R. v. Blanchard Date:, 2010 BCPC 380

Citation: R. v. Blanchard Date: 20101227 2010 BCPC 0380 File No: 181305-2C Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. ROBIN BLANCHARD REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J. O'C. WINGHAM Counsel for the Crown: J. Harris Counsel for the Defendant: J. Dunne Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C.

Dates of Hearing: August 19, 20,2010 Date of Judgment: December 27, 2010 [ 1 ] THE COURT : The accused has pled guilty to aggravated assault of Stanley Larson, which is Count 2 on the Information, possession of a loaded prohibited restricted weapon, a handgun, without being the holder of an authorization or a licence, that is Count 5; and possession of a firearm, a handgun, while not being the holder of a licence and registration certificate, that is Count 6. [ 2 ] Initially, this matter came before me in August as a preliminary inquiry.

I committed the accused to stand trial on all the counts in the Information except Count 1. The accused has since re-elected to Provincial Court and today pled guilty to the offences that I have referred to. [ 3 ] On March 29th, 2010, the complainant, Stanley Larson, travelled from Nanaimo to his sister's residence in Surrey. He was accompanied by two female friends. When he arrived at his sister's residence, she was there with her two children and her boyfriend. Mr. Larson and Mr. Blanchard had been friends for years.

My recollection of the evidence at the preliminary inquiry was that they were high-school friends and friends after that time. [ 4 ] At some point on the evening of March 29th, 2010, Mr. Blanchard was on the phone with one of the females at the residence and was told that Mr. Larson was present at the residence. [ 5 ] A short time later, Mr. Blanchard arrived at the residence with another male who has never been identified. Mr. Blanchard

greeted everyone and shook hands with Mr. Larson. Shortly after, Mr. Blanchard hit Mr. Larson with a handgun and then began firing the gun. Two shots hit Mr. Larson; one in the groin and one in the knee. Mr. Blanchard and the other male then fled the scene. [ 6 ] The facts do not make it clear what Mr. Blanchard's motive was. Counsel for Mr. Blanchard says that he remains fearful and does not want to discuss what was behind his actions. He says that his client does not know why he fired the gun and that he is remorseful. There is some indication that the events were related to an old drug debt as he and Mr.

Larson were former drug users. Mr. Larson spent two days in the hospital; the bullet in his knee has not been removed. [ 7 ] Mr. Blanchard is 29 years old. He was born and raised in British Columbia. At the time of the offence he was in a common-law relationship. He has a ten-year-old son. He has a grade 12 education and he has worked in the construction industry. I am told that at the time of the offences he was in a plumbing/pipefitting apprenticeship program. His counsel says that he has been clean and sober since 2005 which coincides, I note, with the date of his most recent conviction. [ 8 ] Mr.

Blanchard has a criminal record (text removed for publication) which includes convictions for seven breaches of a disposition, breach of an undertaking, possession of stolen property over $1,000, break and enter, mischief and uttering threats, convictions for assault, breach of probation, and lastly in October 2005, aggravated assault for which he received a sentence of six months in jail and 18 months probation.

He was also given a ten-year mandatory firearms prohibition. [ 9 ] The Crown submits that an appropriate sentence in this case is, on Count 2, six years less time served of nine months; Count 5, four years concurrent; Count 6, four years concurrent. I note that Count 5 carries a minimum three-year sentence. [ 10 ] The Crown also seeks DNA orders which are not opposed, they are mandatory, and a lifetime firearms prohibition under s. 109 of the Criminal Code . That is not opposed either. [ 11 ] Counsel for Mr.

Blanchard submits that a total global sentence in this case should be four years less time served of nine months. [ 12 ] The Crown referred me to a number of cases which it says shows a range of sentence in these types of cases. Those are R. v. Iraqui (phonetic)

(2005) Carswell 1670; R. v. Bates , a decision of mine from earlier this year, 2010 Carswell 379; R. v. Duomo (phonetic)

(2005) Carswell 266; R. v. Gifford (phonetic)

(2009) Carswell 1741 and R. v. Ivanic (phonetic)

(2009) Carswell 1818. I will come back to the case law in a few moments. [ 13 ] The principles of sentencing are set out in s. 718 through 718.2 of the Criminal Code .

Section 718 provides that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to provide, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: denunciation, specific and general deterrence, separating offenders from society where necessary, rehabilitation, reparation of harm done to victims of the community and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.

I also have in mind that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. [ 14 ] In this case, the primary principles of sentencing, in my view, are denunciation and deterrence; both specific and general deterrence. I am also mindful that the accused in this case is relatively young and that rehabilitation is a principle that ought not to be forgotten and is important. [ 15 ] A letter from the City of Surrey entitled "Community Impact Statement" was filed by the Crown. It sets out that in Surrey in 2009, 41 persons were shot, including 14 fatally.

It says that this represents a 40-percent increase in persons shot in firearms-related homicides in Surrey from 2008. It goes on to say that in 2009 the Surrey RCMP responded to and investigated on average 49 reports of shots fired each month and were able to substantiate 119 confirmed shots-fired incidents. This statement indicates that that is a 21- percent increase in confirmed shots fired since 2008. Further, in 2009 the Surrey RCMP seized 204 shotguns or rifles, and another 99 handguns for a total of 303 firearms.

