R. v. Uppal Date:, 2013 BCPC 110

Citation: R. v. Uppal Date: 20130123 2013 BCPC 0110 File No: 186397-1 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. HARCHAND SINGH UPPAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE D. R. GARDNER Counsel for the Crown: D. Wilson Counsel for the Defendant: L. Chu Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Dates of Hearing: Oct. 9, 10, 12, Dec. 2, 2012 Date of Judgment: January 23, 2013

[ 1 ] THE COURT : This has been a difficult and tragic case for everyone involved. Mr. Uppal has been found guilty that on the 27th day of February 2010, he, while being in care and control of a motor vehicle that was involved in an accident which resulted in the death of Leorna Ranger, did, with intent to escape civil or criminal liability, failing to stop his vehicle and give his name and address and offer assistance contrary to s. 252(1.3) (

b) of the Criminal Code . [ 2 ] I am thankful for the very helpful submissions that have been prepared by counsel. Defence counsel very carefully and very accurately set out the facts of this case, as well as the background of Mr. Uppal. [ 3 ] The accident occurred on February 27th of 2010 at approximately 1:30 a.m. while Mr. Uppal was driving to a temple in Surrey to perform a religious ceremony. The collision occurred just past the intersection of 100th Avenue and King George Boulevard. [ 4 ] Ms. Ranger, a 46-year-old woman, was J-walking across the street. The weather was dark and it was raining.

She went across the northbound lanes of traffic and stepped onto a cement median separating the northbound and southbound lanes. She was near a green fence approximately six feet high that had been built to deter pedestrians from J-walking across the intersection. One witness, Eli Vanderveer, observed Ms. Ranger looking downwards and then stepping off of the median into the path of Mr. Uppal's oncoming vehicle. The other eyewitness, Mr. Pappas, did not make any observations of the vehicle until the impact.

He heard screeching and a bang simultaneously, which drew his attention to the accident. [ 5 ] Both of these men went to Ms. Ranger's assistance and immediately called 9-1-1. Another vehicle blocked off the lane where Ms. Ranger was lying. She was transported to the hospital, where she succumbed to her injuries. [ 6 ] Mr. Uppal kept driving and attended at the temple. He completed the religious ceremony and drove home. When his wife woke up, he told her about the accident. Mr. Uppal and his wife told their son.

While watching a Global TV news program, they learned that the accident had been with a female pedestrian who had died from her injuries. [ 7 ] Mr. Uppal, through his son, contacted Staff Sgt. Gill of the RCMP to report his involvement in the accident at approximately 10:00 a.m. [ 8 ] On March 2nd, Mr. Uppal gave a voluntary warned statement to the police. During his statement, Mr. Uppal acknowledged that he made a mistake by not stopping, and that it troubled him. He said that he was in a state of shock and confusion following the impact.

He expressed his remorse, explaining that he felt very sorry for the woman that he hit. The charge was not laid until one year after the accident. [ 9 ] The Crown has referred to the case of R. v. Lisi , a 2001 decision of our Court of Appeal.

In that case, the court held that leaving the scene of an accident with intent to avoid liability can deprive law authorities of knowing what the accused was like at the time and what condition he was in at the time the offence occurred, quite apart from the dangers to the victim who may be alive and in need of assistance. [ 10 ] The Crown has submitted that when deciding whether failing to remain at the scene of an accident is a serious personal injury offence, the court must focus on the actions of the accused and not on the actions or presence of anyone else who happened to be at the scene. [ 11 ] The Crown is opposed to a conditional sentence, and the authorities support their position that the accused would not be eligible for a conditional sentence because this is a serious personal injury offence. [ 12 ] The Crown has also pointed out that the fact that the accused was not to blame, if I can word that somewhat awkwardly, for the accident is not a mitigating circumstance.

It is noted in paragraph 25 of Alvis that when a person hits someone and drives away, he or she exposes the victim to danger, harm and risk. The Crown further argues that the offender should not be able to rely on the position that it would not have mattered if he did stop. They were quoting from R. v. Alvis in saying that, and in that case, the court noted that the offender should not accrue any benefit because, as it turned out, there would not have been anything he could have done to save the victim's life if he had stopped.

In Alvis , the court stated that: I am of the opinion that leaving the scene of an accident is dangerous behaviour which endangers or is likely to endanger the life or safety of another person. The fact that other people happen to be present does not mitigate the danger he left the victim in, nor does it matter that, as it turns out, he would not have been able to change the fate of the victim. The offender was not aware of that fact when he decided not to stop.

On the facts of this case, the court held, in Alvis , that the accused was clearly aware that he had struck a person on a bicycle and that the person struck his windshield and then fell onto the ground. At the time the offender decided not to stop, he had no idea if anyone else had stopped, nor whether he could have assisted the victim. By not stopping, he clearly endangered the life or safety of the victim and therefore committed a serious personal injury offence. [ 13 ] I will now turn to the defence argument. The defence has referred the court to over a dozen cases.

The one that I find to be most helpful is the decision of my brother Judge Hicks. He was dealing with a very similar situation and he quotes the principles of sentencing set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code , which state that the fundamental purpose of sentencing in a criminal case is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that address certain specified objectives.

