Her Majesty the Queen - v. –, 2019 SKPC 60

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2019 SKPC 60 Date: November 18, 2019 Information: Y991082698 Location: Swift Current _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Her Majesty the Queen - and – ADB Appearing: S. Kritzer For the Crown A. McBride For the Accused SENTENCING DECISION K. BAZIN , J [ 1 ] ADB was sentenced in this matter on May 1, 2019, with written reasons to follow. These are those reasons. [ 2 ] In this matter, ADB has pled guilty to four offences occurring on or about February 26, 2019 in Swift Current, Saskatchewan as set out in information #Y991082698.

Count 1 Being a person subject to a youth sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act , did willfully fail to comply with a sentence or disposition, to wit: not possess any firearms, ammunition, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance other weapons including an imitation thereof, a knife except when using a knife to eat, contrary to

section 137 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act . Count 2 Being a person subject to a youth sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act , did willfully fail to comply with a sentence or disposition, to wit: stay inside your approved residence from 10:00 p.m. each night to 7:00 a.m. the next morning, unless you have the prior written permission of your youth worker or designate to be outside your approved residence during your curfew, contrary to

section 137 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act . … Count 4 Did unlawfully possess a substance included in

Schedule 1 to wit: Methamphetamine (Crystal Meth) contrary to Section 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act . … Count 6 Without lawful excuse did have in his possession an explosive substance, contrary to Section 82(1) of the Criminal Code . [ 3 ] The Crown elected to proceed by indictment on all counts. [ 4 ] ABD was one-month shy of his 18 th birthday at the time of the offences, and was still serving a sentence rendered three and half months earlier, on November 7, 2018.

That sentence was for assault, resisting arrest, failing to comply with an undertaking and, of particular note, possession of a weapon, namely a home-made explosive device that he had made and left in a parking lot by the local library. [ 5 ] ADB had received an overall sentence of 45 days custody with 23 days under supervision in the community and, as to the “possession of a weapon” offence, an additional year of probation. [ 6 ] ADB served time in open custody from November 7, 2018 until December 21, 2018. He breached his conditions and went back into open custody from January 8 to January 12.

He started his probation on January 13, 2019. [ 7 ] ADB’s only other youth conviction was for possession of a weapon, being a knife in 2016. [ 8 ] The Crown indicates that ADB is on the National Watch List, related to his previous conviction for making a pipe bomb. [ 9 ] Of the offences that ADB has now pled guilty to, the most serious and of greatest concern is Count 6: being in possession of an explosive substance. The substances in ADB’s possession related to an explosive device were: fuses; pyro powder substances; gun powder shell with sparkler in it; various fertilizers;

medical alcohol; propane torch. [ 10 ] Of additional concern is that ADB had in his possession and mostly found in his room: copy of the “Anarchist Cookbook”; various short metal pipes; modelling clay; battery pack; box of shards of glass; electrical tape; steel wool, lead shavings and wire. [ 11 ] The Crown filed photographs and a list of the various objects. There are four items that look like improvised explosive devices in that they are capped off and taped up with a fuse coming out of the top.

One of the four is a galvanized threaded metal pipe with end caps, with one end cap drilled out with a fuse in it. [ 12 ] The Crown takes the position that a fit sentence would be one year of secure custody with six months of community supervision. The defence position is that the sentence should be four months of open custody and two months of community supervision. The defence points out that ADB is still under a probation order that will expire January 12, 2020. [ 13 ] The Crown relies on the sentence in R v Goldberg , 2012 BCSC 2060 , which is an adult sentence for having an explosive device. Mr.

Goldberg had collected the material to make a bomb but had not completed it. The charge and the accumulation of items to make a bomb was tied to an attempted-murder charge related to the use of a firearm. [ 14 ] The parties indicated that they were not able to find a lot of case law on the issue of making a pipe bomb particularly involving a youth. There do not appear to be many cases for a youth, but there are more for youthful adults. Youth Sentences [ 15 ] R v ADB , (7 November 2018) Swift Current, Judge L. Matsalla (Sask Prov Ct).

