R. v. AKOLO Date:, 2014 BCPC 103

Citation: R. v. AKOLO Date: 20140117 2014 BCPC 0103 File No: 187267-1 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. AKONYU GEOFFREY AKOLO REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE M. B. HICKS Counsel for the Crown: K. Marks Counsel for the Defendant: J. Currie Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C.

Dates of Hearing: Nov. 28; Dec. 6, 2013 Date of Judgment: January 17, 2014 [ 1 ] THE COURT : Akonyu Geoffrey Akolo has pled guilty to Count 1 on Information 187267-1 that between January 1st of 2007 and February 28th of 2010 at Surrey, British Columbia he did, in connection with the duties of his office with the City of Surrey, commit fraud or a breach of trust in relation to development project 7907-0269-00, contrary to s. 122 of the Criminal Code . Based on his plea of guilty, the defence agrees that Mr. Akolo was an official who held an office as those terms are defined in s. 118 of the Criminal Code .

He is before the court today to be sentenced, following submissions of counsel on November 28th and December 6th, 2013. [ 2 ] This offence carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. The Crown seeks a 15-month sentence of imprisonment in a conventional jail setting, reflecting the strong statement of deterrence and denunciation required in cases of this kind. The defence position is complicated by Mr. Akolo's personal circumstances, which I will summarize shortly. The defence proposes a three to four- month conventional jail sentence which would allow Mr.

Akolo to then return to Africa where work, I was informed at the time submissions were made, is readily available for him in his profession. In the event I conclude a lengthier custodial sentence is required, the defence says a proper balance of sentencing objectives would permit that sentence to be served in the community on conditions set out in a conditional sentence order.

The Crown says both a short conventional jail sentence without probation and a lengthier conditional sentence order are not consistent with the purpose and principles of sentencing in this case, and the Crown opposes both of those alternatives. [ 3 ] The circumstances are the following: Mr. Akolo was born in Uganda in 1965. In 1989 he received a Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Environmental Science from the University of Lesotho. He came to Canada in 1991 and he enrolled as a graduate student in Community Planning at UBC in 1991.

In 1992, while continuing his studies, he was hired by the City of Surrey as a planning assistant, initially on a temporary status and then in February of 1993 as a permanent employee. He completed his Master's degree at UBC in 1994. In 1997 he was appointed associate planner at the City of Surrey. He advanced to the position of Planner I in January of 2004 and Planner II in April of 2006. [ 4 ] As a City employee, he was informed of the obligations set out in the City's Code of Conduct bylaw which, among other obligations, at paragraph 3(

g) states that he will not "accept or offer or agree to accept a commission, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind from any person who is dealing with the city, either on his own behalf or through a relative or other person for his advantage". The code also provides in subparagraph (

e) that he not "grant any special consideration, treatment or advantage to any person in their dealings with the City". [ 5 ] The position of Planner II at the City is an intermediate, professional position which requires special skills. Effective communication skills in a variety of media and with the public are required. In respect to planning issues, he must be able to conduct research and analysis and write comprehensive reports on complex planning issues. He has supervision responsibilities in relation to subordinate positions.

He must have a thorough knowledge of planning principles and practices, including applicable statutes and bylaws, and he must be effective with minimum supervision. The responsibilities of the position are significant.

They are set out in the Crown's recitation of facts to include the following: preparing research and analysis on a wide range of planning issues; preparing planning comments on complex and comprehensive development applications; preparing reports on a variety of planning items; dealing with the public and providing responses to inquiries and correspondence on planning matters; supervising the work of junior planners and planning assistants; participating as a member of task forces or planning teams where necessary; assisting other staff in performing their duties; preparing and updating policy documents when required; and performing related duties as required. [ 6 ] The primary function of the Planning and Development Department where Mr.

Akolo worked is to advise and support the City in the orderly development of the City by preparing land use plans, bylaws and policies and by managing the development application process in a manner consistent with approved plans, bylaws and policies. [ 7 ] It is clear that this position is a significant position of responsibility in the area of development and implementation of municipal planning for the City of Surrey. Mr.

