R. v. Bryant Date:, 2014 BCPC 399

Citation: R. v. Bryant Date: 20140227 2014 BCPC 0399 File No: 199450-3-C Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal Division REGINA v. WADE COREY BRYANT ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J.A. OULTON Counsel for the Crown: R. Browning Counsel for the Defendant: D. Payn Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Date of Hearing: February 14, 2014 Date of Judgment: February 27, 2014

[ 1 ] THE COURT : Wade Bryant has pled guilty on Information 199450-3-C that between the 11th of March and the 12th of June 2013 he attempted to obstruct the course of justice, contrary to s. 139(2) of the Criminal Code . He is jointly charged on this Information with Robert Wright and Kimberley Spaeth. The Crown intends to stay proceedings regarding Ms. Spaeth, Mr. Bryant's girlfriend of six years at the time of this offence. Mr. Wright's trial is next month. [ 2 ] Mr. Bryant is 32 years of age and has a lengthy criminal record which began in 1999.

The record has eight convictions for breaches of court orders, including breaches of two previous conditional sentence orders he has received. There are numerous convictions for offences of violence or threatened violence as well on this record, which has a total of 27 convictions. [ 3 ] Mr. Bryant is also an Aboriginal offender and I have had the benefit of a Gladue Report, as well as a historical psycho- educational assessment of Mr.

Bryant completed when he was seven years old, reports from a psychiatrist who treated him between 1992 and 2001, and many letters of support, including from his mother, his sister Tara Nicholson, his Uncle Earl, who is an elder in the community in Quesnel, his friends Brad and Donna Robbins, and Residential Support Worker Carley Hale (phonetic). [ 4 ] Counsel for the Crown and for Mr. Bryant each provided able and thorough submissions. Each provided books of authority which I found useful and read.

I will not refer to all of the cases in these Reasons for Sentence, but in the event that a transcript of these Reasons is ordered I will attach them in an appendix. [ 5 ] Crown submits that the sentence range is one to three years and that Mr. Bryant's sentence should be two to three years considering this offence and this offender, and having due regard to the Criminal Code sentencing provisions found in sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code , including s. 718.2 (e). Crown's alternative submission is for a conditional sentence order of two years less a day. [ 6 ] I note that Mr.

Bryant just finished serving a 23-month effective sentence for aggravated assault, which was imposed April 3rd, 2013. This was an actual sentence of 18 months with credit for five months' time served. Although it has no bearing on these Reasons for Sentence, it does appear that Mr. Bryant was credited twice for five months in custody, once in November of 2012 and once in April of 2013. [ 7 ] Defence is asking the court to impose a conditional sentence order of 12 to 15 months, having regard to Mr. Bryant's Aboriginal heritage and the steps Mr.

Bryant has taken towards his own rehabilitation in prison, including taking several courses and obtaining his GED earlier this month. Having regard to s. 718.2(

e) of the Criminal Code I am asked to place emphasis on the systemic discrimination that Mr. Bryant has experienced over his life, as well as restorative justice considerations. Defence counsel's alternative submission is for six to nine months’ jail. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCE [ 8 ] By way of background, on September 26th, 2011, Mr. Bryant was charged with aggravated assault of C.J. An altercation happened September 11th, 2011 in the parking lot of the Artful Dodger Pub in Langley. Mr. Bryant hit a car with a baseball bat and then C.J.'s head with a baseball bat.

C.J. suffered a head injury and spent 11 days in hospital, part of that time in a medically induced coma. Mr. Bryant was on bail for this offence until June of 2012 when he was detained for breaching bail and committing new offences. Mr. Bryant remained in custody until his trial which began April 2nd, 2013.

On the second day of his trial, April 3rd, 2013, after some witnesses had testified and identified him as the perpetrator, he pled guilty to the aggravated assault of C.J., mischief and a breach charge and received what I have previously described, the 18-month actual jail sentence to be followed by three years' probation. [ 9 ] With respect to the offence to which Mr. Bryant has pled guilty and for which I am sentencing him today, the Crown asserts that he controlled from jail some people, his co-accused Robert Wright and Ms.

