R. v. P.U.H. Date:, 2012 BCPC 197

Citation: R. v. P.U.H. Date: 20120413 2012 BCPC 0197 File No: 182091-1 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. P.U.H. ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE M.B. HICKS Counsel for the Crown: J. Spivey Counsel for the Defendant: I. Friesen Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Dates of Hearing: November 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, December 1, 12, 2011 Dates of Hearing: January 27, February 23, March 29, 2012 Date of Judgment: April 13, 2012

[ 1 ] THE COURT : P.U.H. is before this court to be sentenced following his pleas of guilty to three charges on Information 182091-1. [ 2 ] The events occurred on November 1st of 2009. He has pled guilty on Count 3, that he attempted to steal money from R.Y. and thereby committed the attempted robbery of R.Y., contrary to ss. 344 and 463 (

a) of the Criminal Code . In respect to Count 4, he has pled not guilty to the offence of sexual assault, but guilty to the offence of assault of J.L., contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code . He has pled guilty on Count 8 to the aggravated assault of J.H., contrary to s. 268(2). [ 3 ] The Crown seeks a global penitentiary sentence in the four-and-a-half to five-year range, less credit for pre-sentence custody. Ms.

Friesen, on behalf of this offender, seeks a sentence of 18 months to two years globally, less credit for pre-sentence custody. [ 4 ] P.U.H. has been in custody since January the 11th of 2011, following breach of his bail, and there were some other periods of in-custody time predating that time. He was later sentenced to 30 days incarceration in respect to a breach of his bail. Having deducted that period but added the earlier remand periods related to these offences, P.U.H. has been in custody on these offences, pre- sentence, for a period totalling just under 18 months.

Were he to be sentenced in the range proposed by Ms. Friesen, he would receive a sentence very close to time served, up to about six additional months. She proposes thereafter that he be placed on a probation order to support ongoing rehabilitation and community supervision. [ 5 ] The Crown seeks, in addition, ancillary orders for DNA sampling and a firearms prohibition order, which I understand are not opposed. [ 6 ] The pleas in this case came after several days of trial and after I had heard the evidence of each of the three complainants. Although not an early plea in the usual sense, Ms.

Friesen says it came at the earliest point possible, because she says P.U.H. was in a state of intoxication on the night of these events such that he had no recollection of the events. It was only at the point in the midst of the trial when Crown counsel was able to provide definitive confirmation of DNA evidence for her consideration that P.U.H. was then in a position to accept responsibility, and he promptly did so.

I note here that P.U.H. has not himself given evidence about his state of intoxication, but his assertion through counsel that he has no recollection of the events by reason of intoxication is not challenged by the Crown, and I accept it for the purposes of this sentencing. [ 7 ] The following are the circumstances as I find them to be for the purposes of this sentencing based on the evidence I heard and admissions made by counsel in the course of the trial. [ 8 ] On the evening of October 31st, 2009, J.L. hosted a Halloween party at her home for 20 or so friends.

Her home is in a townhouse complex on […] Street in Surrey, just south of a park and L[…] Secondary School. […] Street is intersected from the west by […] Avenue and […] Avenue. Those avenues intersect […] Street opposite the park and a short distance north of J.L.'s townhouse complex. [ 9 ] Some time after 2:00 a.m. on November 1st, as the party was breaking up, J.L. accompanied R.Y. to retrieve his car which he had parked on […] Avenue. R.Y. had not consumed alcohol that night.

J.L. had consumed alcohol earlier in the evening and become intoxicated as a result; however, by the time these events occurred, she had sobered substantially. R.Y. was carrying J.L. in his arms. [ 10 ] As they proceeded to his car they observed a group of five or six males approaching on […] Street from the north toward the point […] Avenue intersects with […] Street. They were speaking loudly and joking. They did not appear to be sober. As R.Y. crossed […] Street to walk west on […] Avenue, he could hear the approaching group and he thought he heard a firecracker.

