R. v. Pennell, 2018 NLSC 188

court crest IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR GENERAL DIVISION Citation : R. v. Pennell , 2018 NLSC 188 Date : September 20, 2018 Docket : 201701G3352 Her Majesty The Queen v. Robert Pennell Before: Justice Donald H. Burrage Place of Hearing: St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador Dates of Hearing: August 10, 2018 September 11, 2018

Summary: The 61-year-old offender, after pleading guilty, was sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment for robbery of a gas station and six months’ imprisonment, concurrent, for possessing a weapon dangerous to the public peace. The offender apologized and was remorseful for his actions. The 19-year-old store clerk was traumatized by the event and filed a Victim Impact Statement. The robbery was fueled by the offender’s addiction to prescription medication. He suffered from mental illness with a diagnosis of PTSD, depression, anxiety, hallucinations and ADHD.

He had a lengthy criminal record for theft and crimes of dishonesty, but no prior convictions for robbery. After credit for time on remand, he had 297 days remaining to be served. A warrant of committal was entered accordingly. Appearances:

Shawn I. Patten Appearing on behalf of the Crown Shelley A. Senior, Q.C. Appearing on behalf of the Accused Authorities Cited: CASES CONSIDERED: R. v. Lundrigan , 2012 NLCA 43 ; R. v. Cluney , 2013 NLCA 46 ; R. v. Okemahwasin , 2015 SKPC 71 ; R. v. Ralph , 2007 NLTD 42 ; R. v. Evans , 2018 NLSC 90 ; R. v. Kane , 2012 NLCA 53 ; R. v. Symes , [2017] N.J. No. 186, 139 W.C.B. (2d) 413 ; R. v. Roberts , 2016 NLTD(G) 82; R. v. Peters , 2000 NFCA 55 ; R. v. Hutchings , 2012 NLCA 2 ; R. v. Safarzadeh-Markhali , 2016 SCC 14 ; R. v. Summers , 2014 SCC 26 STATUTES CONSIDERED: Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c.

C-46; REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Burrage, J. : INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] On 10 August 2018, Robert Pennell entered a plea of guilty, and based on an Agreed Statement of Facts, was convicted of a single count each of robbery and possession of a knife for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. [ 2 ] The Indictment reads, as follows: THAT on or about the 7 th day of October, 2016, at or near St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, did rob monies from Ultramar, contrary to

section 343 of the Criminal Code . THAT on or about the 7 th day of October, 2016, at or near St.

John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, did unlawfully have in his possession, a weapon or imitation thereof, to wit: a knife, for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, contrary to section 88(1) of the Criminal Code . [ 3 ] It now falls to the Court to impose a just and appropriate sentence for these crimes. position of the crown and defence [ 4 ] The Crown submits that a period of imprisonment of four years (48months) is appropriate for the robbery charge and six months’ imprisonment, to be served concurrently, for the weapon’s charge. The Crown also points to the mandatory requirement for a DNA Order, and in Mr.

Pennell’s case, a firearms’ prohibition for life. [ 5 ] The defence accepts the mandatory orders, and agrees that the sentence for the weapon’s charge should run concurrent, but submits that the period of imprisonment for the robbery conviction should equate to “time served”. Applying a credit of 1.5 days for each day on remand, would leave Mr. Pennell with a sentence of 783 days, or just over 26 months. The defence points, in particular, to Mr.

Pennell’s guilty plea, his expression of remorse, his mental illness, and his struggles with addiction, as mitigating considerations. principles of sentencING [ 6 ] The Court’s decision on a just and appropriate sentence must, of course, be guided by the principles codified in sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. [ 7 ]

Section 718 provides that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society, by imposing sanctions having one or more of the objectives set forth in that section.

