Regina v. Smith Date:, 2012 BCPC 440

Citation: Regina v. Smith Date: 20121206 2012 BCPC 0440 File No: 16176 Registry: Colwood IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. TRACY DAWN SMITH REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE HIGINBOTHAM Counsel for the Crown: J. Nowlan-Card Counsel for the Defendant: R. Jones Place of Hearing: Colwood , B.C. Date of Hearing: November 6, 2012 Date of Sentence: December 6, 2012

[1] On June 19, 2012 Ms. Smith re-elected to be tried in this court and entered a guilty plea to a charge of impaired driving causingdeath. On that date a psychological report and a pre-sentence report was ordered with Gladue component. A sentencing hearing washeld on November 6 and my sentencing decision was reserved to today’s date. [2] Jana Mahenthiran died on July 1, 2011 while riding his motorcycle on the Island Highway just north of Victoria. He was killedwhen a vehicle driven by the accused crossed the centre line and hit him head on.

The accused was not able to control her vehicleproperly because she was intoxicated, and according to those who saw her prior to her getting into her vehicle to drive, she was in a rage. [3] When confronted with what she had done, Ms. Smith told police and witnesses that the deceased was at fault, although it wasquite apparent that her account was blatantly false. She was hostile and intoxicated at the scene, and when taken to the hospital formedical examination she was combative with staff and police. Even later, in police cells, she had to be restrained. [4] There are aggravating features to this case. Ms.

Smith drove for 3.6 kilometres in her intoxicated state, and narrowly missedcolliding with another vehicle when she entered the highway, perhaps a kilometre prior to the fatal collision. Crown counsel submits thatthis “near miss” ought to have alerted her to the fact that she was in no condition to drive. As well, she showed no remorse at thecollision scene, opting instead to lay the blame on the victim. [5] Mr. Mahenthiran was a loving husband to his wife Betty. They had been married for 22 years.

He had worked for IBM foreight years in Ontario, and as a result of his company outsourcing much of their programming work he was required to find newemployment. He managed to find a job in Victoria and moved to this area in April of 2010 while his wife remained in Ontario. The planwas for her to join him in Victoria, but first she needed to secure a transfer of her position within a national accounting firm. Jana andBetty Mahenthiran talked every day using the free calling service Skype, and looked forward to the day they would be reunited inVictoria.

Their dream was to carefully manage their finances and strive for an early retirement full of travel and exploration. [6] Now her husband is dead and Betty Mahenthiran’s dreams are gone and her life changed forever. There is a void in her life thatcannot be filled by anything the justice system has to offer. [7] His mother also wrote a statement setting out the impact of her son’s death on her. It is impossible to imagine the impact on aparent with the loss of a child unless one has experienced that loss.

As stated by Sarojini Mahenthiran “I am left with tears, pain andconstant thoughts about my son until my last breath”. She describes his importance to his family and in particular, his influence andguidance to his brother and sisters. Her son Jana would have celebrated his birthday the following day, but that was the day his motherreceived the news of his death, and she was devastated. [8] Reading of the impact of his death upon those who survive him is emotionally wrenching. One is left with a feeling of deepsadness at this unnecessary and avoidable tragedy.

As Wood J.A. acknowledged in concurring reasons in Regina v. Sweeney (1992), (BC CA), 11 CR (4th) 1 the sentencing process is fundamentally incapable of dealing with the legitimate needs ofvictims and their survivors. He said in his Reasons: This does not mean, of course, that the tragic consequences to innocent victims are to be ignored when passing sentence on the convicteddrinking driver. Indeed, as already noted, with the 1985 amendments Parliament specifically made those consequences part of the actusreus of the crime itself.

And, notwithstanding the view of some, the courts have never been insensitive to the suffering which victims ofcrime must endure. The dilemma facing the sentencing court is to balance a proper consideration of the consequences of a criminal actagainst the reality that the criminal justice system was never designed or intended to heal the suffering of the victims of crime. In few cases is that dilemma more acute than it is in connection with the offences under consideration in these appeals.

The terribleconsequences of drinking and driving shock the sensibilities of all of us, so much so that not only the surviving victims of such crimes,but also many impartial, reasonable and fair-minded people instinctively cry out for the harshest form of punishment for the offender.

