R. v. Muise, 2018 NLSC 8

court crest IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR GENERAL DIVISION Citation : R. v. Muise , 2018 NL SC 8 Date : January 22, 2018 Docket : 201604G0169 Her Majesty The Queen v. Jordan Muise Restriction on Publication: By court order made under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code , information that may identify the person described in this judgment as the complainant or a witness shall not be published in any documents, broadcasted, or transmitted in any way.

Corrected judgment: The text of the original judgment was corrected on January 24, 2018 and a description of the correction is appended. ______________________________________________________________________________ Before: Justice Robert P. Stack ______________________________________________________________________________ Place of Hearing: St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador Dates of Hearing: May 8-10, October 16 and November 20, 2017

Summary: The Aboriginal offender was 18 years old when he committed

an act of sexual interference against the 13 year-old victim by having sexual intercourse with her. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 30 months for the offence. In addition, the offender was sentenced to

imprisonment for 30 days for each of three charges of breach of a recognizance, with the sentence for the first breach to be servedconsecutively and the remaining two to be served concurrently. Appearances: Brenda Duffy Appearing on behalf of the Crown Jodi D. MacDonald Appearing on behalf of the Accused Authorities Cited: CASES CONSIDERED: R. v. A. B., 2015 NLCA 19; R. v. Lundrigan, 2012 NLCA 43; R. v. Gladue, (SCC), [1999] 1S.C.R. 688; R. v. Bennett, 2017 NLCA 41; R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13; R. v. Harry, 2013 MBCA 108; R. v. Norton, 2016 MBCA 79; R.v. Barrett, 2012 NLCA 46; R. v. Payne, 2012 NLCA 72; R. v.

Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6; R. v. Hutchings, 2012 NLCA 2. STATUTES CONSIDERED: Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46; Sexual Offenders Information Registration Act, S.C. 2004, c. 10. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Stack, J.: INTRODUCTION [1] This is the sentencing decision for the offender. He has been convicted of one count of sexual interference, pursuant tosection 151 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c.

C-46, as well as three breaches of a recognizance, pursuant to section 145(3) of theCriminal Code. [2] The offender, who was 18 years old at the time, admitted to having sexual intercourse with the victim, who was 13. [3] What sentence should the offender receive for each of the offences taking into account the factors in sections 718.1 to 718.2of the Criminal Code? In answering, I must consider the primary principles in sentencing for sexual assaults of denunciation anddeterrence. I must also consider any aggravating and mitigating factors that affect sentence.

The aggravating factors include that theoffender abused a person who was under the age of 18, the victim was inebriated at the time of the offence, the offender’s criminalrecord and that he was on probation at the time. Mitigating factors include the offender’s youth and our collective interest in hisrehabilitation, that he has positive family support, his remorse, and his willingness to undertake counselling. I have also taken intoaccount that the offender is Aboriginal.

The facts upon which the Offender was convicted [4] The victim was in Grade 7 when she met the offender during a lunch break from her elementary school. The victim and theoffender became friends on Facebook and would communicate by Facebook Messenger. The offender soon ceased communications withthe victim because he found her to be too immature. [5] The victim and a 15 year-old friend went to B.D.’s house one summer evening. Also there were B.D., the offender, thevictim’s older sister, and another young man. The young people all went into the shed and were drinking.

The victim had never drunkbefore but that evening she drank five or six beer within an hour. [6] The offender left at around 9:00 p.m. because he was on probation and had a curfew. [7] The victim had testified that she was quite drunk. She left the group at around 10:30 or 11:00 p.m. with her sister. She did notwant to go home because she had been drinking and so she was taken to the offender’s house. The offender carried her on his back downthe stairs to the basement. In the basement bedroom the victim and the offender started kissing and had sex.

He wore a condom andejaculated. [8] The victim left the offender’s house and, because she still felt the effects of the alcohol, walked very slowly back to B.D.’shouse.

