R. v. Robinson, 2013 BCSC 772

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Robinson, 2013 BCSC 772 Date: 20130415 Docket: 73380-3 Registry: Nanaimo Regina v. Christopher James Robinson Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Maisonville Oral Reasons for Sentence (Re the Accused Robinson) Counsel for the Crown: F.A. Dubenski L.M. Mascolo Counsel for the Accused Robinson: A.P. Hertzberg Place and Date of Hearing: Nanaimo, B.C. February 22, 2013 Place and Date of Judgment: Nanaimo, B.C.

April 15, 2013 [ 1 ] THE COURT: On Friday, February 22, 2013, Christopher James Robinson pleaded guilty to the second degree murder of Brittney Elsie Baird. [ 2 ] At 11:00 p.m. on May 25, 2011, Brittney Elsie Baird was killed by multiple stab wounds inflicted by Christopher Robinson. He had contacted her earlier that evening to purchase $250 worth of cocaine. Instead of that purchase occurring, he stabbed Ms. Baird, a young mother of only 22 years of age, to death. She died alone at Nob Hill Park, when Mr. Robinson fled the scene. [ 3 ] The facts surrounding this tragic event are as follows. On May 25, 2011, Mr.

Robinson was in the company of Marcus Parry and Carol Jones. The three had met earlier that day and were, in fact, captured on security video footage at the Port Place Mall at 8:40 p.m. leaving the mall on foot. The three did not have a specific plan. The plan was simply to get some alcohol and to socialize. Because none of them had identification with them to purchase the alcohol, a fourth individual was involved and a 26-ounce bottle of Royal Reserve Whiskey. That bottle was consumed while the three walked around downtown Nanaimo. [ 4 ] At some point, Mr. Robinson decided he wanted to obtain drugs.

He had obtained a contact number and a name. Ms. Baird went by the name of Missy, and she had small pieces of pink paper with her name and number written on them. There was no previous history known between Mr. Robinson and Ms. Baird, but he contacted her, and this was later confirmed by the cellphone records that were obtained from the phone company. He was one of the last individuals to call that cellphone number. [ 5 ] The decision was made to make a drug transaction in Nob Hill Park. Mr. Robinson was carrying a folding knife and, before the trio made it to the park, Mr. Robinson gave the knife to Ms.

Jones to hold on to. She put it in her purse. Mr. Robinson had told Mr. Jones that he should not have knives. Unfortunately, he later retrieved the knife. [ 6 ] Once they arrived at the park, Mr. Robinson had a discussion with Mr. Parry, asking him to procure a rock. Mr. Parry in turn told Ms. Jones that he needed to find a rock. It is believed by the police that the rock that he obtained was from a berm constructed at a house located across the street from Nob Hill Park. [ 7 ] By the time Ms. Baird approached the park, it was later in the evening, after 10:00 p.m. Mr. Parry and Ms.

Jones retreated from the location of Milford Crescent and Selby Street in the Park. It was there that the altercation between Mr. Robinson and Ms. Baird occurred. [ 8 ] Mr. Robinson had alone approached Ms. Baird. Mr. Parry and Ms. Jones did not see the assault on Ms. Baird which resulted in her death. The autopsy disclosed, however, that she sustained eight knife wounds. Ms. Baird had endeavoured to fight off her attacker. It is well known that to engage in drug trafficking is a risky and dangerous endeavour. She had, consequently, acquired a small folding knife which she used on her attacker.

Despite her efforts, she was overpowered and suffered those wounds, a number of which were life- threatening and ultimately caused her death. One knife wound was to her head, which penetrated her skull and left a remnant of the knife imbedded in her, which was later determined not to have come from her knife and, accordingly, came from the knife used by the attacker. [ 9 ] During the altercation, Ms. Baird screamed. She was heard calling, “Help me. Help me.” At 10:40 p.m., a neighbour in a high rise heard the screams, looked from his balcony, and saw figures in the park.

There was a 911 call placed and, at 10:59, the police were summoned.