But if the tragic consequences to innocent victims were to become the standard by which appropriate sentences for such offences aredetermined, the courts would soon be reduced to choosing between either imposing the maximum legal term of imprisonment in allcases, or embarking upon a comparative analysis of the seriousness of the consequences in individual cases. The first alternative wouldbe an abdication of our responsibility and the second is unthinkable. [9] I turn now to a consideration of this 36 year old offender. Tracy Smith does not know the identity of her father.

She was eightyears old when her mother, who also suffers from substance abuse, began living with a man in a common law relationship. This man issaid to have physically and sexually abused young Tracy to the point where the authorities stepped in and removed her from the homedue to protection concerns. She reports that in addition to daily beatings with such implements as belts, rulers and wooden spoons, herstepfather would touch her in the vaginal area on a nightly basis when putting her to bed. She also reported that “some of his friendswould do it too”.

In addition to suffering this abuse, it is clear that home life was completely chaotic. She was often left withoutsupervision and was also frequently required to look after her much younger sister. She reports that her mother was addicted and wasselling cocaine throughout Ms. Smith’s youth. [10] Ultimately Ms. Smith was removed from her mother’s care and placed with her grandparents Dawn and Larry Smith at the ageof eleven. Her grandparents raised Ms.

Smith in a supportive environment until she reached the age of seventeen, at which point Ms.Smith entered into a relationship with a man whom she married four years later. She lived with him from 2002 until they separated in2008. In being interviewed for preparation of the pre-sentence report, she advised that she also suffered physical abuse at the hands ofthis partner. In addition to giving birth to three children during this relationship, her medical history includes three abortions and eightmiscarriages. The children are living with their father and Ms.

Smith has had little contact with them for the past eighteen months. Since

the time of separation from her partner Ms. Smith has lived on Vancouver Island, sometimes with her mother and sister, and sometimes with her grandmother. She was also homeless for periods of time until the tragic events that bring her to court. [ 11 ] Ms. Smith left school with only a grade eight education and has not been employed for several years. Her earlier work history consists of intermittent work as a restaurant server and some part time work in the state of Washington when she and her former partner lived there.

She engaged in prostitution from 2009 until 2011. [ 12 ] Her medical history also reveals numerous hospitalizations for psychiatric issues including a suicide attempt at age 15. She has been diagnosed as suffering from depression and post traumatic stress disorder, for which ailments she has been prescribed a variety of drugs. Ms. Smith also has a history of prohibited drug and alcohol abuse starting at the age of 13. She reports that by age 15 she was severely addicted. She has used a variety of drugs over the years, including crystal meth, GHB heroin and crack cocaine in addition to alcohol.

Her multiple challenges both in terms of mental disorder and substance abuse were, and remain, very difficult to resolve. [ 13 ] The writer of the pre-sentence report was somewhat hampered by the fact that the only family member of Ms. Smith’s available for interview was her grandmother Dawn Smith, with whom Tracy Smith lived for periods of time after reaching the age of eleven. [ 14 ] As earlier mentioned, Ms. Smith has a psychiatric history that was discussed in some detail in the report of psychologist Dr. Nina Fusco of Forensic Psychiatric Services. Ms.

Smith reported to her that she had made several attempts at suicide in the past, including cutting herself, deliberately overdosing herself with pills and running out in front of vehicles. She was admitted to psychiatric wards after many of these incidents. Hospital records reviewed by Dr. Fusco reveal multiple diagnoses made in 2011, including polysubstance dependence, post traumatic stress disorder and borderline personality disorder.

Other information from hospital files shows diagnoses of other disorders including chronic depression, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse and major depression versus bipolar type 2. [ 15 ] Despite her serious psychiatric issues, treatment of which is made immeasurably more difficult because of her addictions, Ms.

Smith has never been convicted, nor is there a suggestion she has ever before been charged with a criminal offence. [ 16 ] Psychological testing left some doubt as to whether the diagnostic picture referred to above might be obscured by her chronic misuse of alcohol, banned substances and her regime of medication. Dr. Fusco thinks that her current depressive symptoms are related to her reaction to the offence she has committed and the circumstances in which she finds herself. Dr.