Akolo was entrusted with a substantial level of responsibility to act in the community's best interest when addressing this important role of municipal governance. [ 8 ] In January of 2007, Jack Saran and his company, New Cory Developments, approached the Surrey Planning and Development Department about the development of property between 2929 and 2901 King George Highway. On September 7th of 2007, Mr. Saran submitted a land development application for a proposed townhouse development on the property. It was assigned development project number 7907-0269-00. On June 24, 2008, Mr.

Akolo took over as the responsible planner for this project. On November 5th of 2009, Mr. Akolo sent Mr. Saran an e-mail attaching a checklist of items requiring resolution in order for the project to be approved. Included were two required fee payments to the City. Mr. Saran was required to pay an indoor amenity contribution of $44,100 and cash in lieu of parkland contribution of $21,000. The indoor amenity fee is required when indoor amenity space is not being provided in the development proposal.

The cash in lieu of parkland fee is required by provincial legislation where the project does not provide for a parkland component. [ 9 ] On November 25th of 2009, Mr. Saran met with Mr. Akolo and delivered two cheques dated November 23rd, 2009, payable to the City of Surrey covering these two fees. Copies of the cheques appear in the Crown's book of documents, which is marked Exhibit 1, at tabs 3 and 4. Mr. Akolo did not handle those cheques as he is expected to. He did not deliver them to the appropriate City or department staff for processing. He put them into his desk. Mr.

Akolo says it was never his intention at that point to mishandle these cheques. His sister was dying in Uganda and he was scrambling to organize his affairs so that he could travel there. In these circumstances, he put the cheques in his desk and he forgot about them. [ 10 ] He went to Uganda and he was there when his sister died. In the meantime, on November 30th of 2009, the City of Surrey issued a development permit to Mr. Saran in respect of the project. Mr. Akolo says on returning to work he found the two cheques in his desk. He had already signed off on the project and the permit had been issued.

He worried that if he now came forward with the

cheques, having previously signed off on the project, he would expose his failure to follow proper procedures. He had received informal reprimands respecting his exercise of judgment on past occasions and was worried about how this improper handling of these cheques would be received by his supervisors. Although Mr. Akolo refers to informal reprimands, Crown counsel points out there is no history of any formal reprimand on his record, nor any formal assessment of work performance and no suggestion his employment was at risk. [ 11 ] Mr.

Akolo says no system was in place at the time whereby anyone would learn of the cheques following approval of the project. He realized that if he returned the cheques to Mr. Saran, he could make some money for his personal use. Mr. Akolo told Dr. Manfred Kuchenmuller, who is a psychologist retained by the defence, the following, which appears in his report at page 2: He said that as the project had already been approved and as the developer's payment of $65,000 would not be missed by the City, he just wanted to get rid of the cheques.

With this fear of reprimand and his worry about his personal debts which he had accrued over the years supporting his family and extended family in Uganda in mind, he contacted the developer and proposed to give the cheques back to him. [ 12 ] On January 14, 2010, Mr. Akolo met with Mr. Saran at Surrey City Hall. He told Mr. Saran he had not deposited the cheques which he had received from Mr. Saran on November 25th. He proposed returning the cheques to Mr. Saran in return for which Mr. Saran would pay him some amount of money. Mr. Saran asked for time to think about this. He was shocked.

On January 18th of 2010, he met again at City Hall with Mr. Akolo who told Mr. Saran that he had prepared an invoice for $30,000 plus GST for professional consultation services. This would allow Mr. Saran to justify a payment to Mr. Akolo as a legitimate business expense. Mr. Akolo told Mr. Saran that no one would question the payment of the indoor amenity fee and the cash in lieu of parkland fee so long as Mr. Akolo provided a memo that all fees were paid. Again Mr. Saran was shocked. He asked for time to consider this. In short, Mr. Akolo sought $30,000 as a secret payment from Mr.

