R. v. Kippomee, 2018 NUCJ 8

Nunavunmi Maligaliuqtiit NUNAVUT COURT OF JUSTICE Cour de justice du Nunavut Citation: R. v. Kippomee, 2018 NUCJ 8 Date: 20180405 Docket: 11-17-167 Registry: Pond Inlet Crown: Her Majesty the Queen -and- Accused: Lanny Kippomee ________________________________________________________________________ Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Paul Bychok Counsel (Crown): George Dolhai Counsel (Accused): Sara Siebert Location Heard: Pond Inlet, Nunavut Date Heard: March 27, 2018 Matters: Sentencing; joint submissions; R v Anthony-Cook . REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Delivered Orally) (NOTE: This document may have been edited for publication)

I. BACKGROUND [ 1 ] The offender, Lanny Kippomee, was charged with break and enter with intent to commit a criminal offence, breach of probation, and possession of stolen property after an incident in Pond Inlet on December 8, 2017. The Crown elected to proceed summarily. The offender pled guilty to the break and enter and breach of probation charges on January 11, 2018. The Crown invoked section 579(1) of the Criminal Code and directed the Court to enter a stay of proceedings on the third charge. [1] [ 2 ] During the sentence hearing that morning, the parties presented the Court with a joint submission.

I expressed concern that the joint submission did not properly address the facts of the case, nor the relevant sentencing principles. In my view, the joint submission was too lenient and outside the range of an appropriate sentence. I adjourned the case to give the lawyers a chance to expand on and justify their submission. That afternoon, the lawyers addressed the Court again. The Crown prosecutor, George Dolhai, and the Defence Counsel, Sara Siebert, maintained their joint submission.

They did not provide the Court with any case law justifying their proposed departure from the appropriate sentencing range. [ 3 ] I adjourned to reflect on the case until the next Pond Inlet circuit. These are my reasons for decision. II. THE FACTS [ 4 ] Around 7:45 a.m. on December 8, 2017 Mr. Joe Krimmerdjular arrived for work at the local Co-op store. He discovered shortly after that someone had gone into his office and had unlocked his desk drawers. Mr. Krimmerdjular then went to the back door of the store to see what he might find as he suspected a break-in.

He discovered the offender hiding in a storage closet near the back door. Mr. Krimmerdjular asked him for his name, but the offender would not reply. Mr. Krimmerdjular recognized him and asked him if he was Larry Kippomee. The offender replied “yes”. Mr. Kippomee asked Mr. Krimmerdjular not to call the police and said that he would never do it again. Mr. Krimmerdjular asked him to stay, but Mr. Kippomee left. Mr. Krimmerdjular called the police. [ 5 ] The offender was arrested shortly afterward at home. At the time of arrest, the police found keys which the offender had stolen from Mr. Krimmerdjular’s desk.

The offender was also subject to a Probation Order dated January 12, 2017, which required him to keep the public peace. [ 6 ] Mr. Kippomee was sober when he committed these crimes. III. THE POSITION OF THE PARTIES [ 7 ] The lawyers presented the Court with a joint submission. They stated that the offender should receive one month in jail for the break and enter and one month of jail concurrent for the breach of probation. The total proposed sentence, then, would be one month of jail followed by 12 months of probation. IV. THE LAW CONCERNING JOINT SUBMISSIONS

[ 8 ] This case started as a case about an illegal break and entry. It has become a case about joint submissions. [ 9 ] The term joint submission refers to an agreed upon sentence recommendation made by the parties to the court. The sheer volume of criminal cases in our courts makes plea negotiations between Crown and Defence an essential case resolution tool. These negotiations often result in the entry of guilty pleas in exchange for a certain Crown sentence recommendation. In these cases, the defence “joins” with the Crown concerning the recommended sentence.

