R. v. Christensen, 2015 BCPC 468

Citation: R. v. Christensen 2015 BCPC 468 Date: 20150824 File No: 199747-8-C Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal REGINA v. COLIN HOWARD CHRISTENSEN REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE R. HAMILTON Counsel for the Crown: M. Fortino Counsel for the Accused: L. Helps Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Date of Hearing: May 5, 2015

Date of Judgment: August 24, 2015 [ 1 ] Colin Howard Christensen is a very dangerous man. He is 48 years old. As an adult he has been sentenced for various crimes to serve, by my calculation, 32 years in prison plus an additional five-year sentence served concurrently to a 10-year sentence imposed in June of 1995. [ 2 ] Mr. Christensen's offences are mainly violent sexual offences. He has three convictions for sexual assault with a weapon; one conviction for forcible confinement; and one conviction for assault with a weapon. [ 3 ] When Mr.

Christensen is not incarcerated he is in the habit of taking women, binding their hands, and sexually assaulting them at knifepoint. His victims tend to be women he has recently met rather than complete strangers. [ 4 ] In October of 2013, Mr. Christensen was released from custody after reaching his warrant expiry date on a sentence of 18 years and three months in a federal penitentiary for sexually assaulting a female telemarketer who had attended his mobile home to make a presentation to a group of people. When she arrived there was no group of people. Mr.

Christensen bound her hands, removed some of her clothing and sexually assaulted her at knifepoint. There is some indication that, at one point, he pointed a gun at his victim but then decided not to kill her. [ 5 ] Mr. Christensen received 14 years in prison for that offence along with a four-year consecutive sentence for attacking a female real estate agent with a knife in the basement of a house she was showing him. The real estate agent resisted the attack by grabbing the knife and she sustained a serious wound to her hand. Based upon Mr.

Christensen's criminal history it is pretty clear what he was going to do to the real estate agent had she not been able to escape this attack in the basement of a vacant house. [ 6 ] As I have indicated, Mr. Christensen was released from the penitentiary on October 2nd, 2013 after serving his 18-year three- month sentence to the very last day. The reason Mr. Christensen was held in prison until the final day of sentence is because he was, and is, regarded to be a substantial risk to reoffend violently. Accordingly, prior to Mr.

Christensen's release from custody he entered into a two-year recognizance pursuant to s. 810.2 of the Criminal Code . A s. 810.2 Recognizance is available in circumstances where a high- risk offender is to be released back into the community and a court determines that the offender's level of risk justifies that his conduct be monitored by the police and a special team of probation officers tasked with keeping track of these offenders. [ 7 ] On September 27th, 2013, so about one week before Mr. Christensen was to be released from custody, Judge Field of this court placed Mr.

Christensen on an 810.2 Recognizance that included 21 conditions or terms that Mr. Christensen was bound by. One of those conditions required Mr. Christensen to report to his probation officer and the police as directed. [ 8 ] On June 12th, 2014, Mr. Christensen was sentenced for breaching his 810.2 Recognizance on two separate occasions. He received an 18-month conditional sentence followed by two years of probation. Mr.

Christensen's first breach for which he was sentenced in June of 2014 occurred about two months after he was released from custody in October of 2013. [ 9 ] As a result of the 18-month conditional sentence order, Mr. Christensen was back out living in the community. On September 17th, 2014 he reported to the authorities as he had been directed. At that meeting, Mr. Christensen was directed to report one week later on September the 24th. Mr. Christensen failed to report as directed and he was arrested two days later on September the 26th, 2014. [ 10 ] Earlier this year in May, following a trial, I convicted Mr.

Christensen of breaching his recognizance for his failure to report on September the 24th, 2014. These are my reasons for the sentence that I am imposing on Mr. Christensen for his third breach of his 810.2 Recognizance. [ 11 ] On this sentencing hearing, the Crown seeks a two year jail sentence, the maximum sentence available for this conviction. Mr. Christensen seeks a jail sentence of between nine and 12 months. [ 12 ]

Section 810.2 Recognizances are used to ensure the safety of the public, as far as possible, when a high-risk offender is released from prison back into the community. These recognizances are extraordinary because they are used to restrict the offender's liberty despite the fact that the offender has served his entire jail sentence.