[ 10 ] Simultaneously, Mr. Wilson, who at 22 years of age was the same age as Ms. Baird, was returning to a residence nearby where he was staying with a friend and his mother. He had been out playing recreational basketball and, upon exiting his vehicle, he heard, “Help me. Help me.” He immediately ran with a friend to where the noise was coming from. His companion had trained in industrial first aid. Both realized, however, that by the time they reached Ms. Baird, it was beyond the point where a first responder could assist. Mr. Wilson’s companion began to scan the park, but he saw no one. Ms.

Baird was no longer able to speak. Both of the young men saw her covered in blood and she was turned with her face down. [ 11 ] The police then arrived. The first priority in determining who the assailant was required the police to get a track on them. Regrettably, that did not occur, and a wrong path was followed. Mr. Robinson, Mr. Parry, and Ms. Jones disappeared into the night. The dog tracker used to assist in locating the assailant did locate Ms. Baird’s knife on Milford, the small access road adjacent to the park. The knife had been dropped at the scene some metres away from Ms. Baird’s body.

The knife was forensically tested and was found to contain fibres that matched the shirt that Mr. Robinson was wearing and that was later retrieved from a laundry hamper in an apartment where he had been staying. Ms. Baird had inflicted a wound to Mr. Robinson’s shoulder. [ 12 ] Within a half an hour of the attack, the three had attended an apartment at Prideaux Street, which is a short distance from where they were downtown. They had buzzed up and had been admitted. Once inside, Mr. Robinson said: “I’ve been stabbed. It was a drug deal gone bad.

Don’t call the police.” The resident of that apartment saw the fresh wound to Mr. Robinson’s shoulder which was bleeding. [ 13 ] It was an awkward situation and, within five to 10 minutes, the trio left. The resident of that apartment observed a knife drop out of Mr. Robinson’s clothing. It had been wrapped. After it fell, Mr. Parry quickly retrieved the knife and put it into a sweater and took it away. Before leaving, Ms. Jones turned her sweatshirt inside out.

She never explained why she did that. [ 14 ] The three of them then left the Prideaux apartment and went a short way to downtown and attended at an apartment of Nicole James, a residence where Mr. Robinson had been staying before the incident. He stayed there that night. Mr. Parry and Ms. Jones left. Mr. Parry escorted Ms. Jones to her residence, and they walked past the park. They saw the police there. They saw the police tape. They knew what had happened and made no attempt to identify themselves. [ 15 ] The identity of Mr. Robinson as a suspect remained unknown until the police examined Ms.

Baird’s cellphone and found his number. It showed that he had contacted her before the drug transaction. They traced the number which disclosed him to be one of the last persons contacting her. This was confirmed when surveillance established on Mr. Robinson revealed that he was using a cellphone. When he was arrested, he was found in possession of the cellphone that matched that which contacted Ms. Baird that evening. [ 16 ] Mr. Robinson remained in the community until his arrest. No one said anything to the police. In fact, it was determined that Mr.

Robinson had a plan to say that he fell on glass in order to describe how he sustained the injury that had been inflicted upon him when he struggled with Ms. Baird, who was defending her life. In fact, Mr. Robinson, after his arrest, told medical personnel that he had fallen on a knife. [ 17 ] There was an outcry from the community to the police to solve this murder as quickly as possible. There was a young victim involved. It was a neighbourhood trying to rid itself of crime. Fifty police officers became involved, and there was pressure to locate a suspect. [ 18 ] After Mr. Robinson and Mr.

Parry were arrested, it was pieced together that the identity of the female who was with them was Ms. Jones. She, too, had remained silent, but on May 29, when she was detained, she told police what had occurred and assisted in doing a video re-enactment of the events as they recalled them. She was released and became a Crown witness. [ 19 ] Following his arrest, Mr. Parry gave a series of statements initially denying knowledge of the incident. He ultimately admitted to being present, but denied direct involvement. Finally, he admitted that Mr. Robinson had asked him to get a rock.