Fusco found only limited evidence of borderline personality traits, as opposed to the earlier diagnosis of a disorder, which perhaps gives some reason for optimism for treatment of her other medical and psychiatric issues. The other diagnoses revealed through an examination of hospital records were largely confirmed upon interview and testing conducted by Dr. Fusco. [ 17 ] In order to reduce the risk for future violent offending Dr. Fusco made the following recommendations: 1. Continued treatment for drug and alcohol dependence, including a relapse prevention program; 2.

Individual psychological therapy to address the historical trauma, which includes both physical and sexual abuse, and to assist her in developing coping strategies; 3. Continued psychiatric monitoring of her psychiatric symptoms by a psychiatrist. [ 18 ] Although a report was commissioned by the court to consider her aboriginal heritage and any impact it may have on the sentencing process, very little was forthcoming. Although Ms. Smith’s grandfather is a registered status native Indian and connected to a reserve located near Lytton, Ms.

Smith is not registered as such, but qualifies for some services through the Abbotsford Metis Nation of B.C. Ms. Smith was never involved with traditional aboriginal activities as a young person but as an adult she connected with Metis services in both Victoria and the Fraser Valley. I do not find her aboriginal heritage to be of particular significance in this proceeding. [ 19 ] Ms. Smith spent several days in custody prior to her release on bail, and since her release in July of 2011 she has lived under close supervision at Harte House, a women’s facility operated by the VisionQuest Recovery Society.

This society came into being through the joint efforts of first nations people and members of the RCMP in 1995 to raise five million dollars for an addiction recovery centre. Its mission statement reads as follows: The VisionQuest Recovery Society is committed to helping individuals heal from the disease of addiction by empowering them to make better lifestyle choices. We bring substance-addicted clients into a comprehensive healing journey, involving mind, body and spirit based on 12-step philosophy.

We are especially attuned to the needs of individuals with a history with the courts, and actively cooperate with the relevant authorities to further the interests of both our clients and, by extension, the wider community. [ 20 ] The Society sets out as its purpose the following: Our purpose is to offer a safe and trustworthy support network for men and women who have left an institution, genuinely desire to heal from addiction and need help and counselling to readjust to the outside world and re-enter society.

Our goal is to provide a cost-effective, practical and appropriate alternative to incarceration as a transition back into the community. [ 21 ] I have set out the objectives of VisionQuest because of their good fit in many cases with the sentencing objectives set out in the Criminal Code ; particularly those sections having as their aim the rehabilitation of offenders and the desire to promote a both a sense of responsibility and an acknowledgement by offenders of the harm they have caused victims and other members of the community.

The objectives of VisionQuest are also supportive of the sentencing principles set out in s. 718.2 at subsections (

d) and (

e) which read as follows: (

d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and (

e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders,

with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders. [22] The court heard evidence from James O’Rourke, the Executive Director of VisionQuest as to the available programming andthe degree of participation and progress of Ms. Smith. He has known Ms. Smith since she was released into the care of VisionQuestalmost a year and a half ago. He advised that the woman they took in was tested and was found to have the cognitive and emotionalfunctioning of a nine year old but has now progressed to age fourteen or fifteen in her problem solving skills.

In addition to theprograms she has taken, to which I will refer in a moment, Ms. Smith has performed community service work well beyond the onehundred hours worth that is a requirement of the program. [23] Mr. O’Rourke advised that the first three months of her residency was rocky, but since that time she has worked very hard,participated well, and learned a great deal from the programs in which she has participated, which programs cover the gamut fromaddiction counselling, relapse prevention, anger management, life skills and coming to terms with grief and loss, to name a few.

One ofher primary counsellors described Ms. Smith as an active participant within her workshops, and as one who shows considerable opennessin sharing her experiences. She is described as a source of encouragement to the other women and has expressed an interest in obtainingtraining in a helping field. Her counsellor Nicole Csurdi describes Ms. Smith as a person who came to VisionQuest under harshcircumstances but who has turned her life around to become a motivator for others. [24] Perhaps most importantly, she has been drug and alcohol free since the day she struck and killed Mr. Mahenthiran. [25] When Ms.