This was the previous sentencing of the present offender ADB for “having in his possession a weapon, to wit: a pipe bomb, for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, contrary to section 88(2) of the Criminal Code . The parties had reached a joint submission, which was accepted by the Court, for a sentence of 45 days open custody followed by 22 days of supervised custody, and a one-year probation order.

ADB at the time had a short record from 2016, namely possession of a knife, for a dangerous purpose to the public. [ 16 ] The pre-sentence report at that time indicated that ADB was bored and decided to make a bomb as a “science experiment” and wanted to hear the noise it made. He made the bomb and then started drinking whiskey and got drunk. He walked around Swift Current by himself with the bomb but did not really recall because of his intoxication. He believed he set the bomb down. The bomb was found in the parking lot beside the library. ADB said he had not planned to make the bomb, but did it out of boredom.

He said it did not have the battery put into it and he believed it could not have exploded.

[ 17 ] The report indicated that while ABD eventually said he was remorseful, this was questioned as the RCMP in the report indicated that he did not express remorse or concern for public safety. He presented to the RCMP that he thought it was a big joke and was not concerned if a child had found the bomb. There were substantial personal and addiction issues with ABD at the time as reported in the pre-sentence report. [ 18 ] R v CBS , (29 May 2019) Regina, Judge M. Beaton (Sask Prov Ct) [ CBS ].

Following the oral sentence of ADB in this matter, CBS was delivered and is provided for information in light of the sparsity of youth bomb cases. CBS was 12 years old when he made a chemical explosive device. He had some mental health issues and had previously been diagnosed with ADHD. He had experienced not fitting in and being bullied at school. [ 19 ] CBS had seen on YouTube how to make a water bottle explode using Draino. He planned the event and took his ingredients from home to school.

He mentioned his plan to a friend and by the time recess arrived everyone in his class came out to see what he was up to. [ 20 ] CBS armed the device, and then threw it into an area where he knew other children were. When the bottle was lobbed in their direction, one girl slipped and did not get away. The resulting explosion injured her, with first degree chemical burns to her knee the back of her hands and face. She recovered from the burns.

By unfortunate coincidence, the victim was one of CBS’s few friends in school. [ 21 ] CBS was charged with assault with a weapon, with respect to the explosive device, and mischief, as to the disruption of the school after the explosion. [ 22 ] The event was described as a science experiment gone wrong, but it was planned and reckless. It was not an offence in which he intended to harm anyone. However, he knew of the potential for injury. CBS had no previous record. [ 23 ] The Crown had asked for probation and the defence for a conditional discharge.

The Court sentenced CBS to 12 months’ probation in light of the facts of the offence. It was a youth sentence which included an apology letter, 30 hours of community service, counselling and other terms. Youthful Adult Sentences [ 24 ] R v Dylan Gibson , (4 February 2014) Saskatoon, Judge Lavoie (Sask PC), Mr. Gibson, who was 22 years of age, blew his fingers off when the pipe bomb he was making in his parents garage exploded. Mr. Gibson was given a conditional discharge. The Court heard that Mr. Gibson and three of his friends were inspired by the TV show “ MythBusters” and wanted to try making a bomb.

They stuffed a copper tube with hundreds of matches and when Mr. Gibson drilled into one of the caps, it exploded. In addition to Mr. Gibson’s serious injuries, a friend helping to make the bomb was also hurt. Mr. Gibson, who lost all the digits on “one of his hands” had posted a YouTube video prior to sentencing to warn people about the dangers of making a pipe bomb. [ 25 ] The Crown withdrew the original charge of breaching a duty of care regarding an explosive and thereby causing bodily harm. Mr. Gibson was then charged with criminal negligence causing bodily harm, to which he pled guilty.

The change in plea allowed the court to impose a conditional discharge. Mr. Gibson’s conditions included one year of probation, 30 hours of community service, and a prohibition from using a firearm for 10 years.