Over the years, the way courts dealt with negotiated guilty pleas and joint submissions varied somewhat across the country. That situation has changed. [ 10 ] Today, the way judges receive and consider joint sentencing recommendations — joint submissions — is subject to the strict guidelines mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Anthony-Cook . [2] This new approach recognizes that joint submissions are a commonplace and necessary part of a well-functioning justice system.

This in turn requires a high degree of certainty that the judge will accept the lawyers’ joint submission. [ 11 ] For these sound reasons, judges are expected to impose a joint recommendation unless “the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest”. [3] However, joint submissions are “not sacrosanct. Trial judges may depart from them.” [4] [ 12 ] The Anthony-Cook case gives guidance to judges who may be troubled by a joint submission.

I must analyse the joint submission in this case against six considerations when I consider the governing “public interest test”: 1. I must consider the joint submission as it is. In other words, I must look at the sentencing options the lawyers presented to me. If the lawyers failed to recommend a specific order or term, I “should assume it was considered and excluded from the joint submission.” [5] 2. The test applies whether I find the proposed sentence to be either too harsh or too lenient. 3. Sentencing cannot take place in a factual vacuum.

Indeed, lawyers have a pro-active duty to present the court with the circumstances which led to and justified the joint submission. I will speak more about that when I analyse this joint submission starting at paragraph 40 [6] 4. The judge should give the lawyers a chance to make further submissions to address his or her concerns. 5. If the judge remains unsatisfied with the joint submission, he or she may consider permitting the offender to withdraw his guilty plea. 6.

The judge is required to provide “clear and cogent reasons” if he or she decides not to accept the joint submission. [ 13 ] Before I discuss my concerns with the joint submission, I will outline the relevant objectives and the applicable principles of sentencing. V. SENTENCING OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES [ 14 ] There are several important objectives a sentencing judge must try to achieve when imposing a sentence.

These objectives are found in the Criminal Code . [7] The sentence I impose must work to: • protect the public; • encourage respect for the law; • be seen to be fair, to be just; • condemn and denounce criminal conduct; • deter Mr. Kippomee and others from committing these crimes;

• rehabilitate Mr. Kippomee; • encourage offenders to accept responsibility for their actions, to acknowledge and admit the harm they caused to their victims, and try to repair the harm where possible; and • separate offenders from society when necessary. [8] [ 15 ] In trying to meet these objectives, the judge is not left up to his or her own personal views. There are legal sentencing principles in place to guide a judge, and to help the judge decide on a fit and proper sentence. [ 16 ] In this case, there are five objectives and principles which stand out.

They are denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, proportionality and parity. I will talk about each one in turn. [ 17 ] Denunciation means this Court must condemn illegal acts. This Court must send a strong message that the offence of breaking and entering into our local businesses will be punished. In my view, the joint submission fails to meet this standard. [ 18 ] Deterrence means to try to influence people to respect the law and to keep the public peace. Deterrence has two parts: general and specific.

In everyday English, my intended audience today is made up of all Nunavummiut (general), as well as this offender (specific). [ 19 ] And the law is very clear: deterrence is an important objective when sentencing an offender for breaking and entering. [9] In my view, the joint submission does not address this principle. [ 20 ] The Criminal Code also directs judges to consider ‘proportionality’. This principle is at the heart of the sentencing process. This legal term means a sentence should reflect the seriousness of the crime and the offender’s responsibility for it.

The offender in this case committed a serious crime, and he bears a very high degree of moral blameworthiness. The crime was planned and premeditated. The sentence I impose today must reflect this reality. In my view, the joint submission does not properly address proportionality. [ 21 ] I now turn to rehabilitation. Rehabilitation means helping the offender to change his ways for the better and to become a better person. In Nunavut, given the staggering abuse of alcohol that we regularly hear about in court, rehabilitation mostly means helping an offender to heal.