Saran and he would then return the two cheques made out to the City of Surrey totalling $65,100 to Mr. Saran. [ 13 ] Mr. Saran met with the project architect and told him about Mr. Akolo's approach. On January 27th of 2010, they met with City officials and described what had occurred. On January 28th of 2010, Mr. Saran met with Surrey RCMP and described the events. On January 29th of 2010, Mr. Saran met Mr. Akolo at City Hall. Mr. Akolo gave him an envelope saying that it contained the invoice. Mr. Saran did not open the envelope. He went directly to the RCMP and he delivered the envelope.

Inside was an invoice on the letterhead of Millennium Global Associated Services directed to New Cory Investments Inc. and referencing the proposed development project number 7907-0269-00 at 2929 to 2901 King George Highway. It was for $30,000 plus $1,500 GST, totalling $31,500. It purported to be a final fee for services rendered on the project. It purported to be signed on behalf of Millennium by Margaret Akulia. Later discovered in Mr.

Akolo's workstation was a work authorization and agreement document on the Millennium letterhead providing details of services to be undertaken by Millennium in support of a development permit application to the City of Surrey. The specific project and the name of the client party are not entered but it purports to have been signed on August 19th, 2008 by Margaret Akulia and it is tab 6 of Exhibit 1. [ 14 ] Margaret Akulia is the sole proprietor of Millennium. The business solicits funding from governments, including the Ugandan government, to build houses, schools and businesses.

Millennium then outsources the work to be done. Mr. Akolo and Ms. Akulia have known each other for about 20 years. Ms. Akulia on one occasion in the past outsourced a project to Mr. Akolo in Uganda. As a result, Mr. Akolo had access to the Millennium forms and letterhead which he used to create the invoice and work authorization and agreement document. Ms. Akulia was completely unaware that her company and her name were being used by Mr. Akolo. Neither she nor her business had any role in the project.

She did not authorize or prepare the documents and she did not sign those documents. [ 15 ] On February 15th of 2010 Mr. Akolo was suspended without pay by the City of Surrey. His workstation was searched. The two original cheques from New Cory Investments to the City of Surrey, a copy of the Millennium invoice and the Millennium work authorization and agreement form were found. On February 23rd of 2010 Mr. Akolo admitted to City officials that he attempted to solicit a commission of $30,000 from Mr. Saran in exchange for ensuring the two cheques Mr.

Saran provided as required with his development application totalling $65,100 were not cashed. He acknowledged the transaction would be covered up by the invoice purporting to be from Millennium. He admitted that he was aware of the City's code of conduct. Mr. Akolo was terminated from his employment with the City of Surrey that day. [ 16 ] The Crown has filed victim impact statements on behalf of the City of Surrey prepared by Nicola Webb, Judith Robertson and Vivian Wilkie, who is the General Manager of Finance and Technology for the City of Surrey. Ms. Wilkie says that following the disclosure of Mr.

Akolo's actions respecting this development project, the City undertook "an extensive audit and legal investigation to determine if there was any evidence that Mr. Akolo and possibly other employees in the Planning and Development Department had failed to collect certain development payments owing to the City in exchange for personal payments." This involved a review of files dating to 2000. The estimated direct financial cost, Ms. Wilkie states, is about $946,000. Ms.

Wilkie asserts that other indirect costs were incurred arising from potential lost development opportunities and impacts arising from negative publicity and employee management, although not surprisingly, those additional costs have not and probably could not easily be quantified. [ 17 ] It is clear from the statements that have been filed that City staff have endured an increased level of scrutiny and distress as a result of the revelations relating to this investigation.

It is clear that City employees have suffered through this process by reason of that increased scrutiny and the uncertainty and suspicion that would flow from it. That is detailed in the statements of Ms. Robertson and Ms. Webb. [ 18 ] Mr. Saran also filed a victim impact statement. He describes in detail the significant impact Mr. Akolo's actions have had on him personally, his sense of personal respect and his concern for the respect that people he works with and who he would deal with in the City of Surrey office and elsewhere might have as a result of suspicions cast upon him.

It is clear from the investigation that has been put before me and on the basis of which I am sentencing Mr. Akolo, that Mr. Saran has had absolutely no part and is a completely innocent party in this matter, as is the sole proprietor of the Millennium business, Ms. Akulia.

