 43 ] With regard to the variation in circumstances of home invasion offences as discussed in Bernier , the circumstances of the present offence are at the extreme low end. Mr.

Drydgen has pled guilty only to a break and enter where it was not known that the residence would be occupied. With regard to his role in the offence, unlike at the time of the sentencing after his trial and before the appeal, there are no indications that he had any knowledge of, or made any use of the weapons or that he had any role in any assault of the occupant of the residence. These circumstances result in an offence below the suggested range being appropriate. [ 44 ] Mr. Drydgen is also different as an offender than he was at the time of the original sentencing.

He is two years older, considerably wiser, and has taken significant strides in his education and towards fulfilling his stated intention to work towards his own rehabilitation. His stated remorse in 2011 has been followed by manifestation of the remorse by taking steps to demonstrate his sincerity. [ 45 ] The primary considerations on sentence must be deterrence, denunciation and protection of the public, given the nature of the offence. However given Mr.

Drydgen’s significant steps towards his own rehabilitation and his stated intention to continue with that rehabilitation, I put considerable weight on rehabilitation. [ 46 ] Taking into account all of the circumstances in this relatively unusual case, I sentence you Mr. Drydgen for Count 1 to four years. Since you have served 37½ months in custody, which time is attributable to this offence, the sentence will be for one day plus 24 months time served by the usual doubling principle. That will result in a recorded sentence of 48 months or four years for Count 1.

The record will continue to reflect the consecutive sentence of six months for the two driving offences. [ 47 ] This sentence is to be followed by a probation of eleven months. The conditions are that you will report to a probation officer at 275 E. Cordova by 4:00 p.m. on September 16, 2013 and report thereafter as and where directed by your probation officer. You must provide your residential address to the probation officer and notify the probation officer if you change that address. You are to have no contact directly or indirectly with Ibrahim Ali, C.S-L., L.S-L., Serajoudtin Mourtazaliev, and Dashty Babo.

Finally you are not to possess weapons as defined by s. 2 of the Criminal Code or any imitation weapons. There will also be a DNA order pursuant to s. 487.051(2) and a lifetime firearms prohibition pursuant to s. 109(3). The Victim Fine Surcharge is waived. “The Honourable Madam Justice Watchuk”