Spaeth, in an undertaking that had as its goal to locate, contact and, by a combination of implied threat and overt bribe, derail the aggravated assault case against him. By way of further background, the following is alleged by the Crown in support of its case against the co-accused, Robert Wright, and as background to this sentencing. [ 10 ] Two of the witnesses to the aggravated assault were Mr. S. and his girlfriend, Ms. F. On March 18th, 2013, Langley RCMP received a report from Mr.

S. that an unknown male, alleged by the Crown to be Robert Wright, whose trial on this charge is set to begin next month, had approached him and offered he and Ms. F. $20,000 to change their testimony in court in order to get Mr. Bryant out of jail. Mr. Wright came to Mr. S.'s residence on the pretext of wishing to buy his truck which was for sale on Craigslist. In the course of a test drive in this truck, during which Mr. Wright asked Mr. S. to drive, Mr. Wright told Mr.

S. that he was not going to buy the truck, rather he wanted to talk about something else, the "court thing happening tomorrow." Crown witness interviews were set for the next day, March 19th, 2013. Mr. Wright said, according to Mr. S., "I'll pay you and your girlfriend $20,000 to not testify, or if you do testify, say you don't remember and you don't know my buddy." Mr. Wright then pulled out a wad of cash and offered it to Mr. S., suggesting he "take it and think about it." Mr. Wright reportedly said, "My buddy Wade had a right to do what he did," and that Mr. Wright had read Ms.

F.'s statement and had prepared a script for her. Others had already spoken to C.J. and paid him not to say anything, Mr. Wright reportedly told Mr. S. The Crown indicated that this in fact had not occurred. Mr. Wright told Mr. S. not to tell the police or anyone else, but to tell Ms. F. Mr. Wright said he had been watching them and that he knew where Mr. S. lived and added, "The Internet is a wonderful thing." Mr. Wright said he would call Mr. S. back in 45 minutes once he had had a chance to speak to Ms. F. [ 11 ] Mr. S. took no cash. He called Ms. F. and she told him to call the police, which he did.

He called C.J. who also went immediately to the police. Mr. Wright called Mr. S. about two hours later. Mr. Wright tried to assure Mr. S. that he was his friend, he was there to help him. He would not need to sell his truck. He told Mr. S. he would call him a week to check up with him. [ 12 ] In a follow-up statement provided to police the next day, Mr. S. relayed that Mr. Wright had also said that Wade was more concerned about Ms. F.'s statement. Ms. F.'s statement was more damaging to his brother Wade. Mr.

S. gave his cell phone to police on March 22nd, 2013 and an undercover police officer monitored the incoming calls and text messages posing as Mr. S.'s cousin. On March 24th at approximately 13:15, Mr. S.'s phone received a text, "Yo, N., it's Dave from the other day. How about you give me a call

back or at least a text message?" Further texts followed at approximately 1400. "You said you're not 100 percent sure in identifying the suspect. Innocent person's freedom is in your hands." At 18 o'clock, "If I'm wasting time just tell me, bro, I'll walk away." [ 13 ] On April 1st the undercover officer began texting back posing, as I have said, as Mr. S.'s cousin. At one point Crown relayed to me that a text came from the individual Crown is alleging is Robert Wright saying, "I just need to tell you how to foil your statement," read part of one text. Another, "It's the bros you want to please.

I'm on your side." The police officer inquired about payment. There was a text back speaking of $10,000, saying "2,000 tonight, the rest at court. 1,000 total just to tell the truth." Crown submitted that this 1,000 amount in the text was likely a typo. The police officer texted back, "No disrespect, got to get hold of N. and see what he wants to do." The answer back was, "I can handle whatever decision he makes.

Offer stands until midnight, no exceptions." Just before midnight the police officer texted, "He will play ball," and got a text back reading, "Deal." [ 14 ] The next day a meeting was arranged and two men, including Robert Wright, met with the undercover police officer who taped the conversation in which $2,000 was given to the police officer and a further $8,000 was promised after testifying. And then the police officer drove the two men to the courthouse where they attended Mr. Bryant's trial.