Principles of sentencing [ 9 ] The principles for imposing sentencing are set out in sections 718.1 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code and are well known. In respect of sexual assaults, the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal has provided updated sentencing guidance in R. v. A. B. , 2015 NLCA 19 , by listing several factors to be considered in respect of the particulars of the offence. To those factors, I would add the presence of any other factor specifically referred to in

section 718.2 of the Criminal Code . Most of these factors are likely covered in the A.B. list, but others may not be. For certainty, therefore, I would expand the list of factors to be considered to refer to

section 718.2 so that in imposing sentence I consider such factors as: whether the offence was motivated by racial prejudice; whether the offender abused his or her spouse or common-law partner; whether the offender abused a person under the age of eighteen years; whether the offence was committed in the context of a criminal organization; whether the offence was a terrorism offence; whether the offence was committed while the offender was subject to a conditional sentence order or released on parole, statutory release, etc.; or whether the offender is an Aboriginal person. [ 10 ] I will therefore consider the following factors in imposing sentence: 1) Whether the offender was in a position of trust or authority towards the victim; 2) The age of the victim; 3) Any disparity in the ages of the offender and the victim; 4) Whether there was manipulation of the victim, including grooming; 5) Any planned or calculated conduct by the offender; 6) Knowledge of and acting on the victim’s vulnerability; 7) Any continuation of illegal conduct after being warned; 8) Any particular impact on the victim; 9) Any failure by the offender to accept responsibility; 10) The previous criminal record of the offender, if any; 11) The offender’s prospects of rehabilitation and the risk of re-offending; 12) Any insights provided by the Pre-Sentence Report; 13) Whether there was a guilty plea; 14) The willingness of the offender to participate in counselling or treatment programs: and 15) Any other factor specifically referred to in

section 718.2 of the Criminal Code . [ 11 ] The foregoing factors are not exhaustive but will form the basis for analysis in most circumstances. I will consider them each in turn. Position of trust or authority [ 12 ] The offender was not in a position of trust or authority in respect of the victim. Age of the Victim [ 13 ] The victim was 13 years old at the time of the offence. Although not a “child of tender years”, she was still young - three years removed from the legal age for consent. Disparity in the ages of the Offender and the Victim [ 14 ] The offender was just over five years older than the victim.

This is not an insignificant age disparity but neither is it an age difference such as will attract the severest of societal reprobation. Although only 18 at the time, the offender should have behaved better and the public would be rightly offended by him taking sexual advantage of his inebriated young victim. His sentence must denounce this criminal act and deter him and others from committing similar crimes. Manipulation of the Victim, including grooming [ 15 ] There was no evidence of manipulation or grooming of the victim.

In fact, the offender had initially broken off contact with her because of her young age. A combination of opportunity, inebriation and poor judgment led to the offence occurring. Planned or calculated conduct by the Offender [ 16 ] There was no evidence of any planned or calculated conduct by the offender. Victim’s vulnerability [ 17 ] An aggravating circumstance was that the victim was intoxicated at the time of the offence. The offender knew that the victim

was intoxicated because he was with her at the gathering where she was drinking. Because she was inebriated and he was afraid that she would make a noise and alert his grandmother to her presence in the house, he carried her on his back down the stairs to his room. It was one thing to take advantage of a 13 year-old person; it was worse to have done so while she was intoxicated. Continuation of illegal conduct after being warned [ 18 ] This factor does not apply in these circumstances.

Particular impact on the Victim [ 19 ] Despite being offered the opportunity, the victim did not provide a Victim Impact Statement. I make no negative inference as a result. I am satisfied that the events had a negative impact on her. There is no medical or other objective evidence, however, of any long-term psychological or other effects that she may have suffered. [ 20 ] That the offender used a condom when he had sexual intercourse with the victim is a neutral factor. Not using a condom would be an aggravating factor because the victim would have been exposed to undue threats of bodily harm.

Failure by the Offender to accept responsibility [ 21 ] This is a difficult factor to assess in this case. In the Pre-Sentence Report it is noted that the offender accepts little responsibility for his actions and places blame upon the victim. At the sentencing hearing, however, the offender addressed the Court and acknowledged that the crime was his fault, not the victim’s; he stated that he regrets what he did and that he does have remorse.

I do not know whether he had a change of heart from the time he spoke to the author of the Pre-Sentence Report, or whether he felt he should say something self-serving on sentencing. In the circumstances, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and will accept his expression of remorse as genuine. Previous criminal record of the Offender [ 22 ] The offender, although still very youthful, has previous youth and adult convictions. Most are property and “breach” related.