He admitted that he knew that Mr. Robinson was going to rob Ms. Baird, but maintained his position that it was only to rob her. He also told police about disposing of the knife near the ferry terminal to Gabriola Island. He took police to the location where he disposed of the knife in downtown Nanaimo. Despite the efforts of police divers, the knife has never been located. EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE GUILTY PLEA [ 20 ] A five-day preliminary hearing was held in respect of Mr. Parry and Mr. Robinson in June 2012. There was to be a trial on February 25, 2013. Events began to unfold, however, which led to Mr.

Robinson pleading guilty to second degree murder. Mr. Robinson and Mr. Parry remained in contact when they were incarcerated. Mr. Parry discussed the matter with Mr. Robinson and urged Mr. Robinson to put in writing the fact that Mr. Parry was not involved in the planning or death of Ms. Baird. Entered into evidence was a lined piece of paper with the following written across it: February 20 2013 2 WHOM IT CONCERNS Marcus Parry did not have any involvement in a planing of a robberie or the death of britany and wasnt there wen it took place.

I acted on my own nuthin had 2 do with Marcus It is signed “Chris Robinson” [ 21 ] Additionally, the Court was told that Mr. Robinson was beginning to learn of the anguish and distress that Ms. Baird’s family was undergoing. Her parents, Ron and Shirley Baird, as well as her young son who missed his mother, and her brother, Ashley, were all suffering from anguish and grief. [ 22 ] When court was convened on Friday, February 22, 2013, Mr. Robinson pleaded guilty to second degree murder, and the Crown

entered a stay of proceedings against Mr. Parry. BritTney Baird, The Victim [ 23 ] Brittney Baird was a young woman, 22 years of age, with a 16-month-old son, Malakai, whom she loved very much. He is now three years of age. She was moving out on her own and had located an apartment which she was furnishing in an effort to bring Malakai home. He was at the time of these events being cared for by the Ministry of Social Services. She had deeply cared for Malakai, and he misses his mother terribly. vICTIM iMPACT sTATEMENTS [ 24 ] I turn now to the victim impact statements.

Her parents have each filed a victim impact statement with the Court, endeavouring to set out the indescribable to give the Court a sense of their loss. The father, Ronnie Baird, had to bury his daughter on his birthday. He is 67 years of age. He and his wife have taken over the raising of Malakai, who is now just three years of age. Mr. Baird’s health is failing and he has suffered a series of strokes. His whole world has changed since his daughter’s death. Because of his health and because of the age of their grandchild, his wife has had to quit her work. Malakai is now at daycare. [ 25 ] The death of Ms.

Baird, however, has affected everyone in their world. For example, while Malakai attends daycare, there are some days he misses, as was told to the Court by Shirley Baird in her victim impact statement. He missed family photo day, as they did not want to have photos taken until the conclusion of these court proceedings. At the daycare, Ms.

Baird states: Malakai, it appears, will ask about his mother, and he cries and says, “I want my mommy.” It is heartbreaking, and I could cry, but I have to stay strong for Malakai. [ 26 ] Both of Brittney Baird’s parents have been present in the Court for all of these proceedings. [ 27 ] The Court was told that her brother Ashley has his own difficulties with the law and with substance abuse and is trying to get his life together. Nanaimo is not a good or safe place for him, given his history.

Accordingly, he was struggling to prepare a victim impact statement knowing that he would likely be unable to attend court because coming to Nanaimo would be too difficult for him. Losing Brittney, however, the Court has learned, was to him like losing a best friend. She was his only sibling, and life events will never be the same. For example, this past Christmas was nearly unbearable for him without having Brittney to share it. He, too, has a young son, who is eight years of age. [ 28 ] Both of Ms. Baird’s parents are First Nations.

I will turn to that later in referring to the addendum to the victim impact statements. Her father comes from the Six Nations in Central Canada, and her mother is from a band which will be referred to later in these reasons with significant roots to the Vancouver Island and to the territorial lands. Their traditional territory is from the area surrounding Mount Washington. [ 29 ] Another impact statement was filed with the Court, and that was of Frances Quocksister. She is Brittney Baird’s grandmother and is suffering extreme pain from the loss of Brittney.