A further text that day received by the police officer mentioned a bonus in addition to the 10,000, "All goes well a bonus for your time. Thanks." The two men that had met with the undercover police officer were both arrested.

Robert Wright was one of them. [ 15 ] Filed as Exhibit 1 on these sentencing proceedings was a Crown Book of Materials on Sentencing which has nine intercepted telephone conversations, including five between Wade Bryant and Kimberley Spaeth, his girlfriend at the time, three with Robert Wright, his friend, and one with Tara Nicholson, his sister, all recorded between March 12th and April 5th, 2013. I reviewed these conversations carefully and it was apparent that Mr.

Bryant was directing others to assist him in locating persons in the community, and in the course of doing so, also telling them on occasion what to do or say. Excerpts from some of those recorded conversations are: On March 12th, 2013, at 20:39, before the incidents just described by way of background, a telephone conversation between Wade Bryant and Kimberley Spaeth was intercepted. This is at tab 1 of Exhibit 1: Bryant: "I need to go by that fuckin' -- that address.

Member the one for the guy?" Spaeth: "Yeah." Bryant: "And see if that fuckin' vehicle's parked there." Spaeth: "Okay." Bryant: "Do you remember which one it is?" Spaeth: "Yes, I do." Bryant: "And I need you to do it, you know, kind of later on. No, tonight. I need to get this done. The other thing I was doing, it fuckin' fell through. It's not gonna happen." Spaeth: "Okay." Bryant: "So it's like game time." Spaeth: "Okay." [ 16 ] Later in that same intercepted conversation, and the context is not entirely clear, but Mr. Bryant questions Ms.

Spaeth as to where she looked that up, whether it was in a phone book, and she said, "Online, but the other one was in the phone book," and there was talk of the phone book being the Langley/Fort Langley area, whereas for her, not him, the look-up online showed her being in South Surrey/White Rock. Finally, in this conversation, Ms. Spaeth says, "I'll definitely go and do that tonight." Bryant says, "All right, I need that done.

Remember what we're looking for, right?" [ 17 ] On page 7 of 11 of tab 1 after Bryant expresses, "Keep your mother fuckin' fingers crossed and fuck, yeah, try -- try like after 11, you know?" Mr. Bryant says, "Yeah, googly eye fuckin' says he thinks he fuckin' knows him," and then he asks Ms. Spaeth to send a text and she does. He says, "Yo, fuckin' text Bobo did you get that tall skinny guy's number yet?" "Bobo" replies and gives a number which is then communicated in code to be written down on page 8 of 11.

Finally, in this conversation there occurs the following exchange: Bryant says, "You text googly eye fuckin' when you went to that fuckin' address, what, what vehicle was in the parkin' lot...or what vehicle was in the driveway?" [ 18 ] At tab 2 on March 13th at 8:22 in the morning in a conversation between Ms. Spaeth and Mr. Bryant, she reports that "there's just a blue van, a blue car and a red truck," and this appears to be disappointing news to Mr. Bryant.

She tells him she "couldn't get the plates", she "couldn't see anything," and he directs her to "look that up today at some point." [ 19 ] Tab 3, March 24th, 2013 is an intercepted conversation between Robert Wright and Wade Bryant at 19:33.

Wright tells Bryant on page 1, "I'm thinking buddy might be gone away for the weekend or something, but I shot him a couple texts, right?" Bryant says, "Yeah." Wright continues, "Right, and one is just explaining exactly what to do, so…Uh, and just, like I said, explain all you -- I said to him, hey, you just gotta explain to the fuckin' Crown the same story that you told me, man." And Bryant says, "Mm-hm", and Wright says: "You don't know for sure, that's it and I left it at that, so I'm gonna roll by there in about an hour." Bryant says, "Yeah." [ 20 ] The conversation continues and on page 3 Mr.