Rehabilitation is always the result we seek in every case. There can be no real deterrence unless the offender heals. [ 22 ] The present case is not the typical Nunavut Gladue case. Alcohol is not part of the picture. The offender’s crime was planned and premeditated. In my view, the joint submission does not promote rehabilitation. I will say more about Mr. Kippomee’s rehabilitation starting at paragraph 54. [ 23 ] There is also another sentencing principle which is particularly relevant to this case. This is the principle of restraint. [ 24 ] The Criminal Code directs sentencing judges to act with ‘restraint’.

This means the court must impose the least harsh sentence which can achieve the goals involved in sentencing. Jail must only be imposed when there is no reasonable alternative. In Canada, jail is imposed only as a last resort. If an offender is being sentenced for more than one offence, the combined sentences are not to be unduly long or harsh. Here, the Criminal Code directs judges to be especially aware of the circumstances of aboriginal offenders. [10] I’ll say more about that in a moment. [ 25 ] Sentencing judges must also consider case-law.

Case-law is made up of published reports that tell us what other judges have done in similar circumstances. This is extremely important. It is only fair that similar offenders should be treated similarly for similar crimes. This is called the parity principle. This principle has played a significant role in my analysis. Again, in my view, the joint submission does not account properly for parity. I will say more about this principle at paragraph 59. Neither lawyer presented any case-law which supported their joint submission. [ 26 ] Perhaps the most important case in Nunavut is the Queen v.

Gladue . [11] Gladue is a very important case from the Supreme Court of Canada. The Nunavut Court of Justice is, in fact, a Gladue court. To make a long explanation short, our court must account for the unique circumstances of Inuit, their culture, history and society. [ 27 ] Nunavut suffers from a staggering infrastructure deficit. [12] The influence of colonialism, forced resettlement and Residential Schools is inter-generational. Nunavut has the highest suicide rate in the country. Nunavut has the highest crime rates in the country, including property crimes.

Nunavut has the highest tuberculosis rates on the continent. These are just some examples of Nunavut’s realities which must inform the thinking of a sentencing judge. [ 28 ] Gladue informs every decision we make. It is the lens through which we look at every case. Every sentence of the Nunavut Court

of Justice involving an Inuk is a Gladue sentence. VI. THE OFFENDER [ 29 ] Mr. Kippomee is 36 years old. He is from Pond Inlet. He is Inuk. He was adopted at a young age by his grandparents. He received a traditional upbringing, and his early life was generally happy. He left school in grade 10. He has six siblings, one of whom committed suicide in 2003. By all accounts, Mr. Kippomee is a skilled hunter. He has completed his GED as well as trades access training at the Nunavut Arctic College.

I was told he has had difficulty finding steady employment in the wage economy — like so many of our younger adults. [ 30 ] Ms. Siebert said Mr. Kippomee has suffered from instability over the years. However, Mr. Kippomee has lived with his father and a brother for about nine years. He is said to have a good relationship with them. I asked Ms. Siebert to clarify how Mr. Kippomee’s life has been unstable. Her reply emphasized his difficulties in the wage economy. VII. CRIMINAL RECORDS [ 31 ] Criminal records play an important role in sentencing.

Common sense says a first-time offender who does a less serious crime will be treated more leniently than someone who commits one serious crime after another. Mr. Kippomee has a lengthy, related and serious criminal record. [ 32 ] Mr. Kippomee has 39 prior convictions. He has five prior convictions for break and enters, and another conviction for being unlawfully in a dwelling. His first two convictions for break and enter offences were in Youth Court in November of 1995. He has two prior convictions for theft and possession of stolen property and another for property damage (mischief). [ 33 ] Mr.

Kippomee has 14 prior convictions for breaching court orders. He has 12 prior convictions for violent crimes including a three-year federal penitentiary term in May 2005 for sexual assault and unlawful confinement. [13] He also has two prior convictions for escaping lawful custody. VIII. AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS [ 34 ] The Criminal Code also requires a sentencing judge to consider mitigating and aggravating factors. A. Mitigating factors [ 35 ] There is a mitigating factor which goes to Mr. Kippomee’s credit. It works to lessen his sentence: • Mr. Kippomee entered an early guilty plea.