[26] R v Derek Joseph Formosa, (20 January 2014) Estevan, Judge K.P. Bazin (Sask Prov Ct). Mr. Formosa was 22 years old at the time of the offence and was sentenced for a section 82(1) Criminal Code offence of possessing an explosive device, namely a pipe bomb. The Court accepted a joint submission for a conditional discharge of 12 months. The conditions were a weapons ban, take personal counselling, and perform 75 hours of community service. [27] The facts of Mr. Formosa’s charge were that he had made the pipe bomb when he was a child, possibly before he was 12 years old.

He took it with him as he travelled from Toronto, Ontario through the United States ofAmerica as he was moving to Alberta and did not know what to do with it. He was caught with the device when he attempted to crossback into Canada. The facts jointly submitted outlined that Mr. Formosa had forgotten that he had the pipe bomb with him. In addition, itwas submitted that making the bomb was something he had done when very young, just out of curiosity.

His culpability was low, andthe parties took into consideration that he did not dispose of it in a garbage bin or other place where it might have harmed the public. [28] R v Pires, (NS CA), [1982] 52 NSR (2d) 351, 106 APR 351 (QL) (CA) [Pires], Pires is another case where no damage or loss resulted from the actions of the accused in constructing a pipe bomb. Mr. Pires, 19 years of age, pledguilty to possession of an explosive device and was sentenced to 60 days' imprisonment. At his sentencing hearing, a police officertestified that the device constructed by Mr.

Pires “would probably have blown the wax out one end and made more noise than anything”(Pires at para 5). [29] Pires deals with a youthful adult offender, who constructed the device as part of exam- related hi jinks and not for a criminal purpose or to hurt anyone, and the device itself had a low capacity for damage. [30] On appeal, an absolute discharge was granted, as it appeared there was no evidence that the bomb was capable of doing any damage. The facts are described by the Court in Pires: 2 The facts are really not in dispute and are that the appellant is nineteen years of age and a student at St.

Francis Xavier University inAntigonish. In April of this year he began to experiment in the making of explosive devices by using a mixture of powder ground frommatchstick heads and charcoal. These he would place in a metal pipe, one end of which was sealed by wax or some other like substance.This mixture could be ignited either by heat or by an electric current. The appellant made apparently four of these devices, two of whichhe exploded. Apparently it is a custom among students in residence at St.

Francis Xavier University during examination period to takepart in the "midnight screams" by which students vent their frustration with examinations by screaming, shouting or otherwise creatingnoise and disturbing the peace at the stroke of midnight. On one of these occasions the appellant dangled one of his explosive devicesout his residence window at midnight; other students proceeded to count down and the appellant discharged the device that went off, Iwould gather, like a giant firecracker.

The charge here relates to one of the devices found by the police in the campus residence of theappellant. [31] R c Gervais, (QC CA), [1990] RL 560, 37 QAC 274 (QL). The 21 year’ old accused pled guilty to possession of five sticks of dynamite. He had procured the dynamite out of curiosity, and bragged to his friends about wanting to placethe sticks of dynamite under police cars. However, this statement was not thought out and was only intended to impress his entourage. A$400.00 fine and three years’ probation was imposed. [32] R v Skyler Vincent Murphy, (December 2013) Edmonton, Judge M.

White (Alta Prov Ct). [Note: this information is from a press source] Ottawa Citizen May 20, 2014: Mr. Murphy, an 18 year old, travelled with his family toMexico for a vacation and he did not realize that he had left a pipe bomb in his carry-on luggage. Murphy and a friend had made thebomb some time earlier, with the intention of blowing up a shed and filming the destruction, according to media reports.