Wright is telling Mr. Bryant about his conversation with "the guy" and Mr. Wright says: "I was like, it's your girlfriend I'm a little worried about 'cause when we first spoke you -- that's where your concern was." Wright continues and he told the guy he'd call him in a week and it's only been four days, five days and then he adds, "You know what I mean, I'm kinda pressed for time here, bro, so --" Bryant says, "Yeah, yeah." Wright says, "I mean, right, but I mean I got -- I got other avenues and shit that, you know what I mean, we don't even need to discuss.

I'll just fuckin' --" and Bryant says, "Yeah, yeah." [ 21 ] At page 4 Wright says, "Right, you know, I'll -- I'll go to fuckin', whatever… Realistic fuckin' extent I can to get this guy to fuckin' speak the truth, man, 'cause he told me the truth and that's the fucked up part. He's gonna go in and lie, right?" [ 22 ] Defence submitted that these comments by Mr. Wright demonstrate that Mr. Wright was trying to promote justice and not obstruct it, which is why, he tells me, Mr. Wright is having a trial on this charge. Mr.

Wright is entitled to have a trial and have his guilt established beyond a reasonable doubt, but Mr. Bryant has admitted this offence. [ 23 ] To the extent that defence counsel's submission is meant to lessen the moral blameworthiness of Mr. Bryant's conduct, which is how I understood the submission, my comment is this: Taken in isolation, Mr. Wright's comment does suggest he is benignly engaged in encouraging truth-telling in a community. But taken in the context of all the conversations he has with Mr. Bryant, this

interpretation cannot be supported. It is clear that the goal is to superficially suggest this, whether in texts to Mr. S. or in conversation with Mr. Bryant, but ultimately telling the truth appears to be code for witnesses testifying in a manner that is supported by Mr. Wright. [ 24 ] At page 4 Mr. Wright says in this same conversation, "So my next step is I’m going to fuckin'…Same thing as last time, right?" And Bryant says, "Yeah, yeah." And then speaking again of "the guy," which, from the context and the background I was provided with and the dates and the times, appears to be Mr. S., at page 5 Mr. Wright said, "He already told me, man. He's like, yeah, I don't need this

problem. He's got people that have been on his case, fuckin' following him around at work and shit." And Bryant says, "Yeah, yeah, yeah." And Wright says, "Trying to get him just to tell the truth, right? That's it, bro." [ 25 ] At tab 5 on April 1st at 19:55, there is another recorded conversation between Mr. Bryant and Mr. Wright. Mr. Bryant tells Mr. Wright he will "cover his cab" and wants him to "bomb home" and "send that right away." He confirms that Mr. Wright "got all that down, though, right?" And then he says, "At the end of that -- at the end of that though be, like, I need to know now, man.

You need to text me back immediately. What's going on? I need to know now." And Wright replies, "Yeah, that's laying it on thick, but okay, bro, I'll do it for you, man." And Bryant says, "You better say it's game time, though." And Wright says, "You want it, I'll do it. That's all good. I fuckin' work under pressure, man." CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENDER [ 26 ] Wade Bryant is 32 years old. He is of mixed Aboriginal and European heritage. His Aboriginal heritage is a mixture of Southern Tutchone, Chilcotin, Carrier and Shuswap.

He identifies more with his mother's lineage, the Southern Tutchone peoples from Kwanlin Dun First Nations located in Whitehorse, Yukon. He is non-status, but his mother is assisting him to obtain Indian status through either his maternal or paternal First Nations. Both his grandmothers were in residential schools. He was very close to his maternal grandmother, May MacDonald, who helped care for him when he was a baby. By all accounts she was a wonderful woman and Mr. Bryant credits her with instilling a great sense of pride in him about his Native background.

She passed away in February 2012 and her loss has been very difficult for him. His sister tells of how he dropped everything to go and take care of her in Quesnel when she broke her hip from May to September 2011. He spoke of drinking to excess when she passed away in February 2012. [ 27 ] Mr. Bryant's mother left his father when she was pregnant with him. His biological father has 22 children, but no relationship with any of them. His stepfather who was with his mother from the time Wade was born to the age of seven was abusive. Wade was diagnosed with attention deficit disorder when he was seven years old.