He accepted responsibility. This Court always gives meaningful credit for someone who does this. B. Aggravating factors

[ 36 ] Balanced against this mitigating factor are several serious aggravating ones which work to increase his sentence: • Mr. Kippomee was sober when he committed these crimes. His actions were planned and premeditated. • Mr. Kippomee was subject to, and breached, a probation order when he broke into the Co-op. • Mr. Kippomee has a related and serious criminal record. [ 37 ] In my view, the joint submission does not give adequate weight to the serious aggravating factors in this case. IX.

CANADIAN VICTIMS BILL OF RIGHTS [ 38 ] Victims of crime have the right to be heard in court. [14] They may read out loud or file a Victim Impact Statement. These statements bring to life the real effect crime has on peoples’ lives. One cannot judge a crime without understanding how its victims were hurt. These statements help ensure victims are not ignored during the sentencing process. [ 39 ] The prosecution did not tender a Victim Impact Statement in this case. X. ANALYSIS A.

The joint submission [ 40 ] In my view, the joint submission offends each one of the sentencing objectives and principles which I must apply in this case. Furthermore, as I stated earlier, there is a pro-active legal duty on Counsel to justify the joint submission. The lawyers failed in this case to do so. [ 41 ] The Crown Prosecutor said very little to justify the joint submission. Mr. Dolhai alleged the essential facts which were admitted by the Defence. He told me Mr.

Kippomee was 36 years old, and that the offender has a “lengthy” criminal record “stretching all the way back to his first [sic] in 1998, in youth court”. [15] He noted the offender’s first adult conviction for break and enter in 2004, as well as the last entry on his criminal record in July 2017. He then outlined the joint submission before concluding his remarks. [ 42 ] Before turning to Defence Counsel, I asked the Crown Prosecutor to justify his recommendation.

I noted the offender’s extensive, recent and related criminal record and I inquired how the joint submission addressed proportionality and the step principle. [ 43 ] The Crown Prosecutor’s reply is instructive. He said that, in his view, the facts may have warranted a suspended sentence. He stated that the sentence could have been “as low as a suspended sentence” because the offender had not caused any damage, and he was merely found in a closet. [16] [ 44 ] The Crown Prosecutor’s justification belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the offence in question.

I reminded the parties that we are not dealing with a case of civil trespass. The accused pled guilty to, and acknowledged responsibility for, breaking and entering the Co-op with the intention of committing an indictable offence. On the facts — having been found in recent possession of Mr.

Krimmerdjular’s keys — the offender could have been charged and convicted of breaking and entering and committing the indictable offence of theft. [ 45 ] I also reminded Counsel that court orders are one of the basic foundations of our criminal justice system. It is our only real tool to promote rehabilitation. Repeated convictions for breaches ought to merit consideration of consecutive jail sentences. As I noted earlier, Mr.

Kippomee has 14 prior convictions for breaching court orders. [ 46 ] I then adjourned the hearing until the afternoon to give the lawyers a chance to reconsider their recommendation and justifications. [ 47 ] The sentencing hearing resumed that afternoon. The Crown Prosecutor reviewed several of the offender’s previous convictions. He noted that the offender’s last sentence for break and enter with intent was a suspended sentence. Thus, a one-month jail sentence, he stated, was an appropriate step up and showed restraint.

He also noted that the offender has only recently been assessed for the purposes of counselling. A probationary counselling condition would let him get the counselling he requires. [ 48 ] The Crown Prosecutor then revised the recommendation concerning the breach of probation from one month of concurrent jail to one month of consecutive jail. The new joint submission, then, called for two months in jail followed by probation. [ 49 ] Defence Counsel very briefly adopted the Prosecutor’s submissions. She then focused on rehabilitation. She suggested that Mr.