He was concerned that they were now being followed by the group, and he sped up. The group of males caught up to him, and he was grabbed by the collar by one of the group. He was still holding J.L. in his arms. He was asked for his name repeatedly. He was grabbed by the wrist. He put J.L. down. Another male in the group said, "Just give us $20 and we'll leave you alone." R.Y. identified P.U.H. as the person who grabbed his wrist. P.U.H. also wanted money. He reached towards J.L. and grabbed her breast. She yelled, and he released his hand after about a second.

This is the act constituting the assault of J.L. to which P.U.H. has pled guilty on Count 4. [ 11 ] R.Y. said he did not have any money on him. He offered the group his shirt, worth about $50, but it was refused. They kept asking for money. He said his wallet was in his car and he would go to get it. At this point, the male who had grabbed his wrist, that being P.U.H., then grabbed R.Y. by the throat and began walking him forcefully back the way he had come towards […] Street. Others in the group were gathered around them. R.Y. attempted to wrench himself free, but was punched to the head by another male.

He told J.L. to run. He was able himself to get free of the grip. He and J.L. both ran towards […] Street. [ 12 ] He was intercepted and forced up against a car parked on the east side of […] Street. J.L. ran south on […] towards her home. R.Y. was grabbed in a headlock and squeezed. He was forced to the ground. P.U.H. said words to the effect, "Do you want to get knifed?" He was held in a chokehold on the ground and struck on the back and the head a number of times by the group. He was able to get free of the chokehold and away from the group. [ 13 ] He ran back to […] Avenue and west to retrieve his car.

He then drove around the block, returning to […] Street to search for J.L. He did not find her. He encountered a police car at […] Avenue and spoke to the police officer there. [ 14 ] J.L., in her evidence, stated that she observed R.Y. taken to the ground and punched by the group of males. She saw that he was able to get free and run away. At about this time, her friend, J.H., who had also been at the party, came from the townhouse to the street. He had heard J.L. screaming for help from the street. As he arrived, he saw a group kicking R.Y. He yelled and began walking towards the group to help R.Y.

The beating stopped and R.Y. ran. [ 15 ] J.H. approached and said, "What's going on?" A male in the group, wearing a white hoodie, put an arm around J.H.'s shoulder. It seemed to J.H. to be non-threatening. He let his guard down, he said. The male began weakly punching him in the shoulder, face and upper body while speaking to him in a friendly way.

[ 16 ] J.L. stated that she saw the group begin beating J.H. She next observed him on the ground being punched, stomped on and kicked. He was surrounded in this position. She then went into her home to get help. J.H. got free and ran to her home. He was bleeding. He had suffered 13 or 14 stab wounds. He was in significant distress. [ 17 ] M.L., J.L.'s mother, reassured J.H., who feared for his life, while waiting for emergency services to arrive. [ 18 ] Cst. Heuft responded to the call respecting the stabbing. He attended the cul-de-sac east of the townhouse complex and the park.

He observed P.U.H. on a path to the east of the park. He chased him and apprehended him as he tried to hide in the hedge there. Cst. Heuft found a folding knife with a three-inch blade in P.U.H.'s pocket. There was a substance on the blade, which appeared to be relatively fresh blood. The knife was seized and is an exhibit on this trial. [ 19 ] That knife was submitted for DNA testing. The substance on the blade was confirmed to be blood. DNA was found on the knife which originated from three sources. After testing, the major source was confirmed to be J.H.

I am advised that it was the confirmation of this evidence linking P.U.H. to the stabbing of J.H. which led to his pleas. [ 20 ] I understand Ms. Friesen, counsel for P.U.H., consulted a defence expert to be satisfied of the strength of the conclusions respecting the DNA evidence before she was satisfied the pleas were appropriate. [ 21 ] Ms. Friesen takes the position, however, that the evidence supports a conclusion that a second person also inflicted stab sounds. She points to the description of the clothing worn by the first person to confront J.H., who put his arm around his shoulder.