The report completed by Dr. Hill of Sunny Hill describes a charming boy who is clearly of normal intelligence. He was diagnosed with depression when he was 11 years old. He was under the care of a psychiatrist from September 1992 to March of 2001, from the ages of 11 to 19, Dr. Hayden. In that time period he was prescribed medication for both attention deficit disorder and depression. Mr. Bryant felt lonely and isolated for much of his childhood. In grade 8 he was bullied and beaten up when he went to a new school. He began to drink alcohol and smoke marihuana at 13. He left high school in grade 9.

His first serious girlfriend, Jen, who was from the Semiahmoo First Nation, that relationship began just before he turned 17 and ended when he was 23. He lived with her on the reserve off and on. Mr. Bryant described the relationship as unstable. They did drugs together and hit bottom together. Currently he says he still has an issue with substance abuse. [ 28 ] His criminal offending began in 1998. As I have said, there are 27 convictions in total on his criminal record, including eight convictions for breaches of court orders, six convictions for breach of bail, and two for breach of probation. Mr.

Bryant has received conditional sentence orders twice before, in 2003 and 2009. In 2004 his CSO was terminated and in 2010 it was suspended. Of note there was a gap in his offending between August 2005 and November 2008. He has seven convictions for violent offences or offences where violence was threatened or implicit, two assaults, one assault with a weapon, one aggravated assault, two uttering threats, one robbery and one possession of a prohibited weapon.

Of note, he was charged with two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of a prohibited weapon on June 29th, 2012 when he was on bail for the aggravated assault charge which arose in September of 2011. His last two convictions have resulted in the longest jail sentences, as I have said, an effective sentence of 18 months for the possession for the purpose of trafficking and 23 months for the aggravated assault in April of 2013. [ 29 ] He has plans to take a heavy machinery operator course upon his release from custody.

He has an offer of employment in Langley from Bob Pollock at Attack (phonetic) Drywall, and for the Gladue Report when released from custody he can stay at his mother's house. LEGAL PRINCIPLES [ 30 ] I have regard to s. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code and in particular 718.1.

It is a fundamental principle of sentencing that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. 718.2(e): All available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders. [ 31 ]

Section 718.2(

e) imposes a statutory duty to use a different method of analysis in determining a fit sentence for an Aboriginal offender. I consider first unique, systemic or background factors which may have played a

part in bringing Mr. Bryant before the courts, and secondly, the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for Mr. Bryant because of his particular Aboriginal heritage. I take judicial notice of the history of colonialism, displacement and residential schools and how that history continues to translate into lower educational attainment, lower income, higher unemployment, higher rates of substance abuse and suicide and higher levels of incarceration for Aboriginal peoples.

While these factors on their own do not necessarily justify a different sentence for an Aboriginal offender, they provide the requisite context for considering the case specific information. IS A CONDITIONAL SENTENCE ORDER AVAILABLE? [ 32 ] Crown submits that the appropriate sentence is a federal one of two to three years. If I were to accept that range that would make a conditional sentence order unavailable for Mr. Bryant. R. v. Proulx, [2000] SCR 61 directs a two-stage process.

At the first stage in this case I ask whether I can exclude a penitentiary sentence, which is the sentence Crown submits is appropriate. In making this decision I take into account the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing as set out in s. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code . [ 33 ] In this case at the first stage when I consider s. 718 to 718.2 and in particular the mitigating factors present and Mr. Bryant's Aboriginal heritage, I do conclude that a sentence of two years less a day or less would be appropriate.

[ 34 ] At the second stage I go on to consider the principles of sentencing in a comprehensive way. I also consider whether the other criteria which are conditions precedent to the imposition of a conditional sentence order have been met. At this stage I am deciding whether to impose a conditional sentence. The gravity of the offence is clearly relevant to determining whether a conditional sentence order is appropriate, as is the moral blameworthiness of the offender.