For that reason, offenders subject to a s. 810.2 Recognizance are considered to be such a risk to reoffend that absent the restrictions on their liberty, members of the community will not be safe. [ 13 ] In advance of an application for a s. 810.2 Recognizance, the High Risk Recognizance Advisory Committee prepares a detailed report or assessment concerning the offender which includes recommendations for the terms to be included in the recognizance should the court be persuaded to impose that recognizance. [ 14 ] In Mr.

Christensen's case, Natalie Hopewell prepared a detailed report dated September 3rd, 2013, in advance of Mr. Christensen's 810.2 Recognizance hearing. Ms. Hopewell's report details Mr Christensen's criminal history and the various assessments that have been produced with respect to Mr. Christensen from November 1995, June, 1997, July, 2002, January, 2004, March, 2007, March, 2009 and October, 2011. [ 15 ] I do not propose to review Ms. Hopewell's

summary of all those reports but in the last of those reports, dated October 24th, 2011, so two years before Mr. Christensen was to be released after serving his 18 years in custody, Mr. Christensen was assessed as a moderate to high risk to sexually reoffend. One test placed him at the 92nd percentile of offenders and another test associated Mr. Christensen with a 100 percent probability of sexually reoffending within seven to 10 years after being released from custody. Shortly put, at the time of his release from custody on October 2nd, 2013, Mr.

Christensen posed a substantial risk to the public such that restrictions on his liberty were fully warranted. [ 16 ] I have reviewed all of the cases presented by counsel on this sentencing hearing. I do not propose to review in detail those authorities in this decision. I accept that the primary sentencing principles on a conviction for breaching an 810.2 Recognizance are

general and specific deterrence, as well as the protection of the public from the high-risk offender. As well, I recognize that if I am to impose the maximum sentence of two years in jail as sought by the Crown, I must conclude that Mr. Christensen is the worst kind of offender and that this crime was the worst kind of offence. [ 17 ] In the cases I have reviewed, courts have imposed jail sentences in the range of nine months to two years. In some cases, jail sentences have run consecutively for multiple breaches so that the global sentence imposed exceeds the two year maximum. [ 18 ] In R. v.

Labbe , [2006] OJ No. 4347 the offender received 12 months in jail for two breaches, one was a failure to keep the peace and be of good behaviour and the other was a failure to carry a copy of his recognizance on him at all times. [ 19 ] In R. v. Major , 2006 BCPC 33 the offender received a sentence of two years and nine months in jail for three breaches. He received two nine-month sentences concurrently and then a consecutive two year sentence. The three breaches were a breach of curfew, a breach by entering a licensed premises, and a breach for using cocaine. [ 20 ] In R. v.

D.P.E. , 2012 BCPC 494 the offender received 10 months in jail for two breaches; a failure to report an intimate relationship and using or possessing a device to connect to the Internet. [ 21 ] In R. v. Zimmerman , 2010 ABPC 288 ; 2011 ABCA 276 the offender received 34 months in jail for six breaches. They were grouped together in different clusters but no more than 17 months was imposed for any one group.

The breaches were a failure to report, possession of a weapon, failing to reside where directed, a breach of his curfew, failure to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, and he was prohibited from possessing knives or restraining devices. In addition, he was convicted of failing to report a change of his address under the Sex Offender Information Registry Act . He was also convicted of defrauding a bank of $200. [ 22 ] In R. v. Manzie , 2006 BCPC 191 the offender received 15 months in jail for one breach and that was a failure to report six days after he had been released from custody. [ 23 ] In R. v.

Lanferman , 2011 BCCA 438 the offender received nine months in jail for one breach of a curfew that occurred three days after he was released. [ 24 ] In R. v. McLean , 2014 BCPC 74 the offender received 11 months in jail but his was not a breach of an 810.2 Recognizance, nor was it a breach of the long term offender order that he had been placed on. Rather, it was a conviction for being unlawfully at large when he failed to return to his rooming house in time for his curfew. [ 25 ] In R. v. Depew , the offender received 18 months in jail for four breaches. Mr.