That person wore a white hoodie. P.U.H. wore a black hoodie when he was arrested moments after the assault. [ 22 ] Secondarily, Ms. Friesen points to the presence of two other DNA profiles in the mixed sample on the P.U.H. knife which are unidentified and which could be from substances or fluids other than blood. [ 23 ] I note here J.H.'s evidence is that the person who put his arm around him and began weakly jabbing him was, he later came to believe, actually stabbing him with a knife. J.H.'s description of the attack on himself does not include details described by J.L.

She noted the presence of the group of males around J.H. as he was being beaten and on the ground. J.H. himself did not see a knife at any point, nor is J.L. able to give evidence about the stabbing itself. It seems that J.H. came to the conclusion that the male who initially began to weakly punch him was actually stabbing him after he later discovered that he had been stabbed. [ 24 ] P.U.H. admits that he stabbed J.H. The Crown admitted, for sentencing purposes, that it could not prove P.U.H. was the only stabber.

The presence of other unidentified DNA profiles on the knife, and the absence of evidence that the man in the white hoodie, or anyone else, held a knife, in my view amount to nothing more than speculation about the involvement of another person in the stabbing. I am unable to make a finding that someone else participated in the stabbing, because the evidentiary support for such a finding is too weak. In any event, by his own admission, P.U.H. participated in the assault of J.H. and inflicted stab wounds.

He is fully culpable in the aggravated assault of J.H., even if another stabber were present. [ 25 ] There is evidence supporting the conclusion that P.U.H. was intoxicated. Evidence of intoxication was observed by R.Y., J.L., Cst. Heuft and Cst. Bradley, who dealt with P.U.H. at the booking counter, and there is evidence of balance difficulties and somewhat erratic behaviour in the video from the booking desk camera.

As I earlier stated, I accept the assertions by counsel for P.U.H., which are not challenged by the Crown and which find support in this evidence that P.U.H. was intoxicated to the point that he does not have a recollection of the events. [ 26 ] I will now speak about the impact of these attacks on the three victims. J.H., known to his friends as "Q.," suffered significant injuries from the beating and stabbing which he suffered in this attack. Those injuries are depicted graphically in the book of photographs taken of him at the hospital and marked as Exhibit 30 on the trial.

He received stab wounds to the neck, face, chest, shoulder, arm and hand. Staples or stitches were required to close the wounds. Three of the wounds were to the torso just under the heart. Some scarring remains. He bled terribly, as evidenced in photographs filed at trial showing the townhouse complex and the inside of the L. residence. J.H. suffered a collapsed lung and surgery was required to address that and to drain fluid and to repair a hole in is diaphragm. He was in hospital ten or 11 days. [ 27 ] He plays sports and still experiences a stinging pain when exercising, due to the lung injury.

He continues to experience pain in his back and ribs when he breathes deeply and cannot exercise as long as he did before these events. Some exercises he can no longer do due to weakness in his shoulder. He was off work for three months. He still has pain where his hand is scarred if he presses there. There was numbness for about five months in the area of his neck where he was stabbed. No ongoing treatment is currently underway. [ 28 ] Neither J.L. nor R.Y. suffered physical injuries. R.Y. has filed a Victim Impact Statement which Crown counsel read at the hearing.

It describes the significant emotional impact the events of that night have had on R.Y. He became withdrawn as a result of these events and became fearful when he saw groups of men together, no matter the circumstances. For the most part that has passed now, two years after the events, but not entirely. He will still become unsettled in certain situations and is more wary. I would summarize his statement as describing a person who has lost the sense of his own personal security.

Even in circumstances in which most people would not feel at risk, R.Y. may be fearful and unsettled. [ 29 ] The principles which guide the determination of a fit sentence in a criminal case are set out in s. 718 through 718.2 of the Criminal Code . The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society. This is achieved through sanctions which address several stated objectives.

Those include denunciation of unlawful conduct, deterrence, both generally and specifically in respect of this offender, separation if necessary, rehabilitation, reparation to victims and the community, and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender. I must impose a sentence which is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [ 30 ] In determining a fit sentence I must take account of aggravating and mitigating factors. The sentence I impose should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders in similar circumstances.