Kippomee’s criminal record reflected what she called “the chaos and instability that he’s had in his life”. [17] [ 50 ] In my view, the final joint submission does not reflect a proper application of our sentencing principles. The Crown Prosecutor was correct when he noted the suspended sentence for break and enter with intent in 2014. This entry, in part, informed his submission that a one-month sentence in the present case was a step up. But, he neglected the 18-month jail sentence the offender received in 2004 for the very same offence. I am not privy to what the court was told at Mr.

Kippomee’s 2014 sentencing hearing. However, I am certain the 10-year gap in his record for the same type of offence, and our commitment to using jail as a last resort, accounted for the lenient 2014 sentence. [ 51 ] I also cannot agree that Mr. Kippomee’s lengthy criminal record can be explained away by a life of personal chaos and instability. The information Defence Counsel provided to the Court simply does not support that assertion. Apart from unemployment, he has lived a remarkably stable life. [ 52 ] In my view, the joint submission does not give sufficient weight to denunciation and deterrence.

Break and enters into our Co-ops and Northern stores are not victimless crimes. And they happen all too often right across the territory. Each year, these crimes result in significant losses to our two food store chains. In the case of the Co-ops, these costs are passed along to the Co-op’s local members and to their clientele. High food prices and widespread food insecurity are exacerbated by these selfish crimes.

The sentence I impose must serve to deter not only this offender but anyone else who might think about breaking into a place of business. [ 53 ] The joint submission also does not reflect the high degree of Mr. Kippomee’s moral blameworthiness. Mr. Kippomee is a repeat offender who broke into and entered the local Co-op with the intention of committing another crime. He was sober, and his actions were premeditated. He has appeared in court many times over the years, yet he has not changed his behaviour. [ 54 ] I turn now to rehabilitation.

This is a case where the principles of specific deterrence and rehabilitation go hand-in-hand. As I noted earlier, in many (if not most) cases we deal with in Nunavut, alcohol fuels the offence. Unless an offender masters his substance abuse issues, experience tells us he will likely reoffend. [ 55 ] But, how do we rehabilitate a repeat sober offender who decides to continue to break the law? At some point, the repeat offender must understand that society’s patience will run out.

Repeat offenders must understand that leniency and mercy will be hard to come by if they do not respect society’s rules, choosing instead to deliberately and repeatedly break them. Where is the incentive to reform if offenders like Mr. Kippomee can expect the proverbial ‘slap-on-the-wrist’ if they get caught? [ 56 ] One month of jail for this offender in these circumstances for a break and entry amounts to little more than a slap-on-the-wrist.

This is so even within the context of a Gladue analysis, where I must account for the “broad systemic and background factors” [18] at play, including those I mentioned in paragraph 27. It is relevant here that I was told Mr. Kippomee has lived at home with his father and brother for the past nine years and that by all accounts it is a happy home. Nor is alcohol abuse a factor in this case. [ 57 ] The majority of Pond Inlet’s population is law abiding. They expect, and are entitled to, the protection of the law.

In appropriate cases like this one, denunciation and deterrence must be emphasized in the Gladue analysis.

[ 58 ] Imprisonment — the separation of the offender from society — is consistent with traditional Inuit justice. When a person threatened the traditional group’s safety and security, that person could be, and sometimes was, banished. Many were welcomed back later into the group. Forgiveness, reconciliation and restitution were, and still are, key aspects of Inuit justice, as they are today in the Nunavut Court of Justice. The sentence I impose today reflects the seriousness of the crime, but it also leaves wide open the door for Mr.

Kippomee’s still hoped for rehabilitation. [ 59 ] The lawyers in this case also failed to show how the joint submission respected the parity principle. Neither lawyer referred the Court to any relevant case-law to show that the proposed sentence was lawful and within the sentencing range for these types of offences in these types of circumstances. This was so even though I gave them time to review the relevant law.