Smith was released to the care of VisionQuest after seventeen days in custody, she was essentially placed underhouse arrest. She was permitted to leave only for medical emergencies or to attend activities approved of by VisionQuest staff and in thecompany of a staff member. This regime is normally in place for a three month period, with residents graduating to pre-planned outingsin groups of threes, but it took Ms. Smith nine months because of the need to wean her from her excessive medications and to stabilizeher condition. It took a lengthy period of time before she could begin what Mr.

O’Rourke referred to as the healing process. He said thatshe is now showing real progress, and grows about one year every three months in her problem solving skills. He would like her toremain in the program for the next three to four years. [26] Each day at VisionQuest she is provided with a structure and boundaries within which she can engage in the healing process. She wakes up at seven a.m. and eats breakfast. At nine o’clock she goes into her group session and then one-on-one counselling.

Sheparticipates in numerous life skill programs that are run by skilled counsellors, which programming is reassessed and modified everythree months, depending upon her needs. Drug testing is conducted monthly and Ms. Smith has been shown to be drug free for the entireperiod of her residency. Mr. O’Rourke makes a strong case through his testimony that in a prison setting, not only will Ms. Smith revertto her pre-treatment state, but she will also become a victim of those people within the institution that truly need to be separated fromsociety. [27] Mr.

O’Rourke states the obvious when he says that people who drink and take drugs make poor decisions. An important partof the program for Ms. Smith is to ensure she is capable of making good decisions, and the program is very structured in order to reachthat goal. The next challenge set for Ms.

Smith is to send her out into the community to talk to school aged children about the tragicconsequences of drinking and partying, and to instill in them some incentive to avoid the very bad decisions that have governed her life. [28] VisionQuest is a very secure facility, with security cameras and twenty-four hour a day monitoring. Mr. O’Rourke says thefacility is often tagged with the nickname PrisonQuest and he describes it as “the best community-based prison we have”. [29] I turn now to the sentencing options.

Despite the tragic consequences of her actions on July 1, 2011, and her initial refusal toface up to her reckless behaviour, Ms. Smith has come a very long way, and it hasn’t been easy for her. She has worked every day in asemi-custodial setting to face her life long demons and her mental and developmental challenges, and to find a way to begin a productivelife.

She deserves credit and consideration for her efforts. [30] One might expect in such circumstances that the court could consider as a sentencing option a jail sentence of two years less aday to be served in the community, in this case VisionQuest, under close supervision. Such a sentence might, if appropriately crafted,support the reclamation of a productive life while meeting the sentencing principle of denunciation. A conditional sentence order is notopen to me as a result of amendments to the Criminal Code that preclude it where the index offence is a “serious personal injuryoffence” as defined in s. 752.

Impaired driving causing death is such an offence. [31] Section 255 (3.3) also deems this conviction to be one carrying a minimum sentence, thereby precluding the imposition of asuspended sentence. [32] In the vast majority of cases of this type and seriousness the emphasis is placed upon the principle of denunciation, with anormal range of sentence being imprisonment from between two and five years for a person with no previous record. Where a particularoffender will be placed within that range will depend upon the aggravating and mitigating factors. But, as was stated by the SupremeCourt of Canada in Regina v.

Nasogaluak [2010] S.C.R. 206 the sentencing judge must, at the end of the day respect the fundamentalprinciple of proportionality, and explained the meaning of that term at paragraph 42: For one, it requires that a sentence not exceed what is just and appropriate, given the moral blameworthiness of the offender and thegravity of the offence. In this sense, the principle serves a limiting or restraining function.

However, the rights-based, protective angle ofproportionality is counter-balanced by its alignment with the “just deserts” philosophy of sentencing, which seeks to ensure thatoffenders are held responsible for their actions and that the sentence properly reflects and condemns their role in the offence and theharm they caused (R. v. M. (C.A.), (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at para. 81; Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486, at pp. 533-34, per Wilson J., concurring). Understood in this latter sense, sentencing is a form of judicialand social censure (J. V. Roberts and D. P.

Cole, “Introduction to Sentencing and Parole”, in Roberts and Cole, eds., Making Sense ofSentencing (1999), 3, at p. 10). Whatever the rationale for proportionality, however, the degree of censure required to express society’scondemnation of the offence is always limited by the principle that an offender’s sentence must be equivalent to his or her moralculpability, and not greater than it. The two perspectives on proportionality thus converge in a sentence that both speaks out against theoffence and punishes the offender no more than is necessary.