The combined effect of consecutive sentences should not be unduly long or harsh.

[ 31 ] In cases of unprovoked random and gratuitous violence, as this case is, superior courts in this province have said that the safety of the community is a fundamental concern and the objectives of denunciation and general and specific deterrence will be predominant, but in each case, other relevant objectives must be considered and balanced in determining a fit sentence. [ 32 ] Rehabilitation is a relevant consideration in the case of a youthful offender.

The particular circumstances of the offence and the offender must be considered. [ 33 ] From this outline of the variety of themes and objectives at play in sentencing on a serious criminal offence, it will be seen that the sentencing regime in this country is not an arbitrary process in which one sentence fits all offenders guilty of a particular crime or crimes. It is, rather, a principled assessment and balancing of these objectives, and the particular and unique circumstances of each case, which is required to arrive at a just result. [ 34 ] P.U.H. is 22 years of age.

He was 20 years of age at the time these events took place. [ 35 ] I have reviewed the Pre-Sentence Report. P.U.H.'s adolescent and teenage years were troubled. His parents separated at a young age. His contact with his father has been essentially limited to a three-year period he spent living with his father in Namibia from about the age of seven. His father was an alcoholic and P.U.H. was first introduced to alcohol during this period by his father.

P.U.H. gained nothing from the time that he spent with his father there. [ 36 ] His mother was unable to deal with him during his rebellious years, and at the age of 17 P.U.H. was asked to leave her home. He began using alcohol and marihuana, Ecstasy and cocaine, to excess. He became addicted to cocaine at the age of 18. Up to the point of his detention on these offences, he had not taken any counselling for substance abuse. He was expelled from school in Grade 10.

His work history has been unstable and irregular. [ 37 ] As a youth, P.U.H. had convictions for mischief, uttering threats and breach of an undertaking. As an adult, he has three convictions for failing to attend court, two for breach of recognizance and one conviction for violating a youth disposition. [ 38 ] It appears from his Conviction

Summary Report that he was on a youth probation order at the time he committed the offences I am dealing with. Probation Service reports his compliance with community supervision has been poor in the past. [ 39 ] Notwithstanding this background, P.U.H. has what I would describe as a remarkable level of support. His mother, two friends, the pastor of the church P.U.H. has been associated with, and his wife, and several of the people active in the church congregation, have all written letters of support, attesting to his good qualities. Also included is a letter from C.

Mazzocca, who is an instructor at the Surrey Pre-Trial Centre Work Program who wrote very positively about P.U.H.'s work and contribution in the tailor shop at the Remand Centre. A number of those people were in court when submissions were heard on the last day, and I see that there are several people here supporting P.U.H. today. [ 40 ] P.U.H. has been in custody now for almost 15 months, since January of last winter, 2011. During that time, he has completed the Violence Prevention Program and the Career Search Workshop. He is currently participating in the Substance Abuse Management Program.

He is now, I understand, just a few courses short of completing his Grade 12 level. [ 41 ] Those who have written letters of support emphasize their surprise at his involvement in offences of violence, which they say is not consistent with the person they know. They point to the implication of a confused childhood and the absence of a father in his life who could provide strong guidance. They also describe his active involvement at a younger age in church activities, including charitable work.

They point out that this appeared to change for the worse when changes occurred at the church, leading to P.U.H. losing what I would describe as his sense of connection there. [ 42 ] P.U.H. spoke at his sentencing. He apologized for his actions. He referred to the steps that he has taken, and is taking, to address issues underlying his criminal conduct referred to earlier. He has plans to train as a chef on release.

He intends to participate in Alcoholics Anonymous. [ 43 ] He prepared and read a letter of apology to each of the three victims, each letter referring to the specific injury or hurt that he had caused to that person, and he expressed remorse for that conduct. Copies of his written statement and the three letters that I have referred to are exhibits on this sentencing. [ 44 ] These then are the circumstances of the offence and the offender against which I must assess and balance the purpose and the various principles of sentencing to arrive at a fit sentence.