[ 33 ] At sentencing, the Court imposed a one-year suspended sentence and ordered that Mr. Murphy pay a $100.00 fine and also donate $500.00 to the burn unit at the Alberta Children’s hospital. Adult Sentences [ 34 ] R v Arlo William Callaghan , (26 November 2014), an oral decision of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island, Judge Nancy Orr. Mr. Callaghan, who was 35 years of age was charged under

section 21 of the Explosives Act, RSC 1985, c E-17 . He had made two pipe bombs and took a friend with him to go and set them off at the city dump. One bomb went off and Mr. Callaghan’s actions were discovered through the video cameras at the dump. The police seized one pipe bomb at his residence. Defence indicated that Mr. Callaghan did not intend to hurt anyone but exercised bad judgement. Mr. Callaghan had no criminal record, had a positive pre-sentence report, dealt with the matter quickly and was genuinely remorseful. Mr.

Callaghan, the parties in their submissions acknowledged the inherently dangerous nature of explosives and that it was unusual for a jail term for a first- time offender. Judge Orr was concerned that he had transported the pipe bombs in public and had one in his home. Mr. Callaghan was sentenced to a 60-day jail term served on weekends followed by an 18-month probation order which included performing 100 hours of community service work.

Also ordered was a 10-year ban on possessing weapons. [ 35 ] R v Mackenzie Richard , (31 October 2014) Edmonton, Edmonton Journal (Alta Prov Ct). [Note: this information is from a press source]. Mr. Richard, 29 years of age, abandoned his car behind a residential garage after police followed him to an alley. The police found in the back seat of his car a taped cylinder with a fuse at one end that they believed was “an active explosive,” Members of the Edmonton Police Service bomb squad exploded it. The force of the detonation was enough to propel the device’s screws and nails through a nearby garage door.

Officers found the metal embedded in the garage ceiling. [ 36 ] Mr. Richard’s lawyer advised the court that Mr. Richard was making pipe bombs to blow up a beaver dam and that Mr. Richard had forgotten that the pipe bomb was in the car after he constructed it at a friend’s garage. Mr. Richard pled guilty to making explosives and possession of a controlled substance. He was sentenced to two months in prison. [ 37 ] R v Fassina , 2000 MBCA 43 [ Fassina ] is a Manitoba Court of Appeal decision dealing with a substantial amount of explosives.

At the initial sentencing Judge Devine of the Manitoba Provincial Court in R v Fassina , 2000 CarwsellMan 362 at paragraph 28 had the following comments around moral blameworthiness and the manufacturing of pipe bombs: 28 Possession of explosives is an offence which by its very nature has the potential of significant harm to both individuals and community, but does not necessarily inherently require a denunciatory sentence in some circumstances. For example, a high school student who has manufactured his own pipe bomb has a much lower degree of moral blameworthiness than does Mr.

Fassina, who had a huge amount of explosives stored dangerously in two places, in a vehicle out in public, as well as in his mother's home, and by the very nature of these items were obviously items that he knew he had no business possessing, even if he maintains that he had no actual knowledge of their status as stolen goods. [Emphasis in original] [ 38 ] In Mr. Fassina’s case, a much higher degree of moral blame was attached to his conduct. The offence was very grave and involved the theft of 15 cartridges of emulux slurry explosives. Mr.

Fassina also refused to acknowledge responsibility, or the inherent dangerousness of the explosive items, or to cooperate in removing the balance of the stolen explosives. He was uncooperative with police efforts to recover the balance of the explosives from the break in, which involved a further 141 pounds of high explosives. His behaviour related to a continuing lifestyle of drug abuse and criminality. Judge Devine imposed a penitentiary sentence of 2.5 years less remand credit. [ 39 ] This sentencing decision was appealed by the accused for the reason that the judge likely

intended to impose a period of closely supervised probation. Given that it is not possible to attach a probationary term to a penitentiarysentence, the Manitoba Court of Appeal varied the sentence by reducing it to 18 months in jail followed by two years of probation(Fassina). Despite the fact that Judge Devine’s sentence was varied on appeal, the Court analysis of the question of moral blamearguably still stands, since the appeal only turned on the issue of whether a slightly reduced jail sentence should be imposed in order toallow a term of probation. [40] R c Murphy, (NB Prov Ct) Mr.

