R. v. Panrucker, 2013 BCSC 2529

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Panrucker, 2013 BCSC 2529 Date: 20131217 Docket: 29027-4 Registry: Fort St. John Regina v. Dean Carson Panrucker Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Gray Oral Reasons for Sentence Counsel for Crown: J. Whyte Counsel for Defence: J.M. Duncan Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: Fort St. John, B.C. December 17, 2012 Place and Date of Judgment: Fort St. John, B.C. December 17, 2013 [ 1 ] THE COURT: I am satisfied by the joint submission, and I will sentence Mr. Panrucker on the basis of the joint submission.

Because it is such an unusually low sentence for these crimes, I am going to take the time to read reasons for sentence. [ 2 ] Mr. Panrucker entered guilty pleas to four offences. They are Counts 1, 14, and 15 as they appear in the indictment, and for Count 13, a lesser included offence. The offences to which Mr. Panrucker entered a guilty plea are as follows: Count 1 Dean Carson PANRUCKER, on or about the 29th day of August, 2009, at or near the City of Fort St.

John, in the Province of British Columbia, did unlawfully possess a controlled substance, to wit: COCAINE (Benzoylmethylecgonine), for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to Section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. ... Count 13 Dean Carson PANRUCKER, on or about the 21st day of October, 2009, at or near the City of Fort St. John, in the Province of British Columbia, did unlawfully possess a controlled substance, to wit: COCAINE (Benzoylmethylecgonine), contrary to Section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Count 14 Dean Carson PANRUCKER, on or about the 21st day of October, 2009, at or near the City of Fort St. John, in the Province of British Columbia, did wilfully obstruct a peace officer, Constable Smith, in the execution of that peace officer's duty, contrary to

Section 129 (

a) of the Criminal Code . Count 15 Dean Carson PANRUCKER, on or about the 22nd day of December, 2009, at or near the City of Fort St. John, in the Province of British Columbia, did unlawfully possess a controlled substance, to wit: COCAINE (Benzoylmethylecgonine), for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to Section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. [ 3 ] The circumstances of the offences are that the police executed search warrants and found cocaine in the residence occupied by Mr. Panrucker and, in one case, very close to him personally.

The amount found on August 29, 2009, was 61 grams of cocaine, and the amount on December 22, 2009, was 7.1 grams of cocaine. [ 4 ] The most important factor for this sentencing is the circumstances of the offender, Mr. Panrucker. Essentially, Mr. Panrucker went on a disastrous path which led to drug trafficking. It began with his use of cocaine, and it progressed to the period of drug trafficking, with these offences being committed in the fall of 2009. That is about four years ago. Mr.

Panrucker was prepared to enter guilty pleas earlier, and there was some difficulty which I will simply describe as confusion between the various registries of the court and with counsel. I do not blame Mr. Panrucker, but it took a long time before a guilty plea was entered. The guilty pleas were not entered until September of 2013, but Mr. Panrucker had indicated earlier a willingness to plead guilty.

[ 5 ] Mr. Panrucker does not have a criminal record. Following the second arrest, which I assume was for the December 22, 2009 charge in particular, he spent five months in prison. He obtained bail following that period of imprisonment, and the bail was on quite onerous terms. It included a curfew, and it included things such as that he had to be transported by his parents to work. [ 6 ] Mr. Panrucker has essentially turned his life around. During his time in jail, he recognized what a bad path he was taking and what he had lost.

He had lost his relationship with his family, and he had lost his career. [ 7 ] Since his time in jail, Mr. Panrucker has made a significant change, and I am satisfied he has become entirely rehabilitated. He has reunited with his wife. She has taken the position that she will not be with him if he is using drugs, and they are now reunited. [ 8 ] Mr. Panrucker was disengaged from his children and other extended family members during his criminal period. He has also turned that around, and he has now restored his relationship with all the family members I have been told about. Mr.

Panrucker’s son also spent a few years living with him, until the son moved to Vancouver, which was always his plan. [ 9 ] So on the family side, Mr. Panrucker essentially lost his family during his criminal period. He has satisfied them that he should be back in the family with them, that he is the man that they thought he was, that he has returned to being a man with direction and plans, and that he is staying away from the drug-trafficking lifestyle. [ 10 ] On the work front, Mr. Panrucker has also made significant strides. He has been employed.

