R. v. Saran Date:, 2011 BCPC 308

Citation: R. v. Saran Date: 20111102 2011 BCPC 0308 File No: 189428-1 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. KARANVIR SINGH SARAN SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL and REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE BAHEN Crown Counsel: J.W. Lees, Q.C. Counsel for the Accused: J. Douglas Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Date of Sentencing Submissions and Sentence: November 2, 2011 Submissions by Counsel MR. LEES: Number 46 for disposition; Saran. MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honour, John Douglas for Mr. Saran. He's coming forward. THE COURT: Thank you. MR.

DOUGLAS: The Information is 189428, Count 2 alleges a possession of -- on June 16th, 2011, the possession of a stolen swimsuit, or swimsuit wear, of a value not in excess of $5,000. He waives the reading of that charge and enters a plea of guilty. Is that correct, Mr. Saran? THE ACCUSED: It is.

MR. DOUGLAS: Yes? THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Douglas. We'll record a guilty plea to Count number 2, the charge of possession of stolen property on the 16th of June of this year. MR. LEES: Your Honour, the circumstances, on June 16th, 2011 the police were contacted by the vice-principal of Princess Margaret Secondary, it's a high school located here in Surrey. Apparently the accused had been bragging about looting stores in Vancouver the night before, which just happened to be the night of the Stanley Cup riot.

The accused had been showing classmates some merchandise with price tags on it, the security tags were still attached, and the clothing consisted of a bikini and a dress from a particular store. I think the price on one of the items retailed for $64, the other one $35. So the police made their way to the high school, and the accused was there, the product was there, and the officer took the items down to the store in Vancouver and sure enough, that's property of that store. They did an inventory count and determined the items had been stolen the night before.

There was no surveillance camera in the store, and the accused is not, by this plea, admitting that he was there during the riot, that he entered store, but he is admitting that the property was stolen and made its way to him, and he was, as I say, he provided the best evidence that the Crown has, otherwise we wouldn't have had any. He comes before the court without a criminal record. It certainly would have been a much more aggravating feature if he -- if we had proof that he was involved in the looting.

It's still an aggravating circumstance, in my submission, given the turmoil that that theft caused and the whole ruckus caused, but I'm not sure that it's enough alone to disentitle him to a discharge. In my submission the range is -- would include a discharge up to a suspended sentence; either way, I'm suggesting community work service would be an appropriate way to deal with it. THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Lees. MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honour, I can tell you he's 18 years old, he has no criminal record. He's living at home in Surrey with his parents; he's been with them his whole life.

He's presently working in a tent-rental business, and he's set to go to Thompson River University January 1st and take culinary arts for 14 months. Grade 12, and as you've heard, he has no criminal record. What occurred in this case, there was a bunch of kids in a classroom, and he did not attend at the riot, he did not take this bikini, he had no use for it. This was getting passed around. He knew it was part of the proceeds from the riot, but he only had it in his possession for maybe five to ten minutes, and it was getting passed around and everybody was bragging about where this had been taken from.

So this is not a situation where he either stole the item or was intending to keep it, it was one of the females in the class that apparently had gotten it and they were passing it around. So unfortunately, knowing it was stolen, he had it in his possession for a long enough period of time. I'm going to ask Your Honour to consider a discharge here, maybe even an absolute discharge. I know there are some aggravating features here, but this is a mistake he made by getting involved in all his bragging for a very short period of time. Those are my submissions. THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Douglas.

Do you have any instructions that Mr. Saran wishes to say anything to the court prior to the decision on sentence, Mr. Douglas? MR. DOUGLAS: No. Stand up. No, he doesn't, Your Honour. THE COURT: Thank you. [REASONS FOR SENTENCE] MR. DOUGLAS: Thank you, Your Honour. THE COURT: Count 1? MR. LEES: I direct a stay of proceedings. (PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED) Reasons for Sentence [ 1 ] THE COURT : Mr. Saran is being sentenced today after a guilty plea to possession of stolen property, an offence from the 16th of June which happens to be the day after the Stanley Cup riot in Vancouver. [ 2 ] There is no allegation that Mr.

Saran was in any way involved or even present during the events of the Stanley Cup riot. He was

in school in Surrey at a grade 12 class on the day following the riot and had in his possession, I am told very briefly, for a matter of a few minutes, an item that was being passed around. There were bragging rights associated with it as it was associated with the previous night's riot. [ 3 ] Mr. Douglas has outlined the fact that in this circumstance Mr.

Saran had no use for this particular item, a ladies' swimwear item, and I note that it was not traditionally regarded as an item that would have a great deal of re-sale value in terms of stolen property; it is an unusual item to be the subject of a possession of stolen property charge. [ 4 ] There is no criminal record. [ 5 ] Essentially, the evidence that is before the court came as a result of the police contact with Mr.

Saran and the information that he provided to the police, as well as the item itself. [ 6 ] He is now anticipating entry to Thompson River University in January, he is working currently at a rental business, and he is living at home with his parents. [ 7 ] The lack of any criminal record, and the momentary mistake and poor judgment in his behaviour on June 16th, are matters that are significant in terms of indicating that this is out of character for Mr. Saran. [ 8 ] I find that a criminal record would be a disproportionate penalty in this case and I will grant Mr. Saran a discharge.

The issue in my mind is whether it should be conditional or absolute. Based on what Mr. Douglas has told me, that is to say, that he is in a stable family environment, living with his parents, that he is enrolled in school to commence university-level courses in January, I will make an absolute discharge in these circumstances. Mr. Saran, I am confident, will not be making the same mistake again. [ 9 ] MR. DOUGLAS: Thank you. Is Your Honour waiving the surcharge at this point? [ 10 ] THE COURT: Yes.

Based on the information that has been provided to me, this 18-year-old person is someone who should be exempt from the victim fine surcharge in all the circumstances. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)