Troubling, however, is the information in the Pre-Sentence Report from Her Majesty’s Penitentiary (HMP) of nuisance behaviors, including fighting and assaults. Furthermore, he has admitted accessing illegal drugs and other substances while in prison awaiting this sentencing decision. Prospects of rehabilitation and the risk of re-offending [ 23 ] The offender is now only 21 years old and so I must recognize that he has the prospect of being rehabilitated. The Crown agrees that this is an important sentencing principle in this case.

The aim of the criminal justice system must be to work towards that goal and to offer the offender the programs and supports that he requires to turn his life around. The sentence should therefore be one that not only permits the offender to be rehabilitated, but that aids in that process as well. This principle is aptly put by Rowe, J.A. (as he then was) in R. v. Lundrigan , 2012 NLCA 43 , at paragraph 24 : What then is a fit sentence? It is one that takes account of the circumstances of the offences and the offender. A key consideration is the prospect for Mr. Lundrigan’s rehabilitation.

It is important to recall that the best protection for society is that the offender not re- offend . [Emphasis added.] [ 24 ] A sentence served in a federal institution that is sensitive to the needs of Aboriginal people involved in the justice system can provide the offender with the education, counselling and other supports that he needs to rehabilitate himself. [ 25 ] At the same time, however, it is clear that if the offender does not avail of available programs and support then the risk of him re-offending is high. Pre-Sentence Report [ 26 ] The offender was born to a 15 year-old alcoholic mother.

Both his mother and his father were largely absent from his early childhood. Until the age of 10 he was raised by his maternal grandmother. His father is currently serving a federal sentence for a sexual offence against a child. [ 27 ] The offender has been described as “energetic, impulsive and immature”. He has been diagnosed with ADHD. A plan by his maternal grandmother to reunite him with his mother in Toronto was not successful.

Unfortunately, his negative behaviour was a concern and so he was returned to the Province into the care of his paternal grandparents. [ 28 ] At the age of 13, the offender was expelled from school. He was placed in foster care. He began having legal difficulties and was sent to the Bayview Treatment Centre in Ontario for almost two years.

There he was placed in a “native house” where he reports witnessing repeated incidents of physical discipline by staff towards some of the Aboriginal children. [ 29 ] The offender returned to his paternal grandmother’s care in December of 2015 where he remained until first remanded into custody as an adult that summer. Since then he has spent most of his time in custody. His grandmother wonders whether he has fetal alcohol syndrome or suffers from bi-polar disorder. [ 30 ] The offender has never been employed. He has attained a grade 9 education.

He has past associations with psychiatrists and while at HMP is availing of sessions with the institutional psychologist.

[31] The author of the Pre-Sentence Report has identified a number of significant criminogenic risk factors associated with theoffender which require intervention. She has identified a number of programs that would be available to him within the prison system andin the community. Guilty plea [32] The offender did not plead guilty, as is his right. Willingness of the offender to participate in counselling [33] Although the Pre-Sentence Report discussed available counselling programs, it did not address the offender’s willingness topartake of same. It did identify that he is seeing the HMP psychologist.

At the sentencing hearing, however, when asked by me theoffender indicated that he is prepared to participate in counselling programs, including counseling programs for sex offenders. Presence of any other factor specifically referred to in

section 718.2 of the Criminal Code. [34] That the offender was on probation at the time of the offence is an aggravating factor pursuant to

section 718.2(a)(vi) of theCode. [35] The offender is Mi’kmaq and a recognized member of the Qalipu First Nation Band. This engages consideration of section718.2(

e) of the Criminal Code as interpreted in R. v. Gladue, (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688 and subsequent cases,including R. v. Bennett, 2017 NLCA

Section 718.2(

e) is as follows: 718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: […] (

e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done tovictims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginaloffenders. [36] In Bennett, at paragraphs 24 and 25, Welsh, J.A., for the majority of the Court of Appeal, held as follows: [24] This provision is discussed in detail in R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13 , [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433, at paragraphs 56 to 87. LeBelJ., for the majority, explained the need for information to be provided to the sentencing judge: [59] The Court held, therefore, that s. 718.2(

e) of the Code is a remedial provision designed to ameliorate the serious problem ofoverrepresentation of Aboriginal people in Canadian prisons, and to encourage sentencing judges to have recourse to a restorativeapproach to sentencing (R. v Gladue, [ (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688], at para. 93). It does more than affirm existingprinciples of sentencing; it calls upon judges to use a different method of analysis in determining a fit sentence for Aboriginal offenders.… When sentencing an Aboriginal offender, a judge must consider: (

a) the unique systemic or background factors which mayhave played a

part in bringing the particular Aboriginal offender before the courts; and (

b) the types of sentencing proceduresand sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the offender because of his or her particular Aboriginalheritage or connection (Gladue at para. 66).