During the early period of his release from jail, he did a number of things, including odd jobs for people. He was determined to work. He has now become an electrical apprentice. He is a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and has been working from a call list. He intends to return to college next month, in January 2014, and complete the coursework which I assume is necessary to become a journeyman electrician. [ 11 ] I will now turn to the law and the principles of sentencing. [ 12 ] I will first refer to the requirements for the conditional sentence.

I have not said this yet, but the joint submission is for a conditional sentence of 18 months on terms, followed immediately by six months of probation on the same terms, and those terms include a curfew. I will deal with the terms later. [ 13 ]

Section 742.1 of the Code lists the four criteria that a judge must consider before imposing a conditional sentence. First, the offence must not carry a minimum term of imprisonment. At the time that these offences were committed, there was not a minimum term of imprisonment for any of them. [ 14 ] Second, the court must impose a term of imprisonment of less than two years. As I have said, the conditional sentence which is the subject of the joint submission is for 18 months. [ 15 ] Third, the safety of the community must not be endangered by the offender serving his sentence in the community.

I am satisfied that the safety of the community will not be endangered by Mr. Panrucker serving his sentence in the community. That has been demonstrated by the period of over three years that Mr. Panrucker has been in the community on bail under quite strict bail conditions. There has been no suggestion that he has defied the bail conditions or resumed a criminal lifestyle in any way. [ 16 ] Fourth, a conditional sentence must be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

I will say something about those principles now. [ 17 ] 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. That is reflected in s. 718 of the Criminal Code , and I will make reference to the objectives in that sentence after I discuss the other sentencing principles. [ 18 ] First, proportionality. It is a fundamental principle of sentencing that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the crime and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

This is reflected in s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code . [ 19 ] This is a case where the crimes were serious ones. They involved trafficking in cocaine. Mr. Panrucker himself fell from using cocaine into a more serious criminal lifestyle of trafficking. Trafficking in cocaine hurts not only Mr. Panrucker and his family and friends, but also anyone who was supplied with the drug which would potentially feed their addiction and lead them to fall into the kind of serious problems that we often see and that include what has occurred for Mr. Panrucker.

So these four offences are serious offences. [ 20 ] I turn to aggravating and mitigating circumstances. [ 21 ]

Section 718.2 (

a) of the Criminal Code provides that a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances. I have not been told anything about aggravating circumstances. In terms of mitigating circumstances, as I have said, these are Mr. Panrucker's first convictions, and in addition, he entered a guilty plea. While it was not entered in the court records until 2013, he was prepared to enter it earlier. Mr. Panrucker spoke in court today. He expressed his remorse for his crimes, and he apologized to his family for what he did during the period leading to the offences. [ 22 ] I turn to similarity.

Section 718.2 (

b) of the Criminal Code provides that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. This is one of the most troubling aspects of the joint submission. Most people who are convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking find themselves in jail, and for more than two years.

However, Crown has provided me with a number of authorities and defence with another which illustrate that in certain circumstances, when an offender has rehabilitated himself and turned his life around, it can be appropriate for him to serve a sentence in the community, which is known as a conditional sentence. [ 23 ] I will not take the time to read much from the cases, but I will refer to R. v. Kreutziger , 2005 BCCA 231 . That was a case where a 39-year-old offender, who was found guilty of possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking, was ordered to serve a conditional

sentence. [ 24 ] It is also discussed by the Court of Appeal in R. v. Nesbitt , 2012 BCCA 243 . I will read a few paragraphs from this case. In Nesbitt , the majority decision rendered by Mr. Justice Chiasson includes this at para. 30. He wrote: [30] …The offender committed a serious crime that usually would attract a significant period of incarceration, but by the time of sentencing the offender was rehabilitated. He had no previous criminal record and was involved in criminal activity associated with the crime for which he was charged for a relatively short time.

He was incarcerated for 51 days before making bail, most of which time was spent in protective custody, that is, in isolation. [ 25 ] In para. 33, Mr. Justice Chiasson wrote: [33] While the usual range of sentences for this type of crime involves penitentiary time, ranges are not absolute. Absent a legislated minimum, sentences are to be judged solely on the basis of whether they are fit. Although heavily influenced by the usual range, the exercise is not circumscribed by this factor. [ 26 ] I will also read from the concurring reasons of Madam Justice Levine.