Had they done so, they would have discovered that the appropriate range of jail term for the break and enter, for example, was in the four-to-six-month range. [19] [ 60 ] Nor did either lawyer point to any relevant case-specific circumstances or factors which would have justified a more lenient sentence in this case, even after they were given an opportunity to refine their submissions. [20] [ 61 ] In my view, some lawyers who appear before this Court have developed a cavalier attitude towards joint submissions. The reasoning appears to be: “We can clear this file from the docket with a joint submission.

It’s a joint submission, the judge will agree”. In my long experience, it is the rare case when Counsel come to court prepared to justify their joint submission with reference to relevant case-specific factors as well as jurisprudence (case-law). [ 62 ] This attitude was evident in another case on this Pond Inlet circuit. In R v Arreak , a case concerning two convictions for sexual assault against two victims, the male offender sexually abused two young female members of his family. [21] His first victim was between seven and nine years old at the time.

On three occasions, the offender took the little girl into a bedroom and he forced her to rub his penis with her hands. The third time, he forced her to do this until he ejaculated. The victim continues to experience significant emotional trauma eight years later. On a separate occasion, he grabbed the breasts of his 18-year old victim. The offences all happened in the offender’s home. [ 63 ] The lawyers presented a joint submission. The joint submission called for 90 days in jail for the first charge and 15 days consecutive for the second charge followed by probation.

The sentence in my view did not correctly apply the principles of sentencing, and I sent the lawyers away to do their due diligence. When the lawyers returned after lunch, they defended their original position. I adjourned sentencing to later this month to give the lawyers another chance to do their homework. [ 64 ] The lawyers subsequently filed a supplementary written memorandum and case-law. The case-law revealed that an appropriate range of sentence was between six to 12 months jail. The lawyers changed their joint submission to 180 days in jail.

Although it was at the low end of the sentencing range, I accepted the joint submission. [ 65 ] Just two weeks ago during the Coral Harbour circuit, lawyers presented yet another problematic joint submission in a serious firearms case: R v Nakoolak . [22] An intoxicated adult male had terrorized a household when he brandished two loaded firearms, a Ruger .223 calibre rifle and a 12-gauge shotgun. The police were called to the scene. Fortunately, the situation deescalated, and no shots were fired. [ 66 ] The offender pled guilty to two of the five charges and we proceeded to sentence.

The lawyers presented a joint submission of 45 days in jail followed by probation. Among other things, the joint submission did not account for two serious aggravating factors. At the time of the incident, the offender was subject to two recent firearm prohibition orders. He was also on probation at the time and was required to keep the public peace. [ 67 ] I sent the lawyers away to perform their due diligence. Upon their return to Court, the lawyers outlined the results of their online legal research.

The lawyers then changed their joint submission from 45 days to six months in jail followed by probation. [ 68 ] In my view, the new recommended sentence in Nakoolak was arguably still lenient. However, the cases presented by the lawyers showed that the six-month jail sentence was in the available range of sentence. Therefore, I followed the direction of the Supreme Court in Anthony-Cook by not substituting my own “opinion” as to the appropriate sentence. [23] I accepted the joint submission. [ 69 ] As my Coral Harbour example reveals, lawyers can perform online legal research on circuit.

It does not appear the lawyers in

Mr. Kippomee’s case conducted the same kind of online legal research when I gave them the chance to do so. Had they done so, I expect they would have realized the problems with the joint submission, and they would have changed their recommendation accordingly. [ 70 ] The Nunavut Court of Justice issues its dockets well in advance of each circuit. Counsel know well in advance the types of cases and legal issues they will handle. When unexpected issues arise on circuit, online research tools are available.

The fact our circuit court travels to remote communities is never an excuse for counsel to short cut the process. That said, I acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the lawyers who work extremely hard in challenging conditions while on circuit. My focus here is on the local practice of some lawyers concerning joint submissions. [ 71 ] In passing sentence, I must be aware of the impact this sentence will have on the reputation of the justice system. The Criminal Code specifically says that sentences are intended to encourage respect for the law. Our communities are small.