Section 742.1 was amended in 2012. Since then the portions of that

section relevant to this sentencing have read: If a person is convicted of an offence and the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years, the court may, for the purpose of supervising the offender's behaviour in the community, order that the offender serve the sentence in the community, subject to the conditions imposed under

section 742.3, if (

a) the court is satisfied that the service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purposes and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2; (

b) the offence is not an offence punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment; And skipping to (e): the offence is not an offence, prosecuted by way of indictment, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years, that (

i) resulted in bodily harm, (ii) involved the import, export, trafficking or production of drugs, or (iii) involved the use of a weapon. [ 35 ] Section 139(2) of the Criminal Code is an indictable offence punishable by up to ten years in prison. Having regard to the criteria set out in s. 742.1, a CSO, or conditional sentence order, is a possible sentence for this offence. [ 36 ] Although s. 139(2) is framed in the language of an attempt, in fact it creates a substantive offence, the gist of which is the doing of

an act which has a tendency to prevent or obstruct the course of justice and which is done for that purpose. It is not necessary to establish that the tendency materialized. [ 37 ] The offence is one that strikes at the root of the justice system. That is because our society functions premised on an understanding that our justice system, our laws and our courts, are a system of rules that are part of the social contract.

Trials exist to protect the safety and rights of all citizens and an interference with witnesses to an alleged crime undermines the social contract in a direct way. [ 38 ] I was given many case authorities. As I have said, I have read them all. They are helpful in setting out the governing principles the court should apply when the crime is one that is directed at trying to undermine the administration of justice, but each case turns on its own particular facts. [ 39 ] The range of sentence identified in this offence is four months to four years: R. v. Donnelly , 2010 BCSC I523 at para. 46.

It is true that there is no case authority provided by either counsel where the offender was either Métis or Aboriginal that mentioned having a full Gladue Report as I have the benefit of in this case. But as Crown pointed out, s. 718.2 (

e) of the Criminal Code has been part of the Criminal Code since 1996 and judges have had a statutory duty to consider it since that time. [ 40 ] In this case I find the following aggravating factors. Mr. Bryant's criminal record with its poor record of community supervision, six breaches of bail, two breaches of probation and two prior conditional sentence orders, one terminated, one suspended. From the Crown Materials on Sentence and the excerpts that I have read into the record it was clear that Mr. Bryant was directing others, Ms. Spaeth and Mr. Wright. This was not an impulsive act.

This involved planning, premeditation and a sustained effort to request others to locate, contact and then attempt to influence witnesses. [ 41 ] Defence submitted that there were no overt threats in this case. It is true that I have heard no evidence of any overt threat, and as defence pointed out, Mr. Bryant is not recorded instructing either Ms. Spaeth or Mr. Wright to do anything violent or take any violent action towards any witness in this case. But when I consider the background evidence I received, I find that there were implied threats present when Mr.

Wright says, for example, "The Internet is a wonderful thing" and "We know where you live." It is also the case, as defence counsel pointed out, that Mr. Bryant breached no no contact from jail orders. Crown said none were imposed under s. 516 of the Criminal Code , so it is also clear that Mr. Bryant did not contact any of these individuals himself, but like the lack of overt threats, this speaks more to the subtlety of the plan engaged and how this particular attempt to obstruct justice was accomplished.

So, I do not find either of those factors to be aggravating, but I am addressing them because as I understood defence counsel's submission he was perhaps asking them to be considered as mitigating and I am unable to find either of them as mitigating either in the circumstances of this case. They are just facts that I am taking into account in deciding what a fit sentence would be. [ 42 ] For the mitigating factors, Mr. Bryant has pled guilty with the taking of responsibility that it implies. He has expressed remorse in a written letter to the court and he also addressed me and apologized.