[ 19 ] I will now review the sentencing principles which are relevant in this case. The Information was sworn on March 15, 2011. [ 20 ] Mr. Akolo entered a plea of guilty on September 26th, 2013. The matter was adjourned for Dr. Kuchenmuller's psychological report and once that was completed the matter moved forward to the sentencing hearing during the fall. [ 21 ]

Section 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code sets out the considerations which must be applied in determining a fit sentence. Denunciation, deterrence both general and specific, rehabilitation, reparation for harm done and acceptance of responsibility are the sentencing objectives to be balanced in a case such as this. I must impose a sentence which is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of this offender. I must take account of aggravating and mitigating factors. A factor which I must specifically consider is Mr.

Akolo's abuse of a position of trust in relation to his role as an employee of the City of Surrey. The sentence I impose should be similar to sentences imposed in similar circumstances of offence and offender. Mr. Akolo should not be deprived of his liberty if less restrictive sanctions are appropriate. All available sanctions short of imprisonment which are reasonable should be considered. [ 22 ] A conditional sentence order pursuant to s. 742.1 of the Criminal Code is an available sentencing option because no mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment applies to this offence.

It is available where I would otherwise impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years. I note here that Crown counsel is seeking a 15-month sentence. I must then be satisfied that Mr. Akolo would not endanger the safety of the community if he were to serve the sentence in the community on strict conditions, and further that such a sentence would be consistent with the purpose and principles of sentencing which I referred to a moment ago. Mr. Akolo's personal circumstances and background are therefore relevant in assessing the appropriate sentence to be imposed. [ 23 ] Mr. Akolo is 48 years of age.

He has no prior criminal record. He was born in Uganda, the only male among seven siblings. His father died in 1982. His mother is now in her 80s. He and his older sister are the only surviving children. Four sisters have died of AIDS and the other died during childbirth. His mother, with help from his surviving sister and assistance that Mr. Akolo has been able to provide while working here, is helping to raise four surviving grandchildren in Uganda. Mr. Akolo's family had to flee Uganda to South Sudan following the overthrow of the Idi Amin regime because they were of the same tribe.

He lived there in a refugee camp until going to Lesotho in 1985 to attend university. Earlier I related his educational accomplishments leading to a Master's degree in Planning from UBC and his employment with the City of Surrey. Mr. Akolo is married, with three children. His son is in his 20s and works in Vancouver. His two teenage daughters are academically and artistically successful. Mr. Akolo and his spouse, both with responsible employment, enjoyed relatively comfortable financial circumstances. They purchased a home in Delta. All that has changed with Mr.

Akolo's dismissal and the charges which have followed. He has been unable to find work in his profession in Canada. It is unclear to me whether he has lost the required credentials to practice his profession here, but in any event, he will be unable to do so for the foreseeable future. [ 24 ] Mr. Akolo was later able to obtain a contract to work as a planner on a project with the United Nations Habitat organization in Juba, South Sudan. He began work there but was unable to return to complete the contract once the charges were laid.

Since that time he has been able to find only sporadic day labouring work for relatively minimal pay. Mr. Akolo's circumstances have led to significant financial pressures for his family and placed stresses on his marriage. Dr. Kuchenmuller reports, however, the relationship is resilient and Mr. Akolo continues to have the support of his spouse, who has filed a letter on his behalf. His daughters have suffered anxiety and stress arising from the charges and the media coverage which their father has received. Several letters of support have been filed by members of the local Ugandan community. They speak to Mr.

Akolo's active involvement in that community and in particular, his efforts to assist new arrivals to this area to become settled. He is well-respected in that community. That material also corroborates assertions made that he has been an important source of support to his remaining family in Uganda. Mr. Akolo's direct supervisor on the UN Habitat project has filed a letter of support in which he refers to Mr. Akolo's diligence and commitment in carrying out his responsibilities, attracting the admiration of local ministry staff there. [ 25 ] I was advised that employment was available for Mr.

