R. v. Metcalfe, 2023 BCSC 1728

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Metcalfe, 2023 BCSC 1728 Date: 20230829 Docket: 96323-2 Registry: Kelowna Rex v. Alan Stuart Metcalfe Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Wilson Oral Reasons for Sentence Counsel for the Crown: D. Reznikov Counsel for the Defence: W. Jenson Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: Kelowna, B.C. August 29, 2023 Place and Date of Judgment: Kelowna, B.C. August 29, 2023 [ 1 ] THE COURT: This is my decision. [ 2 ] Mr. Metcalfe pleaded guilty to one count of robbery pursuant to s. 344(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code . The circumstances of the offence were outlined by the Crown and conceded on behalf of the accused. Circumstances [ 3 ] The circumstances are these. On or about July 31 of 2020, the accused, Mr. Metcalfe, entered the Royal Bank on Pandosy Street. He had a handgun which he pointed in the direction of employees and advised, "This is not a drill." He was wearing a mask, sunglasses and a hoodie. He with his arm outstretched and weapon in hand told the employees he did not want to hurt them but just wanted the money.

At the time of the robbery there were 13 other people in the bank, eight employees and five customers. He directed employees to the safe and a drawer was opened, the first one containing coins and the second with cash. [ 4 ] After approximately three minutes, Mr. Metcalfe fled with the police sirens sounding. In hand he had a bag which contained $42,980 Canadian and $603 U.S. As I said before, the whole process took approximately three minutes. He fled on foot, running through various properties, discarding cap, pants, gloves and ultimately the cash, which was returned to the bank.

Seized by the RCMP were a bag -- the bag with the cash, a hoodie and a mask, and a subsequent DNA match confirmed that Mr. Metcalfe was the suspect. Victims [ 5 ] The victims in this case are of course the 13 people who were in the bank. Although there are no victim impact statements, there can be absolutely no doubt that this would have been a terrifying event for the employees and the customers alike, all of whom were simply minding their own business. Accused [ 6 ] The circumstances of Mr. Metcalfe was summarized by his counsel.

He is currently 26 years of age, was born and raised in Kelowna, and is the middle of three boys. His father is in court to support him today. [ 7 ] Subsequent to these charges, Mr. Metcalfe has been involved in various employment, but in the fall of 2021 he started to pursue a career in plumbing. He attended at Okanagan College, starting with the Level 1 apprenticeship program and has now completed Level 3, therefore leaving him only one year to go.

On two previous occasions when this sentencing was adjourned, he had previously resigned from employment and sought to be reinstated when the sentencing was adjourned. The fact that his employer was willing to reinstate can only be seen as a good sign. [ 8 ] Since the events here, he advises he has turned himself around. There were depression and anger issues identified but he has sought professional counselling since January of 2022 and continues to have family support. His mental health issues affected his

criminal behaviour, and he read a letter to the court summarizing his circumstances and his confidence that this will not occur again. Positions of the parties [9] This is a joint sentence submission. Both Crown and defence seek a four-year sentence plus a couple of mandatory ancillaryorders. Aggravating and mitigating circumstances [10] In terms of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in this case, starting with the mitigating circumstances, we have a guiltyplea such that 36 witnesses in a 10-day trial that was avoided.

I am told that although there has been some time since the underlyingevents, no witnesses ever had to testify. [11] Mr. Metcalfe has taken certain steps to rehabilitate himself since, as I have already indicated. Next, he is relatively young. Hewas only 23 at the time of this offence and he is only 26 years of age now. [12] In terms of the aggravating circumstances, the most significant one clearly in this case is Mr. Metcalfe's criminal record. Hiscriminal record includes other very similar offences.

There was a youth offence of breaking and entering a dwelling house and a robbery,and subsequently two robberies as an adult. [13] The next aggravating factor is of course this would have been a terrifying event for those other people who were simply goingabout their daily events in the bank. Third, this was clearly a planned and deliberate robbery. He was wearing medical gloves and a maskand carrying an imitation firearm. This was not a spontaneous matter.

Principles of sentencing [14] The principles of sentencing that apply in cases such as this are denunciation and deterrence but also separation from thecommunity. These are very serious matters and it is apparent from the case law that a penitentiary term is required. Discussion [15] I have reviewed the authorities provided by the Crown in support of this joint submission. They include R. v. Bezdan, 2001BCCA 215; R. v. Davidson, 2009 BCCA 485; R. v. Evanson, 2009 BCCA 425; and R. v. Dionne, 2004 BCCA 275.

I am satisfied that thecircumstances here for this offender and this offence that the proposed sentence falls within the range as set out in those cases. [16] In this case, the weapon was brandished, which was perhaps slightly more aggravating than the circumstances in those othercases. However, we have a man with family support who is still young enough to turn his life around. It appears from what I have beenprovided and what I have heard that he has made a good start to that with lots of progress. The fact that he has an employer who waswilling to rehire him on a couple of occasions is a good sign. [17] Mr.

Metcalfe tells me that he is not the same person who committed this offence on July 31, 2020. I hope that is true; obviously,that is a question that ultimately is only answered over time. However, the steps taken to date provide good reason for optimism and thesupports that Mr. Metcalfe has leads me to hope and believe that there is a very good chance that this will be the last time the courts needto see Mr. Metcalfe. [18] In the circumstances I am prepared to accept the joint submission.

The test on a joint submission is whether the proposedsentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest; R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 , [2016] S.C.J. No. 43. I am satisfied that the proposed sentence should be approved and there is no reasonto require a different sentence in these circumstances. [19] So, Mr.

Metcalfe, if you could please stand. [20] I sentence you to four years’ imprisonment, a lifetime firearms ban pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code, and a mandatoryDNA order under s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code. [21] That concludes my decision. [22] CNSL D. REZNIKOV: Thank you, Justice. The Crown directs a stay of proceedings on Counts 2, 3 and 4. [23] THE COURT: All right. [24] CNSL W. JENSON: Thank you, Justice. [25] THE COURT: Thank you. “Wilson J.”