R. v. Brar Date:, 2013 BCPC 438

Citation: R. v. Brar Date: 20130725 2013 BCPC 438 File No: 198708-1 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. GUWINDER SINGH BRAR REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE A.E. ROUNTHWAITE Counsel for the Crown: R. Beram Counsel for the Defendant: M. Sandhu Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Dates of Hearing: May 27, July 17, 2013 Date of Sentence: July 25, 2013

[ 1 ] THE COURT: I must sentence Guwinder Singh Brar for assault causing bodily harm. [ 2 ] When a woman with whom Mr. Brar had had an intimate relationship went to his home on or about January 24, 2013, he opened the door, pushed her down on cement, and kept her from getting up by pushing, punching, and kicking her. [ 3 ] She suffered an abrasion on her knee, abrasions to the left side of her face, and cuts and abrasions on her nose, lips, and chin. The facial injuries affected both the front and side of her face, her forehead, cheek, both bridge and point of her nose, both upper and lower lips, and chin.

In addition, the next day a police officer observed that she also had a painful upper torso and difficulty breathing. She continues to suffer physical and emotional effects from the beating she received. [ 4 ] The lawyers agree that a jail sentence is required but the Crown submits that it should be 6 to 12 months served in jail, while defence counsel says a conditional sentence order or 90-day intermittent jail sentence will meet the principles of sentencing. [ 5 ] I accept that Mr. Brar could serve a sentence in the community without endangering the community. He was subject to a

section 810 peace bond in 2010 and to a bail order in this matter and no breaches were reported. He does not drink or do drugs. [ 6 ] However, the issue in this sentencing is whether a conditional sentence order would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles at sentencing and, in particular, whether it would be adequate to denounce this violent offence and deter Mr. Brar and others from similar conduct. [ 7 ] The aggravating factors in this case are that the assault was a serious, violent, an unprovoked attack on a woman who trusted Mr.

Brar because they had had an intimate relationship and that it caused significant injuries to her. [ 8 ] I bear in mind that there is no allegation that this assault was part of a pattern, which is an aggravating factor found in some other cases. [ 9 ] Mr. Brar's lack of criminal record and good work history are mitigating factors. However, Mr.

Brar has demonstrated no insight into his behaviour and while he expresses a willingness to abide by conditions imposed by a judge, including counselling, his lack of insight will make the process of rehabilitation more challenging. [ 10 ] The most significant principles of sentencing for this violent offence are specific and general deterrence and denunciation followed by rehabilitation. [ 11 ] While a conditional sentence order can provide significant deterrence and denunciation if the conditions are sufficiently punitive, its ability to achieve these purposes will depend, in part, on the offender's circumstances and the nature of the community in which he resides. [ 12 ] In this case, as in R. v.

Donelly , 2012 BCSC 1786 , I do not believe that a conditional sentence that would allow Mr. Brar to carry on with his daily life, even if subject to house arrest, would send the message to him and others that assaulting a former girlfriend is a serious offence. It would not be an adequate deterrent. [ 13 ] The sentence needed must inform him and others that there are very serious consequences for such conduct, not just restrictions on one's activities even if the restrictions are significant. [ 14 ] Mr.

Brar is undergoing physiotherapy five days a week and was scheduled to see a specialist for a work-related injury. A jail sentence will interfere with his physiotherapy. However, that consequence does not outweigh the need for more deterrence and denunciation than a conditional sentence order would offer in this case. [ 15 ] Taking into account Mr. Brar's lack of criminal record, I believe a six-month jail sentence served in jail is required by the circumstances of the offence and his circumstances.

An intermittent jail sentence is, therefore, not available. [ 16 ] I impose a six-month jail sentence followed by probation for one year, a DNA order, and a firearms prohibition under

section 110 of the Criminal Code for 10 years. [ 17 ] The terms of the probation order are: (

a) That you must keep the peace and be of good behaviour. (

b) Report in person to a probation officer at number 100, 13464 64th Avenue, Surrey, B.C., within 72 hours of your release from custody and thereafter when and as directed by the probation officer. (

c) Have no contact direct or indirect with Harminder Kaur Mundi, Jaskaran Kaur Mundi, or Harmanvir Singh Mundi. (

d) Do not go within one block of any residence, workplace, or place of education of Harminder Kaur Mundi, Jaskaran Kaur Mundi, or Harmanvir Singh Mundi. (

e) Attend and participate in counselling as directed by your probation officer and to the satisfaction of your probation officer including, but not limited to, anger management and domestic violence counselling or programs. (

f) Under

section 110 of the Criminal Code , I prohibit you from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things for a period of 10 years. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)