[33] The court went on to discuss the need for consistency in sentencing within what the appellate courts have considered theappropriate range, but leaves the door open for principled exceptions. In this regard the court said at paragraph 44: The wide discretion granted to sentencing judges has limits. It is fettered in part by the case law that has set down, in somecircumstances, general ranges of sentences for particular offences, to encourage greater consistency between sentencing decisions inaccordance with the principle of parity enshrined in the Code.

But it must be remembered that, while courts should pay heed to theseranges, they are guidelines rather than hard and fast rules. A judge can order a sentence outside that range as long as it is in accordancewith the principles and objectives of sentencing. Thus, a sentence falling outside the regular range of appropriate sentences is notnecessarily unfit.

Regard must be had to all the circumstances of the offence and the offender, and to the needs of the community inwhich the offence occurred. [34] I was not presented with a precedent case that informs me of what might be a fit sentence in the circumstances presented here,where the offender committed the offence possessing the cognitive skills of a nine year old, but who has striven since the commission ofthe offence to rehabilitate herself to a point where she is likely capable of making a positive contribution to the community. [35] The effort to achieve proportionality in the case at bar means having to consider and balance two of the legitimate goals ofsentencing, that of denunciation and that of reformation or rehabilitation. [36] I do not believe a third principle, that of deterrence, is of particular significance in this type of offending, as the offence itselfconsists of a complete failure of judgment in getting behind the wheel of a vehicle while impaired by alcohol or a drug.

One wouldpresume that to the extent that a deterrent sentence is to be meaningful, both to this offender and others, the person in question must havea state of mind that is receptive to a consideration of the consequences of the offending conduct, and this is not the case with this type ofoffending. [37] Denunciation focuses less on the circumstances of the offender, but is meaningful to the public at large. In a sense it serves tovalidate the justice system in the eye of the public insofar as a denunciatory sentence may reflect the revulsion the community feels forcertain types of criminal conduct.

Implicit in this concept is the notion that a denunciatory punishment must be proportionate to themoral culpability of the offender. This in turn requires consideration of the mental state of the offender at the time the offence wascommitted as well as the mental capacity of the offender. [38] There are occasions when the principle of denunciation must give way to society’s interest in rehabilitating the offender. In acase that has particular application to the dilemma faced by this court, Regina v.

Pettigrew (1990) (BC CA), 56C.C.C. (3d) 390, Taylor J.A., speaking for the majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal said: Yet even where, as here, the crime involved is regarded as one of particular gravity – the careless taking of a life – the extent to which itshould be considered morally reprehensible, so as to call for “denunciatory” punishment, can still be assessed only on the basis of thecircumstances of the particular case and offender.

In the absence of any prescribed minimum penalty, imprisonment can be imposed onthis ground only if the circumstances of the case and of the offender call for such a response. In weighing the matter the court mustconsider, among other things, whether any adverse effects which a denunciatory punishment would have on the rehabilitation of theoffender can be justified in the over-all interests of the protection and advancement of society. [39] The above passage was cited with approval by the Court of Appeal later in 1990 in the case of Regina v.

Preston (1990), (BC CA), 79 CR (3d) 61, where Wood J.A., speaking for a five person court went on to say: What then is the proper approach for the court to take when sentencing in a case such as this?

When the benefit to be derived to societyas a whole, as a result of the successful rehabilitation of a heroin addict, is balanced against the ultimate futility of the short-termprotection which the community enjoys from a sentence of incarceration, I believe it is right to conclude that the principle of deterrenceshould yield to any reasonable chance of rehabilitation which may show itself to the court imposing sentence.

To give the offender achance to successfully overcome his or her addiction, in such circumstances, is to risk little more than the possibility of failure, with theresult that the cycle of addiction leading to crime leading to incarceration will resume, something that is inevitable, in any event, if thechance is not taken.

On the other hand, as has already been pointed out, if the effort succeeds the result is fundamentally worthwhile tosociety as a whole. [40] Those comments were made in the context of a conviction for heroin possession by a repeat offender, and the crime cycle thatsupports the addiction, but the principle goes beyond that type of case, subject of course to a consideration of the degree of moralculpability of the offender. The principles set out in these cases remain good law, having been recently followed once again by our Courtof Appeal in R. v.