In arriving at a fit sentence, I take account of the fact that these three offences involving the three victims occurred in a very short period of time and were committed essentially as part of a single continuing event, beginning with the confrontation, beating and attempted robbery of R.Y., in the midst of which J.L. was assaulted, and finally, J.H. was stabbed as he intervened. [ 45 ] In my view, the worst and most serious component of this continuing event was the aggravated assault of J.H. by repeated stabbing.

In this context, it is appropriate to first address the sentencing principles and determination of a fit sentence in respect to that offence, and then to consider appropriate sentences in respect to the other offences, allowing the court then to determine a proper global sentence and how that should be imposed, including whether concurrent or consecutive sentences are appropriate. [ 46 ] In proceeding in this manner, I wish to emphasize that the entire transaction, and each offence, constitutes serious criminal conduct and is not to be minimized. [ 47 ] In R. v.

Craig , [2005] BCCA 484 which is a decision of the Court of Appeal in this province in 2005, an effective sentence of two years imprisonment and two years probation imposed in respect of an aggravated assault committed by a man in his early 50s, with a dated criminal history for drugs and alcohol-related offences, was reviewed. The offender stabbed his spouse, from whom he had recently separated, at least three times in the lower abdomen, without provocation or warning. Her injuries were severe, requiring surgery and blood transfusions. These wounds were slow to heal.

Her hands, which were also cut, suffered impaired functioning. There

were significant implications for her work and recreational activities. The accused was intoxicated. The Court of Appeal concluded thatthe violent nature of the attack was not given sufficient weight by the sentencing judge and increased the sentence to an effective three-year sentence of imprisonment, which included 12 months pre-sentence custody credit on a two-for-one basis. In that case, at paragraph10, the court stated the following about the appropriate range, which, in my view, is relevant in the circumstances of this case.

Thecourt stated the following: It is not disputed, and it appears clear on the cases, that a sentence of two years imprisonment for the commission of aggravated assault... which is the sentence that was effectively imposed by the judge, ...is at the low end of the range of sentences imposed on similar offenders in similar circumstances. R. v. Chana (1998), (BC CA), 115 BCAC 159 is referred to. The range of sentence for similar offences was described as being between 16 months and six years in R. v. Johnson (1998), (BC CA), 131 CCC (3d) 274 (BCCA), two years less a day to six years in R. v.

Biln 1999 BCCA 369, and most recently,between 18 months and six years in R. v. Willier 2005 BCCA 404. In determining an appropriate sentence within this broad range, anunprovoked attack with a weapon tends to result in the imposition of a sentence at the higher end, while a consensual fight that hasescalated, with resulting injury, tends to result in a sentence at the lower end... And reference is made to R. v. Willier and R. v. Johnson. [48] The Craig case differs from this case in several respects. Most immediately striking is the relative age difference.

P.U.H.was relatively young at the time the offence before me occurred. The absence of other offending conduct directed towards victims,which is present in this case, was not present in Craig, and the relationship between the offender and the victim present in Craig is notpresent here. [49] On the other hand, both cases involved intoxication. The court in Craig, at paragraph 15, stated the following in respect tothat circumstance, which is also worthy of consideration here: I am not persuaded that the respondent's intoxication is a significant mitigating factor.

He had been drinking to excess, but that did notcause him to do what he did. It may have reduced his inhibitions, but it did not reduce his moral blameworthiness for his violent attackand the injuries he caused to the victims. The court referred to R. v. Packwood (1993), 31 BCAC 155, and R. v. A.P.M., (BC CA), [1995] BCJ 2213 (QL) (CA). [50] R. v. Biln, supra, is a decision of the Court of Appeal in 1999, which continues to be referred to in providing sentencingcontext in cases of aggravated assault. That case involved a 50-year-old man with no prior record.