She cannot help but think every day of the painful way that her granddaughter died and the suffering and the fear that she went through. She prays that God will take away these thoughts because they are so painful. She resides in Campbell River, and Brittney would make the time to travel to her home and stay with her. She particularly appreciated Brittney’s company because she was a widow and very much enjoyed her visits. She is now overwhelmed with pain and sadness. [ 30 ] Mary Elizabeth Kelly filed a victim impact statement. She is the mother of Spencer Schaeffer, who is Malakai’s father. Mr.

Schaeffer is presently in custody awaiting a federal sentence. He has regrettably been in and out of jail, but attended Brittney’s memorial service while still in custody. Mary Kelly indicated that the emotional impact of Brittney’s death on herself and her immediate family has been horrific. She is unable to sleep. Her marriage has broken apart, and she is now separated. She has shut down emotionally. For a number of months, she suffered acute agoraphobia and was unable to leave her bedroom.

She was extremely distressed and underscored that Brittney did not deserve to die alone with no family at all. [ 31 ] A victim impact statement was filed from Ada-Jean Bording. She is a close friend of Ron and Shirley Baird and she knew Brittney well. Her stress in dealing with this tragedy of her friends is what she described to be the most horrific experience that she has ever encountered in her life.

She is incredibly sad for Brittney and distressed at her friends’ anguish because, in trying to cope with their stress, her friend, Ron Baird, has suffered health problems in order to cope, including starting to smoke again. As well, she is sad for Brittney’s mother. Ms. Bording suffered a major heart attack six weeks after Brittney’s murder and, while she does not blame Mr. Robinson for that, she knows the stress of the situation did not help her. [ 32 ] I turn now to the addendum to the victim impact statements.

Today, this Court was provided with the addendum to the victim impact statement to address in part the questions that the Court had raised respecting the Aboriginal heritage of the victim and her family. It is a report that the Crown sought to enter as an exhibit, and that has been done so pursuant to the provisions of s. 723(2) of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, and s. 726.1 , which directs the Court to consider any relevant information of the Court. The victim was a member of a the Ligwithdaxw Band of Campbell River.

Brittney Baird’s grandfather was a hereditary chief, Joseph Bruce Quocksister, and it is part of the larger Kwakiutl Nation. [ 33 ] The report author discloses that as a youngster, Brittney was a naval cadet, in addition to having other hobbies such as dance, ballet, and crochet, and she had helped with her family’s catering business. She prepared and tried to organize the best for Malakai’s first years upon learning of her pregnancy. [ 34 ] Brittney Baird’s father, as noted, is a status member of the Bearfoot Onondaga Six Nations in Ontario. Her mother, as noted, is as well.

I turn to that report and refer to a portion of it.

Section 2, “Response to the Gladue Report and Response to the Victim Impact

Statements”. The author of the report discussing her meeting with Bairds writes: During the initial stage of our first meeting, Mrs. Baird was quick to state that the Baird family were upset a Gladue Report was ordered to assist with sentencing. Mrs. Baird explained that at the time the report was ordered, it was extremely upsetting that [the] offender . . . would have the benefit of a Gladue Report, but that no similar consideration would be given to Brittany. ... In some cases, First Nation people cannot see themselves reflected in the Justice system; this can feel like Injustice.

While a Gladue report explores the life of the offender, the Bairds expressed concern that the guidelines for the writing of victim impact statements are confining. The Baird’s appreciate the fact that we have been able to expand on their initial victim impact statements however it is not their wish to produce a document that re-iterates their pain. Instead they opted to take the opportunity to shed some light into a very dark situation. The Gladue Report indicates potential for restorative practices to take place. , Mr. and Mrs. Baird declined the prospect.