Akolo in South Sudan which would allow him to continue to work in his profession and support his family. It is this opportunity which underlies the defence submission for a relatively short conventional jail sentence which would then allow him to move quickly to take up that opportunity. Since those submissions have been made, I note reports in the media of the apparently significant deterioration in circumstances in and around Juba in the South Sudan. [ 26 ] Through his plea of guilty, Dr. Kuchenmuller's report and submissions of counsel, I accept that Mr.

Akolo is remorseful for his conduct and concerned for its impact on his immediate and his extended family and the implications that it has had for his former co- workers at the City of Surrey. In his report, Dr. Kuchenmuller stated the following, quote: His offence was committed as a response to a stressful situation that threatened his livelihood and is not at all characteristic of his typical behaviour or his personality. [ 27 ] Based on his assessment, Dr. Kuchenmuller concluded that this was an isolated act unlikely to be repeated. Although I accept that Mr. Akolo faced financial pressures which played a

part in his decision to commit the offence and that this was an isolated event, I do not accept, based on the information before me, that Mr. Akolo's livelihood was threatened at the time. [ 28 ] Based upon his past history, the absence of any prior record, his regret and remorse over his actions and his plea of guilty, I conclude Mr. Akolo's specific deterrence is well in hand. Following from this, I conclude the safety of the community would not be endangered were Mr.

Akolo to serve a sentence on conditions in the community. [ 29 ] The issues I must now consider focus on whether a conditional sentence order would be consistent with the purpose and principles of sentencing that are relevant here, and then even were such a sentence to be appropriate, should I instead impose a relatively short conventional jail sentence to allow him to take up an opportunity to work in Africa and thereby assist more substantially in supporting his family. I take account in this analysis of the comments made by the Supreme Court in a case called R. v. Proulx 2000

SCC 5. The court there noted the importance of denunciation as a "symbolic collective statement that the offender's conduct should bepunished for encroaching on our society's basic code of values as enshrined in our substantive criminal law" (R. v. M.(C.A.), (SCC), [1996] 1 SCR 500 at para 81). That is a statement which is frequently quoted in sentencing circumstances.

At paragraph102 of that decision the court said that although incarceration will generally provide more denunciation, a conditional sentence order canalso provide significant denunciation when coupled with onerous conditions over an appropriate duration which would generally exceedthe length of a conventional jail sentence. The court further pointed out that a conventional jail sentence provides a harsher deterrentsanction. The court then stated: Judges should be wary, however, of placing too much weight on deterrence when choosing between a conditional sentence andincarceration . . .

The empirical evidence suggests that the deterrent effect of incarceration is uncertain . . . Moreover, a conditionalsentence can provide significant deterrence if sufficiently punitive conditions are imposed and the public is made aware of the severity ofthese sentences. [30] The court recognized in R. v. Proulx that such a sentence served in the community is generally more effective in achievingrestorative and rehabilitative objectives where those objectives also deserve a strong voice. (para 22) [31] In arguing for a conventional jail sentence of 15 months, Mr.

Marks on behalf of the Crown points to the not insignificantamount of money which Mr. Akolo sought from Mr. Saran, that he initiated the scheme, that he was not acting under someone else'sdirection nor succumbing to a temptation offered to him by someone else, that the City stood to lose $65,000 had his scheme succeeded,that it relied on his knowledge of the points at which internal controls were vulnerable and took advantage of that knowledge, that itrequired forethought and deliberation ultimately involving the creation of a false paper trail to deceive anyone who might investigate thecircumstances.

The transaction amounted to the obtaining of a secret commission or bribe at the expense of and contrary to his swornpublic responsibilities. In doing so, Mr. Akolo would solicit Mr. Saran to compromise his own personal standard of integrity, in itself anact which places Mr. Saran as an entirely innocent party in a position of conflict and invited him to participate in a criminal act. [32] The City of Surrey and its employees have felt the impact of this crime. They have been diverted from the community's work inorder to address it, as have resources. Mr.