He had consumed alcohol to a stateof intoxication earlier, although the court found that to have worn off to some degree at the time he attacked another man from behindwith a crowbar at a wedding. At that time, a conditional sentence order was an available sentencing option, which is not the case today. The Court of Appeal upheld as fit a three-year jail sentence, noting that the circumstances require proportionate weight be given todenunciation and deterrence.

The court found the global range to be two years less one day to six years, and to vary within that range,depending on the circumstances of the offence and the offender. [51] R. v. L.D.W., 2005 BCCA 404 , [2005] BCJ 1746 is another decision of the Court of Appeal in 2005 in this provincewhich reflects a sentence in the range proposed by the Crown. That case involved the imposition of a global sentence on two counts ofaggravated assault, two counts of assault with a weapon, one count of common assault, and counts of uttering threats and possession of adangerous weapon.

That case involved a disadvantaged aboriginal man with a prior record, including violence. He attacked his formerwife and companions in her home while under the influence of drugs and alcohol. He had issued prior threats arising from jealousy. ThePre-Sentence Report showed him to be predisposed to violence and likely to reoffend. His substance abuse was not under control. TheCourt of Appeal upheld an effective five-and-a-half-year sentence, which included 18 months pre-sentence custody.

The court said thecircumstances were egregious and called out for a sentence which emphasized denunciation, deterrence and separation, withrehabilitative issues to be addressed within the institution. I note a past history of violence in that case, which is not present here. [52] Toward the middle of the range are cases such as R. v. Mitchell, (BC CA), [1993] BCJ 748 in the Court ofAppeal in 1993, and B.G.P., [2006] BCCA 215, also a decision of the Court of Appeal.

In the former, the Court of Appeal upheld athree-and-a-half-year sentence imposed in respect of a 41-year-old man with no prior record who broke into the home of a man who hebelieved was involved with his wife and inflicted life-threatening injuries with a knife. He was assessed with unresolved psychologicalissues and had relapsed alcohol and prescription drug problems. The court noted the sentence to be in the high end, but not outside therange following a guilty plea. [53] In B.G.P., the court replaced a conditional sentence order and probation with an effective four-year jail sentence.

The 31-year-old offender in that case had prior adult convictions for robbery, assault and weapons offences fuelled by drug addiction. Heslashed his victim in the stomach with a Bowie knife, causing serious injury, while collecting a drug debt. The offence was notpremeditated, but he was forearmed.

[ 54 ] In R. v. Rogers , [2011] BCCA 156 a recent decision in 2011 of the Court of Appeal, that court upheld a global sentence of five-and-a-half years following pleas of guilty to charges of robbery and aggravated assault. That case is substantially different than the circumstances before me, other than it combines the same offences as I am dealing with. In that case, the 34-year-old female first offender, 27 at the time, and an accomplice, robbed a store owner at knifepoint. The robbery was planned. The victim was bound and threatened. A plastic bag was put over her head and she lost consciousness.

She was strangled in the process with an electrical cord and she was stabbed in the torso and neck, requiring surgery. Although her circumstances had improved at the time of sentencing, the offender remained a low-to-moderate risk to reoffend. The sentencing court noted the vulnerability of victims in these circumstances, and the high level of unnecessary and gratuitous violence. The court noted the steps taken by the offender to address rehabilitation, but emphasized the need for a denunciatory and deterrent sentence. [ 55 ] I have reviewed all of the cases provided by counsel.

I will not review them all beyond those that I have noted here in these reasons. No set of facts is the same.

They demonstrate consistently that in cases of gratuitous violence, and in the case of robberies, particularly those which are planned, strong statements of denunciation and deterrence are called for. [ 56 ] The cases I have referred to in these reasons reflect a variety of circumstances which have influenced courts in determining a fit sentence within the range earlier referred to. [ 57 ] In the present case, P.U.H., intoxicated, and a member of a group of five or six males, confronted initially two unarmed, and to him, unknown young people, on a neighbourhood street.