Murphy possessed explosives and stored them in a dangerous manner, such that they could have detonated. There was no evidence that they were possessed for anything illegalbut otherwise non-nefarious purpose such as clearing land. The risk to public safety was great given the manner of their storage. A one-year custodial sentence was imposed. [41] R c Branscombe, [1998] AN-B no 307 (QL) (NB QB), Cour du banche de la Reine du Niveau-Brunswick. The accused was found guilty of possession of an explosive substance that he was storing for someone else. He wassentenced to a seven-month custodial sentence. Mr.

Branscombe was a subordinate in the operation and thus received a more lenientsentence to reflect his level of moral culpability. [42] R v Dwyer, [2001] OJ No 3448 (QL) (Ont J) [Dwyer]. The accused pled guilty to possession of a large number of firearms under ss. 92 and 95, careless storage, possession of an explosive substance, and resisting a peaceofficer. Mr. Dwyer was sentenced to a 4.5-year custodial sentence. The trial judge emphasized the principle of deterrence in imposing asentence of one- year consecutive on the charge of possession of an explosive substance. [43] R c Caouette, (Que Ct) [Caouette].

In Caouette, Mr. Caouette pled guilty to possession of an explosive substance, contrary to section 82(1) of the Code, and conspiracy to commit an indictable offence,namely the theft of explosives, contrary to section 465(1)(

c) of the Code. [44] Mr. Caouette was offered inexpensive housing by his co-conspirator’s parents. Mr. Vandal, his co-conspirator, informed Mr. Caouette that 75 pounds of explosives were stored on this property from a theft Mr. Vandal hadcommitted at a mine. Mr. Vandal promised Mr. Caouette a percentage of profits from the sale of these stolen explosives. Mr. Caouetteand Mr. Vandal then planned to commit a separate theft of explosives on the same mine. [45] Mr. Caouette had a prior record for conspiracy to commit break and enter, conspiracy to commit a robbery, and possession of a prohibited weapon.

He was 36 years old at the time of sentencing and had a nine-year gap in hiscriminal record since his last conviction in 1992. Mr. Caouette actively collaborated with the police after his arrest. [46] Following the Proulx analysis, the Court found that the Mr. Caouette did not represent a danger to the public and that, as there were no applicable mandatory minimums, a Conditional Sentencing Order might be appropriate. Asentence of six months consecutive on each of the two charges was imposed, to be served in the community, less remand time (Caouetteat para 12).

The Court also imposed a term of 18 months’ probation to follow the Conditional Sentence Order. [47] R v Thorsteinson, 2016 MBQB 100, a two-year Conditional Sentence Order [CSO] imposed in relation to a section 82(1) conviction and a

section 117.01 conviction. This case has little value in that the CSO disposition was theresult of a joint submission, the reported decision is merely with respect to a later CSO breach hearing. It contains little of the originalcircumstances. Courts Martial Cases

[ 48 ] Dubé J. (Corporal), R v, 2008 CM 3009 [ Dubé ]. This is a Court Martial case, and therefore, distinguishable from any case decided in the regular criminal system. Military courts are a separate system aimed at dealing with “matters relating to the Code of Service Discipline and the maintenance and effectiveness and morale of the troops” ( Dubé at para 5 ). [ 49 ] However, it should be noted that Mr. Dubé was charged under section 82(1) of the Criminal Code with possession of explosive devices, and under

section 130 of the National Defence Act , RSC 1985, c N-5 [ Act ]. The circumstances of the offence were that he took possession of explosive devices without authorization, and lied to keep them in his home. He failed to take any precautions with the explosives, and thus subjected those around him to potential danger. He was sentenced to a reprimand and a $500.00 fine. [ 50 ] Cimon J.J.P.R . (Ex-Private), R v , 2005 CM 4 . Mr. Cimon pled guilty to charges of possessing explosive substances and possession of stolen property. Counsel made a joint submission on sentence of a 30-day custodial sentence. [ 51 ] Mr.