Judges may take judicial notice of the broad systemic and background factors affectingAboriginal people generally, but additional case specific information will have to come from counsel and from the pre-sentence report(Gladue at paras. 83-84). [Emphasis added.] [25] LeBel J. emphasized: [60] … Counsel have a duty to bring that individualized information before the court in every case, unless the offenderexpressly waives his right to have it considered.

In current practice, it appears that case-specific information is often brought beforethe court by way of a Gladue report, which is a form of pre-sentence report tailored to the specific circumstances of Aboriginaloffenders. Bringing such information to the attention of the judge in a comprehensive and timely manner is helpful to all parties at asentencing hearing for an Aboriginal offender, as it is indispensable to a judge in fulfilling his duties under s. 718.2(

e) of the CriminalCode. [Emphasis added.] [37] In applying the Gladue principles to the offender, I require information regarding “the unique systemic or background factors

which may have played a

part in bringing the particular Aboriginal offender before the courts” and “the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the offender because of his or her particular Aboriginal heritage or connection ” ( R. v. Ipeelee , 2012 SCC 13 at paragraph 59 ; emphasis added).

It is for this reason that the sentencing hearing in this matter was delayed so that the Pre-Sentence Report could include the necessary Gladue information. [ 38 ] The Pre-Sentence Report identifies that the Qalipu First Nation was established in 2011 and has approximately 24,000 members spread out over 66 communities in the Province. Its people do not live on reserves. [ 39 ] The offender advised the author of the Pre-Sentence Report, and she confirmed this information with his two grandmothers, that he has Aboriginal ancestry on both sides of his family.

He is the son of an alcoholic mother and his father has led a criminal life and is currently serving time for a child sexual offence. The offender did not identify to the author any specific cultural activities he experienced as a child and reported that he had never experienced racism or discrimination. He did, however, report that while he was institutionalized in Ontario he was placed onto a “native house” where he witnessed physical violence against other of the Aboriginal children.

In his address at his sentencing hearing he stated that although for the past 5 to 6 years he had no connection to his Aboriginal heritage, presently he is feeling more involved in that culture. [ 40 ] The offender’s grandmothers reported differently to the author of the Pre-Sentence Report, however. The offender lived with his maternal grandmother until he was ten years-old. She reported that she and her family members always embraced their Mi’kmaq heritage and that the offender had regular exposure to many cultural traditions and activities.

She also reported that the offender was the victim of racist name-calling when a young child. She acknowledged the alcoholism in her family, especially that of the offender’s mother. [ 41 ] The offender’s paternal grandmother confirmed her Mi’kmaq decent and that her family is entrenched in that culture. Through that side of his family, the offender was exposed to many Mi’kmaq traditional activities, including hunting and fishing as well as attending powwows and sunrise ceremonies.

Her side of the family has experienced illicit drug use and activity. [ 42 ] The offender did not grow up on a reserve or other disadvantaged community suffering directly from the effects of colonization. He lived in a rural Newfoundland community. Neither he nor his parents attended a residential school.

Nevertheless, he has experienced the negative consequences of a dysfunctional family dynamic as well as of societal attitudes towards his Aboriginal status. [ 43 ] The Pre-Sentence Report identifies that certain supports are available through the Qalipu First Nations Band via the People of the Dawn Indigenous Friendship Center in both Stephenville and St. George’s.

Although little detail was provided as to how these programs could address the specific needs of the offender, the Pre-Sentence Report indicates that it offers a support group, a drumming group and has an aboriginal counsellor on staff. [ 44 ] It is necessary, then, to consider an appropriate sentence for the offender in the context of the Pre-Sentence Report, the direction in Ipeelee and the requirement in

section 718.2 of the Code that with Aboriginal offenders consideration be had to “all available sanctions, other than imprisonment”. [ 45 ] In addition to Bennett , helpful guidance is supplied in the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Harry , 2013 MBCA 108 . That case reminds us at paragraph 64 that Gladue applies to all Aboriginal offenders, whether or not the offences are serious and violent.