The attempt to rob R.Y. involved threats, initially, and then escalating violence which led to this offender taking a hold of him by the throat and then participating in a beating. Thankfully, no serious injuries were caused him before he was able to get away, but he suffered precisely the kind of emotional trauma one would expect, which has had a continuing effect on his sense of personal safety and security. [ 58 ] In the midst of this, P.U.H. assaulted J.L. by grabbing her breast. He pled to a common assault.

Although that act itself was at the relatively less serious end of the spectrum, it is, nevertheless, a significant interference with the personal integrity of the victim and is aggravated by the part of the body touched and by the intimidating circumstances in which it was committed. It was a selfish and intrusive act committed in the context of a much larger threatening and intoxicated group. It was a cowardly act. [ 59 ] Flowing directly from these events was the attack on J.H., another entirely innocent person responding to assist friends in danger.

Although I could not say in these circumstances the aggravated assault of J.H. was premeditated, P.U.H. was forearmed. It is useful to remember here that aggravated assault occurs when the offender wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the victim, and it carries a maximum sentence of 14 years incarceration. Every aggravated assault, by this definition, is a significant intrusion on the safety and well-being of the victim. In this case, no less, J.H. suffered significant injuries by the knife of P.U.H. He required surgery and feared for his life.

He continues to suffer the effects of this infliction of senseless, gratuitous violence by a drunken lout with a knife who had the advantage of numbers on his side. [ 60 ] This series of offences calls for a sentence which expresses the outrage of the community and which deters others, as well as P.U.H., from further conduct like this. [ 61 ] In the balance, however, I also take account of P.U.H.'s pleas of guilty, his youth, his strong expressions of remorse for his conduct, his steps towards rehabilitation and the strong support he has in the community, which will be important in sustaining his progress once he returns to the community, and the absence of a prior record of violence. [ 62 ] In considering all of these factors, I have concluded that an effective global sentence of less than two years does not give adequate weight to the deterrent and denunciatory factors that I must take account of. [ 63 ] I conclude a fit global sentence would be three years incarceration. [ 64 ] P.U.H. is entitled to 18 months credit for pre-sentence custody. [ 65 ] P.U.H., please stand up.

I impose the following sentences: On Count 3, the attempted robbery of R.Y., I impose a 12-month sentence of incarceration. [ 66 ] On Count 4, the assault of J.L., I impose a six-month concurrent sentence. [ 67 ] On Count 8, the aggravated assault of J.H., I give credit for 18 months pre-sentence custody. I impose 18 additional months incarceration, concurrent. [ 68 ] Following your release, there will be a probation order for a period of two years.

The conditions are that you keep the peace and be of good behaviour. [ 69 ] You are to report forthwith following your release to a probation officer, and thereafter as directed by the probation officer.

You are to reside where directed by the probation officer, and you are not to change that address without the prior written approval of the probation officer. [ 70 ] You are to attend, participate in and complete, to the satisfaction of the probation officer, any assessment, treatment or counselling that may be directed by the probation officer, including, but not limited to, psychiatric or psychological counselling and assessment. [ 71 ] You will have no contact, directly or indirectly, with R.Y., J.L. and J.H.

You will not attend at any place of residence, school or employment of those three individuals. [ 72 ] You are not to possess any weapons as defined in the Criminal Code . You are not to possess knives, except for the preparation or consumption of food, or at a workplace, for the purpose of your employment.

[ 73 ] You are to abstain absolutely from the possession or consumption of alcohol and non-prescription drugs, or substances controlled under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , unless you have a medical prescription for those substances issued in your name by a qualified medical practitioner. [ 74 ] There will be an order that you supply a sample of your DNA to the National DNA Databank. This is a primary-designated offence; that is, the aggravated assault and the attempted robbery.

That will be supplied during the course of your incarceration. [ 75 ] There will be a firearms prohibition order under s. 109 of the Criminal Code . From what I can determine, this is a first offence to which this

section would apply. There are certain items that are prohibited for life; the other items will be prohibited for a period of ten years. [ 76 ] The victim fine surcharges are waived, and that concludes the sentencing. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)