Depew was a child sex offender and he was caught in the presence of a 14-year-old boy at a location where children would reasonably be expected to be present. He was also found in possession of a pornographic photograph. [ 26 ] As can be seen by the foregoing brief

summary of the sentences imposed, there is a fairly wide range of sentences available to me in sentencing Mr. Christensen. In the cases I have reviewed, some breaches are with respect to things like curfews and reporting breaches, other relate to more substantive breaches such as using drugs or being in the presence of potential high-risk victims. The range of sentences flows from different courts assessing the seriousness of the crime or the breach and the personal circumstances of the offender before the court. [ 27 ] In my view, Mr. Christensen is quite clearly the worst kind of offender.

Despite decades held in federal penitentiaries and despite undergoing numerous treatment and counselling programs he continues to present as an unacceptable risk to reoffend. It is nearly a certainty that if Mr. Christensen were to be released from custody he would victimize another woman in a violent and horrific manner. Society deserves to be protected and must be protected from the risk posed by Mr. Christensen. But when I consider the nature of Mr.

Christensen's breach, I am unable to conclude that his is the worst offence, therefore attracting the maximum sentence available. [ 28 ] While I have concluded that Mr. Christensen's failure to report is not the worst offence it is certainly closer to the worst offence than a technical breach on the continuum of offences. Mr. Christensen, during the few times he has been out of custody and back in society, has almost always been subject to reporting conditions or other conditions that restrict his liberty. [ 29 ] On June 12th, 2014, Mr.

Christensen received an 18-month conditional sentence, a jail sentence to be served in the community, for two breaches of his 810.2 Recognizance. It could not have been clearer to Mr. Christensen how important it was that he fully comply with the conditions contained in his 810.2 Recognizance. [ 30 ] Mr. Christensen says that he breached his reporting requirement because he was conflicted between working as a truck driver or not fulfilling his work responsibilities and reporting on time. If, by that, Mr.

Christensen wants me to believe that if he reported as directed he risked losing his job, then I reject that assertion. In sentencing submissions before me, counsel for Mr. Christensen advised that his employer, STI Trucking, continues to be willing to take Mr. Christensen back as an employee should he be released from jail. Mr. Christensen has been in jail for the past 11 months, so I do not accept that had he reported as directed on September the 24th, 2014 he would have found himself unemployed. The reporting condition was critical to monitoring Mr.

Christensen, to see if things were happening in his life that increased his risk of reoffending. [ 31 ] On September 17th, 2014, Cpl. McLellan, the officer charged with monitoring Mr. Christensen, felt that circumstances in Mr. Christensen's life warranted weekly reporting and she directed him to report the following week. He failed to do so. Complying with that reporting condition was an important part of the system in place to keep women safe while Mr. Christensen was out of custody.

His failure to report, in my view, is a very serious breach, although not the worst offence attracting the maximum penalty. [ 32 ] In my view, Mr. Christensen's breach would attract a prison sentence of between 14 and 18 months. I have determined that a fit and proper sentence is at the high end of that range, taking into account that Mr. Christensen is quite clearly the worst offender but that his offence is not the worst offence.

[ 33 ] Accordingly, Mr. Christensen, I am imposing a sentence of 17 months in jail for your conviction for breaching your 810.2 Recognizance. [ 34 ] I will not order you to serve any period of probation following the 17-month jail sentence. [ 35 ] I take it that the CSO is now going to be suspended and the 17-month jail sentence will start now and the CSO will then resume consecutively at the conclusion of the 17 months? [ 36 ] MR. FORTINO: That's correct, Your Honour. [ 37 ] THE COURT: All right. And with respect to the victim fine surcharge, I am going to order that it be payable forthwith and in default, Mr.

Christensen will serve one day in jail to be served concurrent to the 17 months I have just imposed. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)