Cimon possessed explosive devices he obtained from the military and also built small explosive devices for amusement, including 200 grams of a C-4 type explosive. The Military Court accepted the joint submission and imposed a 30-day term of imprisonment and an order pursuant to

section 147.1 of the Act prohibiting him from possessing firearms, prohibited weapons, restricted weapons etc. for an 18-month period. Sentencing Principles and the YCJA [ 52 ] The sentencing principals of the Youth Criminal Justice Act , SC 2002, c 1 [ YCJA ], are set out in

part 4 of the YCJA . [ 53 ] The overarching principles of the YCJA are that young persons, by reasons of their immaturity, are subject to a presumption of reduced moral blameworthiness ( R v D.B., 2008 SCC 25 , [2008] 2 SCR 3). This means that the sentencing of adult offenders is of limited assistance to a sentencing judge tasked with sentencing a young person. Further, the YCJA emphasizes rehabilitation and reintegration.

Section 38(1) of the YCJA requires that the sentence hold the young person accountable, impose meaningful consequences, and promote rehabilitation and reintegration. [ 54 ] While the 2012 amendments to the YCJA now permit the Court to consider denunciation and “specific” deterrence in the sentencing of a young person, the principles of denunciation and deterrence are not as relevant to the sentencing of a young person as they are in the sentencing of an adult.

The Court may avert to these principles on a discretionary basis within the youth sentencing framework, pursuant to section 38(2)(f), which states that the sentence may have the objectives of denouncing unlawful conduct and deterring the young person from committing offences. General deterrence is not applicable under the YCJA (see R v B.M.S. , 2016 NSCA 35 at para 31 ). Personal Circumstances of ADB [ 55 ] The pre-sentence report on ADB dealing with his previous pipe bomb offence a few months earlier was updated for sentencing in this matter.

ADB’s mother indicates that ADB was doing fine generally until around 2015 when he and his family moved from Estevan to Swift Current, Saskatchewan. The police in Estevan and Swift Current had a different

interpretation of ADB’s behavior from his mother’s, however. Estevan reported that ADB was known to them and that his criminal activity files dated back to when he was 12 years old. Swift Current reported that they had heard ADB’s name mentioned “nonstop” for the past two years. ADB’s mother reported that she had heard ADB was starting to have trouble in school while he was in grade 8 in Estevan. He transferred to Swift Current School halfway through his grade 8. By the time he is in grade 9, his mother reported, things

seemed to go downhill for him. While he had some friends in Estevan, his mother reported that she did not know of any friends in school in Swift Current. ADB started to hang out with youth and young adults that were not attending school. His school history is one of getting into fights at school and altercations with teachers, resulting in suspensions. ADB is approximately two years behind his grade level.

He had been making progress when serving his previous sentence in custody at the youth facility. [ 56 ] ADB was employed at a local pizza business and a local delivery service, but he quit both jobs as he said they were boring and there was not a lot to do. ADB does have family support including his grandmother’s support. Unfortunately, ADB lost his grandfather who he was close to. His grandfather passed away in 2010 by a car accident. ADB’s father passed away from cancer in February 2018. ADB has unresolved grief issues over his father which his previous sentence attempted to address.

That probation order is still running. ADB did not attend the memorial service for his father, and his mother believes he carries regret over his relationship with his father. [ 57 ] Of concern is ADB’s drug use, and mental health issues arising from alcohol and drug use. This led to admission of ADB into hospital in the summer of 2016 under The Mental Health Services Act , SS 1984-85-86, c M-13.1 for suicide threats.

He was admitted to a Mandatory Detox facility in the summer of 2016 and again in December of 2017. [ 58 ] The pre-sentence reports have a running theme put forward by ADB indicating that he is bored. This is the reason for him not attending school, quitting his jobs, for breaching previous release conditions. The reports also have a running theme that ADB’s behaviour at home is described as defiant and that he simply does what he wants and gives no consideration of others in his family. He lacks insight into the dangerousness of his actions with explosives, despite his previous bomb offence.