The objectives being considered are denunciation, specific and general deterrence, rehabilitation and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the accused, while acknowledging the harm done to victims, in this case the family of Ms. Ranger, and to the community. Any sentence the court imposes must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the accused's degree of responsibility. [ 14 ] The court must take into account any aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and must also consider all available sanctions

other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances, and not deprive the accused of his liberty if less restrictive sanctions are appropriate. [ 15 ] It is clear from the cases that the community treats every violation of this

section of the Code as serious, because every death is a tragedy, and everyone must be expected to respect and to do all they can to protect human life. As the Honourable Judge Hicks noted, there is no minimum punishment set out for this offence. [ 16 ] Mr. Uppal is 72 years of age and has no criminal record. He was born in the Punjab region of India and immigrated to Canada in 1971. He was joined here by his wife in 1973 and became a Canadian citizen in 1976. He has been married for 47 years. Mr. Uppal has two sons, a daughter and four grandchildren. Mr.

Uppal resides with his wife, one of his sons and his daughter-in-law in New Westminster. His son, Jagpal, is an electronic technician with Coast Mountain Bus Company. His son, Kamaljeet, lives in Norway and works as an engineer with the Norwegian State Oil Company. His daughter is a cardiology technologist. [ 17 ] In 2006, Mr. Uppal retired from a long career as a heavy-duty diesel mechanic and a truck driver. He is not supported by a pension. [ 18 ] He is apparently an energetic volunteer and dedicated member of the local community.

I am told that for over 35 years, he has been involved with various organizations, donating his time to his community and his religion. [ 19 ] In the late 1970's, Mr. Uppal was a committee member of the Indo-Canadian Sikh Association of Prince Rupert, tasked with managing the local Sikh temple. In the 1980s, he helped establish the Indo-Canadian Heritage Club, an organization facilitating cultural events for Indo-Canadian families that have recently moved to Vancouver. Since 2002, Mr.

Uppal has been a director of the Gurdwara Nanaksar Satsang Sabha Society, which organizes and supports the Sikh temple that he currently attends in Surrey. He is deeply religious, he is a baptized Sikh and attends his temple once or twice a day. He is often required to attend prayer services at odd hours, including the middle of the night. In addition, his faith requires that he not consume alcohol. His last drink was in the late 1990's. [ 20 ] A letter from Mr. Uppal's family doctor has been submitted. He has a psychiatric history and suffers from depression and anxiety.

He takes Loxapine, an antipsychotic drug, which has certain side-effects, including indifference to surroundings, emotional quieting and insensitivity. The letters that have been submitted indicate that in the past, he has required the supervision of his family to ensure compliance with his medical program. [ 21 ] Numerous letters of support have been provided by his family and friends and members of the Sikh community. He is described as kind and generous.

He is also described as a person who has dedicated himself to supporting the community through tireless work and charitable contributions, which has earned him a great deal of respect from his peers. The letters of support all emphasize Mr. Uppal's honest and hardworking nature. He is described as a good husband, father and friend. [ 22 ] There are also numerous letters before the court from family members of Ms. Ranger who have understandably expressed their grief and sorrow for the loss of a beloved daughter, wife and sister. [ 23 ] In imposing a sentence on Mr.

Uppal, I must keep in mind that he caused the death of Ms. Ranger. I must sentence him because he failed to meet the community's basic expectation of every one of its citizens when having been involved in an accident resulting in another person's death; to provide whatever assistance one can, having been a party to that offence, and ensure a proper investigation can be undertaken and proper responsibility placed by giving the information required by law.

Any sentence the court imposes must recognize the seriousness of this conduct, its moral blameworthiness, denounce the conduct by expressing the community's abhorrence of it, but it must also reflect the previous good character of the accused. It is the balancing of these objectives the court relies on in determining what the court believes is a just and appropriate sentence. [ 24 ] Should there be a prison sentence imposed on Mr. Uppal? As the Crown has acknowledged, Mr. Uppal specifically does not need to be deterred.

He is 72 years of age, he has no criminal record and has, to this date, been a respected member of the community. [ 25 ] I am also mindful that neither alcohol, speed nor erratic driving played any

part in this tragedy. Although he originally drove away from the accident scene, several hours later, he made the morally correct decision to turn himself in to the police. The police did not have to dedicate countless hours in investigating this matter, as so often happens. [ 26 ] Our Court of Appeal has said that sentencing is a highly-individualized process, and in the unique circumstances of this case, I have concluded a jail sentence is not necessary. [ 27 ] Accordingly, I impose a fine of $2,000. He will have until July 31st to pay that fine. [ 28 ] Furthermore, under s. 259 of the Criminal Code , Mr.

Uppal, I am suspending your right to drive anywhere in Canada for a period of one year. You need to know, Mr. Uppal, that suspension is in effect immediately, it is in effect 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and there are no exceptions. [ 29 ] The victim fine surcharge will apply, and in these circumstances, I am going to order a DNA sample be provided. You will attend at the Surrey RCMP between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on January 30th for the purpose of providing a DNA sample. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)