They each expressed feelings that there is no restorative measure that would begin to fulfill their needs as they continue to absorb their sorrow after the murder of their daughter while trying to accommodate the needs of their grandson. Mr. and Mrs. Baird struggle with the fact that during the course of many days whether shopping (or other) they regularly find themselves in the same area as the female originally co- accused in this file. They state that this, combined with the knowledge that Mr.

Robinson and his two associates left the park while their daughter was screaming for help, is unbearable to them. [ 35 ] I accept this and other statements in the report. [ 36 ] The victim was a member of the Campbell River band that I have noted earlier. The report also discloses, in addition to Brittney’s gifts as a youngster, some of the reasons why there was the cross of paths of Mr. Robinson and Ms. Baird, and the Court is mindful of that.

I have read and carefully considered the comments attributed to the Bairds, and they are to be commended for assisting the Court in a better understanding of their daughter’s circumstances and Malakai’s circumstances, in particular. In respect of Malakai’s circumstances, the addendum author notes: Mrs. Baird speaks of a time when Malakai’s daycare called stating they were planning a trip to Nob Hill to play. They were concerned the Bairds may have concerns about this. Mrs. Baird let them know that Malakai loves Nob Hill Park and has a positive connection to it.

The Baird family made Nob Hill Park a fun place for Malakai. Specifically, on the first anniversary of Brittany’s death, family and friends went to the park and released balloons with messages written on them up to sky. Afterwards everyone played with Malakai and he fully enjoyed himself. Earlier, she had written: Malakai Baird was born in Nanaimo on January 19, 2010. Mr. and Mrs. Baird describe Malakai as a happy little boy; cheery. He attends day care, loves to play with his toy cars and loves to snuggle with his grandparents. Malakai carries his favourite blanket with him everywhere he goes.

Malakai knows the blanket came from his mommy. When Malakai asks about Brittany, the Bairds tell him that she is an angel in heaven watching over him. [There] are many photographs of Brittany on the living room mantle so that Malakai can always see his mommy. In the centre of the mantle is an inlayed wooden chest containing Brittany’s ashes.

When Malakai is old enough to understand, the Bairds will explain this to him. [ 37 ] I acknowledge the Bairds’ deep pain, and their loss is one which they must continue to endure, and I find that the addendum to the victim impact statements was of great assistance in bringing the Court to this understanding. The Parties’ Submissions [ 38 ] Both parties, Crown counsel Mr. Dubenski and defence counsel Mr. Hertzberg, acknowledge that the sentence for second degree murder which must be imposed by the Court is a life sentence pursuant to s. 235 of the Criminal Code of Canada. It is further agreed that Mr.

Robinson had the requisite mens rea , guilty mind, and that he committed the act resulting in Brittney Baird’s death. The only issue before the Court is the period for which Mr. Robinson would be eligible to apply for parole. [ 39 ]

Section 745 of the Criminal Code provides: 745 Subject to

section 745.1, the sentence to be pronounced against a person who is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life shall be (

c) in respect of a person who has been convicted of second degree murder, that the person be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility for parole until the person has served at least ten years of the sentence or such greater number of years, not being more than twenty-five years, as has been substituted therefor pursuant to

section 745.4; [ 40 ] The issue, accordingly, in plain English, is the period of parole eligibility to be considered for Mr. Robinson. Both Mr. Dubenski for the Crown and Mr. Hertzberg for Mr. Robinson concur that in the circumstances before the case at bar, a 10-year period before Mr. Robinson can apply for parole is the appropriate measure for this Court. The Crown, Mr. Dubenski, submits that the sentence appropriate in the circumstances is that of the life sentence.