The reports indicate that ADB has clear problems with compliance. This is in relation to court orders, medical treatment, addiction counselling and following rules general. [ 59 ] To ADB’s credit, the update on the pre-sentence report since his first bomb making offence, and his attendance in serving his sentence in open custody shows positive signs of change and engagement. He was co- operative in his reporting upon release and seemed eager to comply with his conditions. He was working on a plan to obtain his GED. His mother reported positive changes in ADB.

He was living at home and following house rules, which included doing chores. She also indicated that she did not believe he was using substances. ADB was focusing on his Plan Book to move forward and to keep himself busy. [ 60 ] The updated report also indicated that while in remand at the youth facility on the present charges, after initial struggles with authority, his behaviour was more positive. He was reported as polite, cooperative and was interacting well with staff and residents.

ADB was completing various high school classes and was at a stage where it was anticipated that he would need only four credits to complete grade eleven. Sentence [ 61 ] From the cases referred to above, even though most deal with youthful adult offenders rather than persons subject to the YCJA , the courts have treated persons charged with section 82(1) Criminal Code offences differently depending on the culpability and moral blameworthiness of the offender.

Younger offenders who appear to be making explosive devices out of curiosity, or not appreciating the danger that they are dealing with because of their age, are treated more leniently than adults. If the offender is dealing with the explosives for an improper purpose or illegal activity, or using extremely poor judgment, the penalties tend to rise accordingly. [ 62 ] ADB falls somewhere in between. He has a higher moral culpability than some of the accused in the cited cases. He had just been sentenced for making a pipe bomb, and was then found with material to make another.

The photos submitted show devices that are clearly pipe bombs, although it was not specifically determined if they could explode as they were destroyed by the police for safety reasons. [ 63 ] The focus of these remarks has been on the section 82(1) offence; however, ADB also

faces the three additional charges of possession of meth (crystal meth) and breach of his probation order by possessing explosives and not complying with his curfew. [ 64 ] While the sentence will address rehabilitation for ADB, through a probation order, specific deterrence is also required for ADB. ADB’s previous pipe bomb conviction was on November 7, 2018. When he was on the community supervision portion he breached his conditions and also incurred a new charge of mischief on January 3, 2019, having been out of open custody for only 13 days.

He was required to serve out the community supervision of his sentence in custody. ADB concluded his custody portion of his first pipe bomb charge but was on probation for that charge and a mischief charge. Once released on January 12, he was involved once again with explosives which led to the present February 26, 2019 charges. As such the sentence I am now giving includes a period of custody, to address the need for specific deterrence for ADB.

He has not taken seriously the probation orders, nor appreciated the harm that he exposes himself and others to with his preoccupation with explosives. [ 65 ] As indicated orally the global sentence is a custody order of 12 months.

This is to be served as six months in closed custody and three months in open custody, followed by three months of community supervision by a one year probation order incorporating the following terms: report to probation, keep the peace and be of good behavior, curfew of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. unless permission granted by probation officer, assessment for addictions, in-and outpatient treatment, programming for anger management, personal counselling and mental health concerns, a firearm, explosive and weapon ban, searches for weapon ban breaches and that he is to pursue employment or attend school as directed. [ 66 ] In addition, is prohibited from possessing “The Anarchist Cookbook” or any portion thereof, or any publication, including digital copies, that provide instructions on the production of explosive material or explosive devices. [ 67 ] It is anticipated that the sentence will be ADB’s last as a youth.

It is hoped that ADB benefits from the specific deterrence and rehabilitative aspects of the sentence before he finds himself in the harsher sentencing structure for adult offenders. [ 68 ] I acknowledge the work of the Provincial Court Clerk Catriona Kaiser-Derrick for her research into the case law on this issue. _______________________ K. Bazin, J