At para. 36, she wrote: [36] The only justification for the sentence of two years less a day to be served as a conditional sentence in the community is the full rehabilitation of the respondent during the six years that elapsed between the date of the offence and sentencing. The clear weight of the authorities is that a penitentiary sentence was called for in order to properly emphasize the importance of the principles of denunciation and general deterrence in sentencing for this serious drug offence. [ 27 ] And I will also read from para. 43 of Madam Justice Levine's reasons.

She referred to the Kreutziger case and wrote this: It seems to me that as time passes after an offence is committed, the denunciatory and deterrent impact of an individual sentence on the community recedes, and the outcome of the intercession of the justice system on the individual offender takes on primary importance.

Where, as here, an offender has, over a period of time after committing an offence, become a fully rehabilitated, productive member of society, sending that person to jail seems, as was said in Kreutziger , counterproductive. [ 28 ] I will simply refer to one more case, and that is the decision of R. v.

Bears and Raccio , 2013 BCSC 478 . [ 29 ] So those are some cases relating to this issue of similarity. [ 30 ] The joint submission is similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders who fully rehabilitated themselves, particularly when there was a lengthy period of time following the offence and before sentencing. [ 31 ]

Section 718.2(

e) provides that all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders. [ 32 ] I will not read out s. 718 of the Criminal Code .

It sets out objectives of sentencing, including denouncing unlawful conduct, deterring the offender and others from committing offences, separating offenders from society where necessary, assisting in rehabilitating offenders, providing reparation for harm done to victims or the community, and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community. [ 33 ] There are three related corollary orders. I did not hear any submissions from defence about them. They are the lifetime firearms prohibition, the DNA order, and forfeiture of the exhibits.

I will refer to those as well. [ 34 ] I ask that you stand, Mr. Panrucker, and I will say the sentence. [ 35 ] I am very impressed that you have turned your life around so completely. I am sure the five months in jail is something you will not forget. I am glad if the jail time caused you to recognize the error of your criminal ways and encourage you to rehabilitate yourself as you have. [ 36 ] I am going to impose on you a conditional sentence of imprisonment. It is to be served in the community, for 18 months, with six further months of probation on the same terms. [ 37 ] There are statutory terms.

You will be provided with all of the terms, but I will summarize them. [ 38 ] You are to report to the supervisor as and when directed. I know you work out of town sometimes, and so I ask that this term specifically say the reporting can be done by telephone. [ 39 ] You are to provide your address to the supervisor and not change it without written permission. [ 40 ] You are not to be found within the boundaries of Fort St.

John at all during the period of the conditional sentence and of probation. [ 41 ] You are to honour a curfew; that is, to be at home from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. seven days a week, except with the agreement of the supervisor of the conditional sentence or the probation officer as appropriate, or in the company of the family members as has been set out in the prior bail terms. [ 42 ] You are also to present yourself to the door and answer the phone personally and immediately during the periods of the curfew. [ 43 ] Another term is to abstain absolutely from consumption of alcoholic beverages and non-prescription drugs.

[ 44 ] I also make the lifetime firearm prohibition. You are prohibited for life from possession of the items listed in the Criminal Code at s. 109(2) (a), which consist of any firearm, other than a prohibited firearm or a restricted firearm, and any crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition, and explosive substance. [ 45 ] I am also making a DNA order, and it is pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code . You must supply a DNA sample. [ 46 ] I am making the further order that there will be a forfeiture of all the exhibits which were seized by the police in execution of the two search warrants. [ 47 ] Mr.

Panrucker, you have demonstrated that you can maintain a criminal-free, drug-free life, and I am trusting that you will carry on and to do that in the future. I am impressed with what you have done. I know it has been difficult to have this hang over your head for so many years, but the result is, you have turned your life around, and I wish you good luck in your new education program and with your reunited family. [ 48 ] You can sit down. [ 49 ] Is there anything else, Counsel? [ 50 ] MR. WHYTE: My Lady, I don't think so. My friend and -- or I will have to draw up the appropriate order for forfeiture.

I will agree to do that. That will be forthcoming. [ 51 ] MR. DUNCAN: Could my signature be dispensed with, actually, on the order? [ 52 ] THE COURT: I beg your pardon? [ 53 ] MR. DUNCAN: Could my signature be dispensed with on the order for forfeiture? [ 54 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 55 ] MR. WHYTE: I have no objection to that. [ 56 ] THE COURT: All right. Yes. Thank you. Is there anything else? [ 57 ] MR. DUNCAN: Nothing. [ 58 ] THE COURT: All right. [ 59 ] MR. WHYTE: No, My Lady. “Gray J.”