He noted that there is no other provision for a sentence for second degree murder and that while there can be an application brought for parole at the time period within the provisions of the Criminal Code can be as early as 10 years, that that is absolutely no guarantee that the parole will be granted. [ 41 ] Crown counsel also submitted that this Court must be mindful of Mr. Robinson’s Aboriginal heritage and the case of Ipeelee was put before the Court. Mitigating and Aggravating Factors

[42] The mitigating factors and the aggravating factors must, as well, be considered. Those were submitted by the Crown to beMr. Robinson’s youth and include the guilty plea. A guilty plea, and particularly to second degree murder, is a significant mitigatingfactor in the submission of both the Crown and the defence. It is an expression of remorse, and it relieved many people of the painfulexperience of testifying at a second degree murder jury trial. [43] It must be remembered that Mr. Robinson has pleaded guilty to second degree murder and that irrespective of whether thisCourt orders that Mr.

Robinson may be permitted to apply for parole after a decade, that the sentence he faces is that of a life sentence. [44] Crown counsel, Mr. Dubenski, also noted photographs which were taken of Mr. Robinson which show injuries he sustainedwhen Ms. Baird attempted - that were taken in order to show the injuries he sustained during the altercation before Ms. Baird’s death,also display that he has old scarring from self-mutilation. As well, Crown counsel noted that Mr. Robinson is suffering frominstitutionalization.

He has no life in the community, and he preferred jail as he got “three squares a day, cable TV, and comfortableclothes, and he knows everybody.” He did not believe that he could stay out of difficulties for any length of time. He suffers fromaddiction issues and has problems with alcohol and both prescription and street drugs. [45] Mr. Robinson’s mother was to be a witness in the trial, and she indicated to Crown counsel that Mr. Robinson had contacted hera week before the murder to say he had fallen off the wagon. She took that to mean he was back to using drugs. Crown counsel wasalso aware that Mr.

Robinson takes Seroquel which is a potent tranquilizer. Mr. Robinson reports seeing and hearing things onoccasion. However, it is not such that he is suffering a mental disorder that would render him not criminally responsible for the murder. [46] The aggravating factors noted by Mr. Dubenski were that this offence was committed while pursuing other criminal activities,i.e., buying drugs and in the course of a robbery, and that there was disregard for life and there is entrenched antisocial behaviour. Crown counsel put into evidence Mr. Robinson’s criminal convictions. His criminal record begins with a

section standing alone fromNovember 2000 for a period of theft-under - for the offence of theft-under. As a young offender, he has 29 separate convictionsspanning a period between 2000 and 2004, for which he received both open custody and probation. The vast majority of his offenceswere for failing to comply with court orders and property-related crimes. In 2004, there were two offences of violence which appear tostem from one incident.

Commencing in 2005, however, when he was only 18 years of age, his adult record began and, as an adultoffender, he has a record already of 30 offences spanning the period of 2005 to 2011 when he was sentenced on January 12, 2011, in PortAlberni for breaches of probation and failing to appear. He was released from custody in March of 2011. [47] Mr. Robinson is still young. He was born in September of 1986 and is 26 years of age. He has expressed remorse. This isdemonstrated in the guilty plea and on his behalf in the submissions that Mr.

Hertzberg made to the Court respecting certain informationthat had come to Mr. Robinson in respect of the Baird family which were integral to Mr. Robinson’s decision to change his plea to that ofguilty. I accept those expressions of remorse. However, it must be borne in mind that nothing he can say will address the fact thatBrittney is gone from her family forever and that her little boy will have to live with that loss for the rest of his life. [48] Mr. Robinson is to be sentenced, as well, bearing in mind his Aboriginal ancestry.

In that regard, the Crown submitted thereshould be a focus on restorative justice, but in the context of a homicide, it is difficult to assess what that means. I accept thatsubmission. There is no practical template. The Circumstances of Mr. Robinson – Aboriginal Background and Gladue Report [49] Mr. Robinson has spent much of his adult life incarcerated. He had been considered for a prolific offender program which wasgoing to be a pilot project.

He was to report for that on May 26, the day after the murder, to be assessed for implementation into thecorrectional system. [50] I have reviewed a correctional report in which Mr. Robinson had been interviewed at length. The report has taken into accounta number of factors surrounding Mr. Robinson’s Aboriginal heritage which the Court must consider in accordance with the case of R. v.Gladue, (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688, of the Supreme Court of Canada. Mr. Robinson is a member of the Huu’Ay-ahtFirst Nation, whose traditional territory is the Bamfield/Pachena area of the west coast of Vancouver Island.