The letter expresses the concern of, certainly, the council, I suppose, signed by Mayor Watts, and by the Chief Superintendent of the RCMP, of the proliferation of firearms-related offences in the Lower Mainland. [ 16 ] I will say that one only has to turn on the news or read the newspaper to realize that the use of firearms by persons in the community is of grave concern to the community in which all of us live, not just in Surrey. The letter from Surrey simply outlines some statistics which reflect that concern, or the reasons for that concern. [ 17 ] I must also, in sentencing Mr.

Blanchard, consider any mitigating and aggravating circumstances. In this case the mitigating circumstances are the guilty plea that he has entered to the three counts, albeit somewhat late in the process, and his remorse. The aggravating circumstances are this was an unprovoked, as far as I can tell, attack on Mr. Larson. There were children in the home as well as other innocent persons, and at the time of the offences Mr.

Blanchard was prohibited from possessing firearms. [ 18 ] Of the cases referred to by the Crown, the closest in terms of circumstances to this case are the Bates case and the Ivanic case, in my view. In the Bates case the accused pled guilty to aggravated assault, using a firearm in committing robbery, and using a firearm while committing the indictable offence of aggravated assault. In Bates , the charges involve two separate incidents. In one, the aggravated assault involved the accused shooting another male over a dispute involving a female.

The second, the robbery, involved using a firearm to steal puppies from a stranger. The accused had a record in that case which included assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, and assault. In that case, I had the opportunity to review the law and the range of sentence for aggravated assault as set out in the decision of R. v. Johnson

(1998) Carswell, B.C. 2788 (B.C. Court of Appeal) where the court stated: Counsel referred us to numerous authorities of this court, which indicate that the range of sentence for similar offences is broad and lies between 16 months and six years imprisonment. Sentences at the lower end of the range tend to be imposed in fight situations in which the altercation escalates and results in injuries to the victim.

Sentences at the higher end of the range tend to be imposed in situations where the victims are attacked with a weapon without provocation and without any opportunity to defend themselves. [ 19 ] In Ivanic , Madam Justice Wedge sentenced an accused for a number of offences, including aggravated assault which, as I read the case, was in the context of what might be termed a "drug ripoff". In that case the accused shot the complainant two times in the arm

as the accused was leaving the scene. The victim was unarmed and the accused knew that. In that case the court found that a six-year sentence on the aggravated assault was the appropriate sentence. On the possession of a firearm, in that case the court sentenced the accused to four years. [ 20 ] At paragraph 48, Madam Justice Wedge quoted from R. v. Grant , a decision of the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice

(2005) O.J. No. 4599 : In terms of general deterrence, if weapons prohibition orders are to have any meaning and effect, a violation of such orders must be taken very seriously. It cannot be left in any doubt to those persons who are subject to such orders that if they choose to violate those orders, that choice will attach serious consequences.

In that case, on the possession of a firearm, the court sentenced the accused to four years. [ 21 ] In this case on Count 2, which is the charge of aggravated assault, I am of the view that the offence falls towards the higher end of the range set out by the Court of Appeal in Johnson . In this case the accused attacked and shot Mr. Larson without any provocation, without any warning, and the offence occurred in a private residence where children and other innocent persons were present.

It is fortunate that no one else was hit; apparently three shots were fired. [ 22 ] In my view, the sentence should be at the higher end. I am of the view, though, that it need not be at the absolute upper end, and the reason I say that is that Mr. Blanchard, in this case, has expressed what I consider to be sincere remorse and he has also accepted responsibility by pleading guilty, although, as I have indicated, it is at a late date. [ 23 ] Mr. Blanchard, will you stand up, please, sir? Mr. Blanchard, on Count 2, which is the aggravated assault, I am of the view that a fit sentence is a five-year sentence.

I am going to give you credit for nine months. That means you will serve a further four years and three months on that charge. On Count number 5 and Count number 6, there will be a sentence of four years on each of those. They will run concurrent to each other and to the sentence on Count 5. [ 24 ] I am also making an order under s. 109 of the Criminal Code that you be prohibited from possessing the firearms, ammunition, restricted firearms, et cetera, as described in that section.

It is a lifetime prohibition. [ 25 ] These offences are all primary designated offences, I am told, for the purposes of the DNA legislation. There will be an order under s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code that samples of your DNA be obtained; that applies to all three counts. [ 26 ] The victim impact surcharge is waived, as you will be in custody. [ 27 ] Is that everything, Ms. Harris? [ 28 ] MS. HARRIS: I believe so, Your Honour. [ 29 ] THE CLERK: Your Honour, there's no stay of proceedings in any of this? [ 30 ] MS. HARRIS: There will be, yes. [ 31 ] THE COURT: Thank you. Anything further? [ 32 ] MS.

HARRIS: So Crown is directing a stay of proceedings on the remaining live outstanding counts, please. [ 33 ] THE COURT: All right. Thank you. [ 34 ] THE CLERK: And the 181306, the substantive? [ 35 ] MS. HARRIS: Is that the firearms? That was the fix date matter? [ 36 ] THE CLERK: That's a fix date matter. [ 37 ] MS. HARRIS: Crown will withdraw its application. It can't really be stayed, so we will withdraw the application on the record, Your Honour. [ 38 ] THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Good luck, Mr. Blanchard. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)