Section 718.2(

e) requires a different methodology for assessing a fit sentence for an Aboriginal person; it does not mandate, necessarily, a different result. In Gladue , at paragraph 79 , the court stated that, “[g]enerally, the more violent and serious the offence the more likely it is as a practical reality that the terms of imprisonment for aboriginals and non-aboriginals will be close to each other or the same, even taking into account their different concepts of sentencing”.

In particular, unless the unique circumstances of the particular offender bear on his or her culpability for the offence or indicate which sentencing objectives can and should be actualized, they will not influence the ultimate sentence. a fit sentence The Need for Specific and General Deterrence [ 46 ]

Section 718.01 of the Criminal Code mandates that in cases of sexual assault involving young people (and sexual interference is a type of sexual assault), specific and general deterrence are the primary sentencing considerations. [ 47 ] Unfortunately, the Pre-Sentence Report does not provide a risk assessment of the offender. It is difficult to sentence an offender when specific details of risk have not been identified. Even in the absence of such an assessment, however, I am able to conclude that without appropriate interventions there is a substantial prospect of recidivism.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors [ 48 ] Aggravating factors in this case are: 1) that the offender abused a person under the age of 18; 2) the fact that victim was inebriated at the time of the offence; 3) that the offender was on probation at the time of the offence; and 4) the offender’s criminal record, although not a serious aggravating factor, must be taken into account. [ 49 ] Mitigating factors include:

1) the offender’s youth and our collective interest in his rehabilitation and successful reintegration into society; 2) positive family support (I note that both his mother and grandmother were present for the sentencing hearing); 3) his demonstration of remorse, albeit late in coming; and 4) his willingness to undertake counselling. [ 50 ] I have also taken into account the Aboriginal status of the offender and that he has experienced racism and family drug and alcohol abuse.

Sentences Imposed by Other Courts in Newfoundland and Labrador and elsewhere in Canada [ 51 ] Canadian courts are bound by the principle of parity – a sentence imposed should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances (

section 718.2 (

b) of the Criminal Code ). [ 52 ] The Crown relied on several cases in which an accused person was convicted of having sexual intercourse with a person under the age of consent and was given a three-year sentence, including: 1) R. v. Norton , 2016 MBCA 79 , where the 20 year-old offender had factually consensual intercourse with a 15 year-old while she performed oral sex on another person; 2) R. v.

Barrett , 2012 NLCA 46 , where a 22 year-old offender had factually consensual intercourse with a 14 year-old, although she had initially resisted. [ 53 ] Both Norton and Barrett represent fact scenarios more egregious than this case. In Norton there were two males involved in the sexual assault; in Barrett there was a greater age disparity and the offender persisted notwithstanding the victim’s initial resistance. [ 54 ] I have also considered R. v. Payne , 2012 NLCA 72 , where the 34 year-old offender twice had unprotected sexual intercourse with a 13 year-old victim.

The trial judge sentenced him to imprisonment for three years. At paragraph 8, Welsh, J.A. said for the Court of Appeal, “A review of the case law leads to the conclusion that a three-year term of imprisonment for sexual assault of a thirteen year old girl involving intercourse is at the low end of the range.” That sentence was nevertheless upheld on appeal. [ 55 ] In A.B. , the offender was 23 years old. The complainant was 12. They engaged twice in “consensual” sexual intercourse.

The Court of Appeal identified the factors that I have set out earlier in this decision and ruled at paragraph 36: [36] Considering the above factors, an appropriate sentence for sexual assault in this case would be three years imprisonment, which falls at the low end of the range for non-consensual sexual assault with intercourse. Subject to the comments that follow, there are no factors that would take this case outside the accepted range or that would operate to alter the low end of the range. [ 56 ] That case, too, involved a greater age disparity than I am faced with and the victim was very young.

There were two incidents of sexual intercourse. Moreover, although recognizing a three year sentence as being at the low end of the range of sentencing in circumstances such as this, that case also recognized that there could be factors that would take the sentence below the range. [ 57 ] Counsel for the offender concedes that three years in prison has been set as the starting point for sexual intercourse with a person under the age of consent.