The author of the pre-sentence report with the Gladue component wrote that Mr. Robinson has no recollection of ever living on the traditional band lands, buthe has travelled to functions at that location and for visits. He states that in his pre-adolescent years, they were largely spent in the PortAlberni and Port Hardy areas. His mother, Karen Robinson, was involved in a common law relationship with a Delaney Walkus forseveral years, and the family lived in Port Hardy during those years. While living on North Vancouver Island, Mr. Robinson wasexposed to and participated in Mr.

Walkus’ culture, the Gwa’Sala-’Nakwaxda’xw First Nation. Mr. Robinson states that his identity hasbeen influenced more by the traditions and culture of his common-law stepfather than with people of his own band’s tradition. [51] While living in Port Hardy, Mr. Robinson learned some traditional artwork from his stepfather, and he continues to think ofMr. Walkus as his primary father figure in his life. He states that he also participated in the potlatches and dances. Mr. Robinson hasbeen inspired by the masks and artwork of the Northern Island community.

As a child, he attended First Nations elementary schools inPort Alberni and Port Hardy. He told the author of the pre-sentence report that he did not learn the traditional languages because oflearning disabilities that he has, but he has been exposed to fluent speakers of the languages. He does not have any recollection of thetraditional histories or legends of his people. He states that he reads his band’s newspaper.

He is aware of the members of the band’scouncil and follows the news of the treaty process. [52] During his early years, he lived with his maternal grandparents, Gordon Robinson and Doreen Clack, as well, in Port Alberni. Both of his maternal grandparents were survivors of residential schools. As a result of their forced attendance in the Port Alberniresidential school, there were ongoing issues, writes the report preparer, that had impact on children and grandchildren. Mr.

Robinsondescribed to the author of the report the grandparents as being alcoholic and noted how this misuse of intoxicants continued into the nextgeneration. His mother has evidently struggled with alcohol and cocaine addictions for as long as Mr. Robinson can remember.

[53] He ceased attending high school in his early teens and transferred to the general public high school system. He could notcontinue, however, and dropped out of school. He attributes this, as well, and in part to his then undiagnosed learning disorders. It wasat this time that he began to commit offences. [54] The author of the report, and noted as well in the submissions to the Court by his counsel, is that Mr.

Robinson has had nocontact when he is out in the community with the Aboriginal elders. [55] Additionally outlined in the report were the programs available to Aboriginal offenders which will be available to Mr. Robinsonin incarceration so that if he is ever released from incarceration by the parole board that he will have undergone a significanttransformation and significant rehabilitation. His successful completion of these or like available modalities would seem to this Court tobe absolutely necessary if he is ever to make an application to the parole board.

Legal Principles [56] The Criminal Code dictates court pronouncing sentence must consider the following factors. Respecting the purpose andprinciples of sentencing, the most important are those captured by s. 718 of the Criminal Code as set out by Parliament as follows: The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and themaintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (

a) to denounce unlawful conduct; (

b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (

c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (

d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (

e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (

f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community. [57] Additionally, a principle of parity is important. What that means is that a sentence should be similar to other sentences imposedon similar offenders for similar offences committed in like circumstances. [58] As well, a court must consider the personal circumstances of Mr. Robinson. [59] Additionally, in the Criminal Code, s. 718.2(

a) requires this Court to consider any relevant aggravating or mitigatingcircumstances relating to the offender and the offence. I have reviewed some of those that have been particularly outlined to the Court. [60]

Section 718.2(

e) of the Criminal Code directs that all available sanctions must be considered and the appropriate passage of thatsection to this Court is “with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.” [61] I was also referred to case authority, notably, the R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13 , [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433, decision to which Ihave referred, which revisits the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Gladue. In Ipeelee, Mr. Justice LeBel stated, for the majority ofthe Court: [59] ... When sentencing an Aboriginal offender, a judge must consider the factors outlined in R. v. Gladue, (SCC),[1999] 1 S.C.R. 688: (

a) the unique systemic or background factors which may have played a

part in bringing the particular Aboriginaloffender before the courts; and (

b) the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances forthe offender because of his or her particular Aboriginal heritage or connection (Gladue at para. 37).