Akolo's scheme had the potential to negatively impact the integrity and reputation of Ms.Akulia and her business. His motive, in the face of difficult personal struggles, was to address those circumstances by violating a publictrust and taking for his own use public funds. [33] Although Crown counsel fairly acknowledged mitigating features, the Crown rightly points out that Mr. Akolo in thesecircumstances carries a significant degree of moral blameworthiness. The Crown says cases supporting a conventional jail sentenceinclude the following. [34] The Crown has referred to R. v.

Gyles (2003), Carswell Ont. 8036 (Ont. SCJ) in which an elected municipal councillor received$60,000 in bribes, half of what he had demanded, in order to assist in two rezoning applications. A global conventional jail sentence oftwo-and-a-half years was upheld in the Court of Appeal (2005 Carswell Ont. 7422 Ont. C.A.) I note the mitigating features in that casedid not include a guilty plea. Further, the court found the offender to have developed little insight into his conduct and placed no weighton his apology as an expression of remorse. R. v. Bannon 2011 Ont.

SCJ 3000 involved a police chief who accepted secret commissions of $142,000 in respect of variouspurchases for his department over five years. A conditional sentence order was rejected. Gladue considerations reduced the sentence to12 months jail time. R. v. Gonsalves-Barriero, [2012] OJ 4369 (Ont. CJ) and R. v. Serre 2013 ONSC 1732 (Ont. SCJ) both involved criminal conductby immigration officials in the processing of immigration files in which they each benefited financially, in the former case on threeoccasions, in the latter in the role of a supervisor on ten occasions.

Conventional jail sentences of 44 months in the former case and fouryears in the latter were imposed. A conditional sentence order was sought in the latter but does not appear to have been sought orconsidered in the former case. [35] Ms. Currie on behalf of Mr. Akolo argues that restorative and rehabilitative objectives deserve significant weight in the balanceof sentencing objectives in this case. [36] Unlike the cases cited by the Crown, Mr. Akolo's actions are limited to this single instance.

She points out that he did notreceive any of the funds that he sought and the fees were eventually paid to the City as Mr. Saran had always intended. [37] Mr. Akolo has pled guilty and accepted responsibility. He is remorseful. He has no prior record. He has suffered personalembarrassment which has had a significant impact on his family and particularly his children.

This exercise of the worst possiblejudgment is the only mark on an otherwise remarkable personal story, from a refugee camp in South Sudan to a Master's Degree from theUniversity of British Columbia to a position of significant responsibility in the Planning Department of the City of Surrey. Mr. Akolohas and will pay a high price for his conduct, whatever the sentence I impose here today may be. [38] Ms. Currie has brought to my attention cases in which conditional sentence orders have been imposed in circumstances whichare at least as aggravating as this case, and in some cases more so. In R. v.

Harvey 2006 BCPC 444, Judge Chapman of this courtimposed a 12-month conditional sentence order and a 12-month probation order with house arrest, curfew and community work servicerequirements in the case of a mayor who on 90 occasions over several years misused his city-issued credit card for personal purposes. R.v. Everett 2010 YKTC 91 involved misappropriation of $38,300 by a mayor over eight years. A 12-month conditional sentence orderand 12-month probation order were imposed. A similar sentence was imposed in R. v.

Hurlburt 2012 NSSC 291 (NSSC) where a sittingmember of the legislature misappropriated over $25,000 of public funds in four transactions. R. v. Basi 2010 BCSC 1622 is well-known. The accused in that case, a government official, pled guilty to accepting $50,000 in respect of an application to remove land

from the agricultural land reserve. The Associate Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the time accepted a joint submission for a conditional sentence order of two years less one day and a fine in excess of $75,000.

She found a conditional sentence order involving a period of house arrest and community work service met the sentencing criteria. [ 39 ] Sentencing courts in many of the cases I have referred to have reflected on the impact even a single breach of trust committed by a person holding an important public responsibility has on the confidence of citizens of our communities place in their public offices and public officials. Each time this kind of conduct comes to light, our public institutions suffer.

Maintenance of public confidence in the integrity of public institutions is very important to the orderly functioning and development of communities so that they thrive to the benefit of their residents. Conduct such as that of Mr. Akolo is difficult to detect, and when it is it must be denounced through strong terms in sentences imposed which act, to the extent possible, to deter anyone tempted to take advantage of their position in the way that has occurred in this case. [ 40 ] In determining a fit sentence in this case I must also consider the weight to be given to restorative and rehabilitative factors.