Still, she argued for a sentence in the two to three year range taking into account the offender’s prospects of rehabilitation and his troubled antecedents, part of which stem from his Aboriginal status. Unfortunately, the cases cited by her either do not reflect the current state of the law of sentencing in circumstances such as this or are distinguishable on their facts. [ 58 ] Nevertheless, in the circumstances of this case I am prepared to impose a sentence just below what has been identified as the floor for sentencing in such circumstances (see, R. v. Nasogaluak , 2010 SCC 6 ).

It is true that because the offender took sexual advantage of an inebriated 13 year-old I must send a strong message of denunciation and deterrence. But that strong message must be balanced with the sentencing objective of rehabilitation of the offender (see Payne for a discussion of the importance of the principle of rehabilitation, albeit in a different context). [ 59 ] Additionally, I recognize the importance of taking judicial notice of the systemic and background factors affecting Aboriginal people generally, and the particular circumstances of this offender.

The Gladue considerations in this case militate towards imposing a sentence that will foster the rehabilitation of the offender. That is despite the fact that this was not a case where alternatives to incarceration were in issue - both counsel presented sentencing submissions that involved penitentiary time. [ 60 ] Although this offender finds himself in circumstances not dissimilar to those of other poor and marginalized members of our Province’s society, those negative effects have been exacerbated by his Aboriginal status.

The social milieu into which he was born and raised and the racism he has encountered can only have negatively affected his present reality and his prospects. His situation is exacerbated by family alcoholism and drug use. His general and specific circumstances therefore partly mitigate his moral blameworthiness. [ 61 ] The offender’s crime was serious and warrants a significant custodial sentence. Nevertheless, it was not so serious so as to close the gap between sentencing Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders.

I am satisfied that a sentence of 30 months in custody is appropriate for his crime of sexual interference. [ 62 ] As to the three breaches of recognizances as set out in Count Nos. 3, 4 and 5, the parties agree and so the offender is sentenced to 30 days for each. The concession that the Crown sought to make to promote the rehabilitation of the offender was to recommend that those sentences be served concurrently with the sentence for sexual interference.

The Court of Appeal has determined that breaches of court orders, such as probation orders, will generally result in a sentence to be served consecutively to a sentence for the related offence

that constitutes the breach ( R. v. Hutchings , 2012 NLCA 2 , at paragraph 24 ). Because I have already made a sentencing concession in this case, I order that the sentence for the first breach be served consecutively to the sentence for sexual interference. The sentences for each of the remaining two breaches shall be served concurrently to that sentence. The Time Spent in Custody Prior to Sentencing [ 63 ] The offender was remanded in custody upon his conviction on June 19, 2017. That amounts to 218 days to January 22, 2018.

He is entitled to 1.5 for 1 credit for custodial time, that is, for a total of 327 days. DISPOSITION [ 64 ] For Count No. 1, sexual interference against the victim, the offender is sentenced to incarceration for 30 months. For Count No. 3, breach of a recognizance, the offender is sentenced to incarceration for 30 days to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed in respect of Count No. 1.

For each of Count Nos. 4 and 5, the remaining two breaches of a recognizance, the offender is sentenced to incarceration for 30 days for each count, both sentences to be served concurrently to the sentence imposed in respect of Count No. 1. The offender shall receive pre-sentencing credit of 327 days. [ 65 ] The offender shall be subject to the following ancillary orders: 1) An order under

section 490.012(1) in respect of the Sexual Offenders Information Registration Act , S.C. 2004, c. 10 is mandatory. This is imposed for 20 years pursuant to

section 490.013(2) (

b) of the Criminal Code . 2) A DNA order in Form 5.03 is made pursuant to

section 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code . 3) A Firearms Prohibition Order for 10 years is imposed pursuant to section 109(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code . 4) Pursuant to

section 743.21(1) of the Criminal Code , while incarcerated, I order that the offender is to have no contact, directly or indirectly, with the victim. 5) A victim surcharge is imposed in the amount of $200 pursuant to section 737(2) (b)(ii) of the Criminal Code . _____________________________ Robert P. Stack Justice APPENDIX Corrections made on January 24, 2018: 1. In the Appearances section, the name of counsel Lori-Lee M. St. Croix was removed.