Judges may take judicial notice ofthe broad systemic and background factors affecting Aboriginal people generally, but additional case-specific information will have tocome from counsel and from the pre-sentence report [62] I pause to note that I have received that information from both counsel and am thankful for those submissions and the additionaladdendum and to the author of the pre-sentence report and Gladue report and to the Aboriginal Justice Consultant for that additionalinformation. Returning to Mr.

Justice LeBel’s judgment in Ipeelee, he states at paragraph 60: Courts have, at times, been hesitant to take judicial notice of the systemic and background factors affecting Aboriginal people inCanadian society … To be clear, courts must take judicial notice of such matters as the history of colonialism, displacement, andresidential schools and how that history continues to translate into lower educational attainment, lower incomes, higher unemployment,higher rates of substance abuse and suicide, and of course higher levels of incarceration for Aboriginal peoples.

These matters, on theirown, do not necessarily justify a different sentence for Aboriginal offenders. Rather, they provide the necessary context forunderstanding and evaluating the case-specific information presented by counsel. Counsel have a duty to bring that individualizedinformation before the court in every case, unless the offender expressly waives his right to have it considered. In current practice, itappears that case-specific information is often brought before the court by way of a Gladue report, which is a form of pre-sentence reporttailored to the specific circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.

Bringing such information to the attention of the judge in acomprehensive and timely manner is helpful to all parties at a sentencing hearing for an Aboriginal offender, as it is indispensable to ajudge in fulfilling his duties under s. 718.2(

e) of the Criminal Code. [63] This Court was additionally referred to the addendum, and I would add that I have found it of great assistance to have thatprepared by the Aboriginal Justice Consultant.

[ 64 ] I was also referred to a number of decisions of this Court, of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, in which the eligibility period for the period within which the offender can apply for parole was considered. In particular, this Court was referred to R. v. Lincoln , 2009 BCSC 1181 , for which the period for which the offender was considered eligible for parole was discussed by Mr. Justice Truscott, who held that a period of 10 years was appropriate in the circumstances. In the one case, in the difficult circumstances before Trustcott J., was an Aboriginal woman who had killed her child.

The Crown sought a parole ineligibility period of 15 to 20 years. The Court considered her Aboriginal heritage, along with the factor of remorse, in arriving in its decision that a 10-year period of parole ineligibility was appropriate in the circumstances. [ 65 ] As well, the decision of R. v. Menard , 2010 BCSC 1456 , was provided to the Court.

In those circumstances, both Crown and defence had agreed that a 10-year ineligibility period for the ability to apply for parole was appropriate and that was so ordered by the Court in the case involving a second degree murder. [ 66 ] I have carefully considered all of the reports filed, the submissions in this case. I am mindful, again, of the reports and the victim impact statements. I am also mindful of the pain that the Bairds endure and will continue to endure. I am mindful of the circumstances of Mr. Robinson, as well as of his youth and of the guilty plea.

I must also bear in mind that both Crown and defence, senior and experienced counsel, come to the Court both submitting a 10-year ineligibility for parole is appropriate in these circumstances. I must bear in mind and accord that submission considerable weight. [ 67 ] Mr. Robinson, will you please stand? [ 68 ] I sentence you to a term of imprisonment for life. [ 69 ] There is to be no eligibility for parole until you have served at least 10 years of your sentence. [ 70 ] There are to be, as well, ancillary orders.

Pursuant to the provisions of s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code , I order that there be taken samples of your bodily substance for the purposes of forensic DNA analysis. [ 71 ] I also order pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code that you are prohibited for life from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, and explosive substances. ____________ “Maisonville J.” _____________ Maisonville J.