I have referred to a number of those considerations. I have determined that Mr. Akolo is not a risk to the community while in the community. There is no suggestion that he has mis-conducted himself while awaiting conclusion of his matter before the courts. There is good reason in this case to consider, as other courts have done in similar cases, a sentence served in the community under strict conditions on a conditional sentence order. I conclude such a sentence does strike the right balance between denunciation and deterrent objectives and restorative objectives in the case of Mr.

Akolo. [ 41 ] The defence says if I reach the conclusion that a conditional sentence order is appropriate, I should also address Mr. Akolo's immediate work opportunity in Africa and impose a short conventional jail sentence of three to four months instead. I, as earlier noted, have observed through the media that circumstances have changed in South Sudan, but in any event, I have concluded that it would not be appropriate to impose such a short conventional jail sentence. I decline to do so. In my view, such a sentence is inadequate to address the proper balance of sentencing objectives.

In particular, it does not amount to an adequate statement of denunciation and deterrence in a case like this. [ 42 ] In my view, an appropriate conventional jail sentence would be 12 months imprisonment. In concluding a custodial sentence can be served in the community on a conditional sentence order, I have determined that it is appropriate to increase the length of that sentence, as contemplated by the Supreme Court of Canada. [ 43 ] Mr. Akolo, if you could now stand up, please. I impose a conditional sentence order in respect to this matter for a period of 15 months.

The conditions are that you keep the peace and be of good behaviour. The additional statutory conditions apply and will be reviewed with you before you leave the courthouse today. Forthwith on your release from the courthouse, you will travel directly to your residence and you will not leave that residence except in accordance with the terms of this order. You will report to a conditional sentence supervisor before 12 noon on Monday, the 20th of January 2014, and thereafter as directed by the supervisor. You will reside where directed by the supervisor.

You will not change that address without the prior written approval of the supervisor. [ 44 ] During the first nine months of the conditional sentence order you will be bound by a house arrest condition. You are not to be outside of your place of residence except in the following circumstances: to attend court when required to do so; to attend to your legal counsel; to attend to your supervisor; to attend to your employment pursuant to a

schedule provided on the letterhead of your employer and approved by the supervisor; to attend to community work service as directed by the supervisor; to attend to a medical or dental appointment, having informed the supervisor in advance of the date, time and location of that appointment. [ 45 ] You may be away from your residence where you have the prior written approval of the supervisor, which you must carry with you and produce on request of a peace officer or supervisor.

You may be away from your residence on either one of Saturday or Sunday between the hours of nine o'clock in the morning and 12 noon for the purpose of exercise, banking and similar personal business. You may be away from your residence when travelling directly to or from any of these responsibilities. [ 46 ] During the balance of the conditional sentence order, that is, the final six months, you will be bound by a curfew.

You must not be outside of your place of residence between 11 o'clock in the evening and six o'clock in the morning, seven days a week unless you have the prior written approval of the supervisor, which you must carry with you and produce on request of a peace officer or supervisor, or in the event of a medical emergency involving yourself or a member of your immediate family. [ 47 ] You will attend the door of your residence or by telephone if requested to do so by a peace officer or supervisor to confirm compliance with any condition in this order. [ 48 ] You will abstain from the possession or consumption of alcohol or any substance controlled under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act unless you have a medical prescription for that substance issued in your name by a qualified medical practitioner. [ 49 ] You will complete to the satisfaction of the supervisor 50 hours of community work service before the end of the fifth month of the conditional sentence period. [ 50 ] You will carry a copy of this order with you when away from your residence and produce it on request of a peace officer or supervisor. [ 51 ] Bearing in mind the timing of this offence, it predates the changes to the victim surcharge provisions and your personal circumstances, I waive the victim fine surcharge. [ 52 ] I have determined that although the offence I am informed falls within the secondary provisions of the DNA databank, I choose not to make an order that you supply a sample for that purpose. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)