He has completed several courses in custody, Essential Social Skills, Violence Prevention and Respectful Relationships. He was noted to be well-behaved in custody in the Gladue Report. Most notably he has completed his GED on February 7th, 2014, so he has taken steps towards his own rehabilitation. [ 43 ] Mr. Bryant has the support of his sister and mother and his extended community, including his Uncle Earl who I have mentioned is an elder in Quesnel and letters that have been filed. I have mentioned the letters that have been filed by other members of

the community in support of Mr. Bryant. It is to Mr. Bryant's credit that he has this level of support in the community, that he has taken these steps towards his own rehabilitation, and that he has these positive plans for his future. [ 44 ] The sentencing principles to be addressed are deterrence, specific and general, denunciation and rehabilitation. I am mindful of s. 718.2(

e) and Mr. Bryant's Aboriginal heritage. However, this offence is serious, striking at the root of our criminal justice system. Mr. Bryant's role was significant, directing others from prison. It was a plan, not an impulse. Mr. Bryant has a poor record for supervision in the community on court orders and a significant record for violence. Therefore, despite the very able submissions made by his counsel and his own creditable efforts I cannot conclude that a conditional sentence order would adequately address denunciation and deterrence in this case. [ 45 ] Would you stand up, please, Mr.

Bryant? [ 46 ] In consideration of the circumstances of this case, the sentencing objectives and balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors discussed above, the appropriate sentence in this case in my view is 15 months’ jail, consecutive to the one imposed last April 2013 if that is at this point necessary to stipulate. [ 47 ] I require submissions on whether a probation order is appropriate.

I can see that there is a three-year probation order attached to the sentence which I believe from submissions of counsel was the possible release date from that sentence was just passed, February 24th, is that correct? (DISCUSSION RE OTHER MATTER) [ 48 ] THE COURT: I was also asked to exercise my discretion and ask that a sample of Mr. Bryant's DNA be taken pursuant to s. 487.051. Considering the circumstances of this offence and Mr.

Bryant's criminal record I will exercise my discretion to ask that a sample of his DNA be taken pursuant to that section. [ 49 ] THE CLERK: [Indiscernible] [ 50 ] THE COURT: Secondary, yes. [ 51 ] MR. BROWNING: Thank you, Your Honour. So I'll undertake to file that appropriate material as soon as I can. [ 52 ] THE COURT: Yes, thank you, Mr. Browning. Thank you to both counsel and good luck to you, Mr. Bryant. [ 53 ] THE CLERK: Victim surcharge for [indiscernible] [ 54 ] THE COURT: Victim fine surcharge? [ 55 ] MR.

BROWNING: The offence is alleged to have occurred prior to October the 24th. [ 56 ] THE COURT: Prior, and are you asking it be waived? [ 57 ] MR. PAYN: I am. [ 58 ] THE COURT: I will waive the victim fine surcharge. [ 59 ] MR. PAYN: Thank you, Your Honour. [ 60 ] MR. BROWNING: Thank you, Your Honour. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED) CROWN CASE AUTHORITIES 1. R. v. Buchanan , 1995 CarswellBC 2545 2. R. v. Dwyer , 1996 CarswellBC 2544 3. R. v. Bradley , 1998 CarswellSask 773 4. R. v. Dasilva , 2002 CarswellBC 1348 5. R. v. McInnes , 2004 CarswellNWT 42 6. R. v. Crazybull , 2005 CarswellAlta 799

7. R. v. Augustine, 2007 CarswellNB 184 8. R. v. Markowitch, 2008 CarswellBC 2523 9. R. v. Lamarche, 2010 CarswellYukon 15 10. R. v. Abel, 2010 CarswellYukon 105 11. R. v. John, 2011 CarswellOnt 4140 DEFENCE CASE AUTHORITIES Obstruction Cases 1. R. v. Shariff, 2010 BCPC 142 2. R. v. Hall, 2001 BCCA 74 3. R. v. Donnelly, 2010 BCSC 1523 4. R. v. Blackwell, 2007 BCSC 1762 5. R. v. Dwyer, 1996 BCCA 1554 6. R. v. Olson, 2011 BCCA 8 7. R. v. Maynard, 2008 ONCJ 445 Gladue Cases 8. R. v. Gladue, (SCC), [1999] 1 SCR 688 9. R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13 , [2012] 1 SCR 433