Although the media do not attend our circuit court sittings (and seldom in Iqaluit), the sentences we impose do resonate within our small communities. I must ask myself how a two-month sentence for Mr. Kippomee would be received in Pond Inlet. [ 72 ] The Supreme Court has provided guidance to judges on this point. Before a judge may disregard a joint submission, he or she must be satisfied the sentence would be viewed by reasonable and informed persons as a breakdown in the proper functioning of the justice system. [24] In my respectful view, this is one of those cases. Mr.

Kippomee is well known in his community. A two-month sentence in these circumstances would indeed be viewed by reasonably informed members of this community as a breakdown in the justice system. [ 73 ] The Supreme Court also said in Anthony-Cook that in certain cases, it may be appropriate to permit the offender to withdraw his guilty plea. This is not one of those cases. The prosecution has a very strong case. Mr. Kippomee was caught in the act. The eyewitness, Mr.

Krimmerdjular, immediately recognized the offender and he knew who he was. [ 74 ] There is nothing before this Court to suggest the Crown negotiated the plea and light sentence to mitigate an evidentiary problem with its case. In such a case, a lenient sentence submission “might not be contrary to the public interest”. [25] To permit Mr. Kippomee to withdraw his plea would merely serve, in my view, to delay the inevitable conviction and sentence. [ 75 ] The maximum sentence for this break and enter with intent is six months in jail because the Crown proceeded by

summary conviction. [26] The proper sentencing range for this break and enter with intent offence and this offender is not one month but four to six months of jail. [ 76 ] The maximum sentence for

summary conviction breach of probation is 18 months in jail. [27] The proper sentencing range for the breach of probation in the circumstances of this offender and this case is not one month but two to four months of consecutive jail. [ 77 ] This analysis, in my view, is not a case of judicial “tinkering”. [28] It is true that the difference between the joint submission and the sentence I shall impose may only be five months. However, this analysis leads to a

summary conviction sentence which respects the principles of sentencing and reflects the public interest in promoting respect for the law. XI. CONCLUSION [ 78 ] Joint submissions are an important part of our justice system. They bring a high degree of certainty and efficiency to our busy courts when they are properly negotiated and responsibly presented to the court. The negotiation of a joint submission must be the principled application of the law to the specific circumstances of each case and offender. The words “joint submission” are not some form of magical incantation.

And the law is clear — judges retain the final responsibility to ensure that sentences are appropriate and lawful. The three cases I have highlighted demonstrate the ongoing and important role judges continue to have when presented with a joint submission. [ 79 ] The lawyers in this case — as in the Arreak and Coral Harbour examples — failed to do their due diligence. The joint submission in this case “was not fair and consistent with the public interest”. [29] It did not reflect a principled approach to sentence. It required judicial intervention.

In each of these three cases, poorly crafted joint submissions resulted in lost court time, duplicated efforts and unnecessary delay.

XII. SENTENCE [ 80 ] Mr. Kippomee. For the reasons I have explained, I reject the joint submission presented by the lawyers. I sentence you to five months in jail for the break and entry into the Co-op and two months consecutive jail for the breach of probation. This is the equivalent of 210 days in jail. The sentence would have been higher but for your guilty plea and the Crown’s

summary election. [ 81 ] This jail term will be followed by probation for 12 months. You will: 1. Keep the peace and be of good behaviour. In other words, you will not break the law. 2. Report to the probation office within five business days of your release from jail, and thereafter as required. 3. Take any counselling recommended to you by your probation officer. [ 82 ] This probation order is not intended to be punishment. I have put it in place in the hope that you will turn your life around and finally become a law-abiding citizen. XIII.

ANCILLARY ORDER [ 83 ] The Criminal Code requires me to impose victim fine surcharges of $100 per charge, and I do so now. I give you one year from your release from jail to pay that $200. [ 84 ] Good luck, sir. No one wants to see you get into trouble again with the law. Taima. Dated at the City of Iqaluit this 5 th day of April 2018 ___________________ Justice Paul Bychok Nunavut Court of Justice