Bay 2011 BCCA 297. [41] The moral culpability of an impaired driver who kills someone is no greater than that of an impaired driver who is fortunateenough to have avoided tragedy. Parliament has enacted a much higher maximum penalty for an incident with deadly consequences, butthat can not be because the state of mind of the offender is any different, or because the moral quality of the offence is morereprehensible.

Parliament has decided that the consequences should be a factor in sentencing, but as stated by Wood J.A. in Sweeney,supra, “accountability of the offender, not punishment for the sake of punishment, must be the primary focus of the sentencing process”. This brings us full circle to the concept of “proportionality”. [42] In this case a loving husband and son needlessly lost his life, and those who survive him will carry the pain of their loss withthem forever. That is a fact that cannot be changed by anything forthcoming from this court. In simple terms, the issue is whether his

death will be for nothing, or whether it may be a catalyst to the saving of many more lives, including that of the offender. [ 43 ] My decision takes into account the limited cognitive capacity of the offender at the time of the offence. Simply put, her ability to make good judgments was at a nine year old level, notwithstanding her chronological age.

Children of that age are not yet subject to sanction under the Youth Criminal Justice Act for the very reason that they are not considered capable of even semi-mature judgment. [ 44 ] My decision also takes into account the strict profound restrictions on her liberty since the bail order was made, as well as the serious effort she has put into the programming made available to her. My decision also takes into account that she has made significant progress to the point where rehabilitation and reformation can be considered a reasonable prospect. At the sentencing hearing Ms.

Smith was able to rise to her feet and offer an unvarnished, sincere apology to the members of the Mahenthiran family who were sitting in court. She is clearly not the same person she was seventeen months ago. [ 45 ] I have determined that the principle of denunciation must yield in this case to the principle of rehabilitation and reformation, and in light of the clear evidence that any significant prison sentence will, at minimum, render meaningless and useless all of the progress to date, no half way measures are fit.

The way that society can best be protected, and its interests met in the particular circumstances of this case are for Ms. Smith to be a continuing ward of VisionQuest, and not a prison inmate. [ 46 ] As discussed earlier, a conditional sentence of maximum length would be most fit, but it is not open to me to pass that sentence. Neither would a suspended sentence be legal.

The only option that is effectively open to me in order to meet the sentencing goal identified earlier is the shortest possible jail sentence with the longest possible probation period containing provision for continued treatment in the place she is now residing. [ 47 ] It is my intention to keep close supervision over Ms. Smith during the period of her probation. If my optimism about her commitment to rehabilitation should be misguided, it will give me the opportunity to consider other, more denunciatory alternatives if she should fail to comply with the essence of the order.

In such circumstances the Crown might wish to consider proceeding by way of indictment on any breach charge. [ 48 ] I am imposing a sentence of one day imprisonment plus three years probation. In addition, Ms. Smith is prohibited from driving anywhere in Canada for a period of ten years. The victim surcharge will be waived. Upon completion of my reading of this decision Ms. Smith will be taken into custody for the purposes of enabling a DNA sample to be taken and for the preparation of the probation order. [ 49 ] The conditions of probation, in addition to the mandatory conditions, are as follows: 1.

You are to be released to a representative of VisionQuest Recovery Society and will travel with him or her to Harte House in the City of Surrey in order to continue your treatment; 2. You will report to a probation officer located in the City of Surrey within the next seven days, and thereafter as directed by him or her; 3. You will reside at Harte House under the supervision and direction of staff of the VisionQuest Recovery Society and obey all rules of the residence and program; 4.

You will not possess or consume any alcoholic beverage or controlled substance except as prescribed for you, and in the case of such prescription, you may possess only one daily dose; 5. You will attend all programming, counselling or testing to which you may be directed by VisionQuest staff or your probation officer, and you will use your best efforts to succeed within any program to which you may be attending; 6. You will continue to reside at Harte House until such time as the court gives you permission to change your residence; 7. You are not to be found in the driver’s seat of any motor vehicle. 8.

Under the direction of either VisionQuest staff or your probation officer you will complete an additional 200 hours of community service work, such service work to be completed within eighteen months. THE HONOURABLE R. A. HIGINBOTHAM, P.C.J.