These objectives are to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims, or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct; deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; separate offenders from society, where necessary; assist in rehabilitating offenders; provide reparations for harm done to victims, or to the community; and promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims, or to the community. [ 8 ]

Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code sets out that the fundamental principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. It is an expression of the principle that a fit sentence is one that takes into account the circumstances of the offence(

s) and of the offender ( R. v. Lundrigan , 2012 NLCA 43 ). [ 9 ] Proportionality is central to the sentencing process, as a sentence which properly respects this principle will at the same time

ensure that the secondary goals of denunciation, restraint, promotion of justice for victims, and the maintenance of public confidence in the administration of justice, are met. The principle of proportionality applies to sentencing for all criminal offences ( R. v. Cluney , 2013 NLCA 46 ). [ 10 ]

Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code provides that a sentence should be increased, or reduced, to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence, or the offender. [ 11 ] Pursuant to subsection 718.2 (

d) of the Criminal Code , incarceration is used as a last resort, where less restrictive sanctions are not appropriate. Pursuant to subsection 718.2(

e) of the Criminal Code , all non-custodial sentences should be considered, provided they are reasonable and consistent with the harm caused, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders. circumstances of the offence [ 12 ] As noted, Mr. Pennell’s convictions were based on an Agreed Statement of Facts. It reads: On 7 October 2016, at 0140 hours, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary (RNC) received a call to attend an armed robbery at the Ultramar Gas Bar at 172 Freshwater Road, St. John’s, NL.

The RNC were advised a male with a knife had just left the store with cash and was headed towards Booth Avenue. The RNC arrived on scene shortly thereafter. The Ultramar clerk, Sydney Joy, advised that a female came to the entrance of the Convenience Store and asked to be buzzed in. When Ms. Joy buzzed the female in, a male ran in the store behind the same female. He was holding a knife. The male told Ms. Joy to hand over the money or he would hop over the counter. Ms. Joy followed the male’s instructions and filled up a plastic bag with an indeterminate amount of money. The male took the bag and left the store.

The RNC were advised that the money provided to the perpetrator contained a location device. The device, which was activated, tracked the male. Through the guidance of the tracking device, the RNC attended the area of 8 Linscott Street. The RNC were advised that the tracking device was deemed stationary at this location. With the assistance of RNC officer Cst. Kevin Morgan, a K-9 unit began to track for a suspect at this location. At that time, RNC officer, Sgt. Alex Brennan also began a vehicular patrol of the streets in the area.

At 0153 hours, during his search of Linscott Street, he observed a bald headed male in an adjacent soccer field lying in tall grass under a tree. Sgt. Brennan gave the male instructions to show his hands. The male, upon being approached by the officer, stated “A guy just ran through here. I didn’t rob nothing.” Beside the male, Sgt. Brennan located a bag containing $115.25 of money. The money contained the tracking device. At that time, RNC officer Cst. Daniel Cadigan arrived on scene. The male was advised he was under arrest for robbery. Cst. Cadigan read the male his Rights and Caution.

The male was identified as Robert Pennell. He was searched by the RNC. No weapon was located on his person. While the RNC tended to Mr. Pennell, Cst. Morgan continued his K-9 search for evidence. At 0230 hours, while searching the same soccer field that Mr. Pennell was located in, Cst. Morgan located a black hat and a pair of red gloves. The RNC later viewed a video of the robbery. In the video, the perpetrator is wearing a pair of red gloves. The gloves located in the soccer field were later analyzed for forensic material. The forensic analysis revealed Mr. Pennell’s DNA on the gloves. Mr.

Pennell has since acknowledged that he was the male who committed the robbery. [ 13 ] A picture being worth a thousand words, a surveillance tape of the robbery was also filed by consent. [ 14 ] Mr. Pennell’s actions were driven by his need to fuel his addiction to prescription medication. In a letter written by him and provided to the Court by consent, he writes: I am normally a good natured human being, but my addictions have bought me to new lows. Of which I never thought possible. It is no excuse … but perhaps an explanation of how things came to be that day.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENDER [ 15 ] To observe that Mr. Pennell has faced many challenges in his life, and indeed continues to be challenged, is an understatement. A detailed review of Mr. Pennell’s history is to be found in the 30 July 2017 report of psychiatrist, Dr. Barbara Ross, as submitted by consent. [ 16 ] Mr. Pennell is presently 61 years of age. He was the fourth born of seven children, who was “just a baby” when his father, a man with alcohol problems, left the family. He was raised by his mother and recalled that it was difficult for her to clothe and feed the family on her own.

[ 17 ] While not recognized at the time, he suffered from attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder as a child. He dropped out of school with a grade two education, but to his credit, while incarcerated at the Atlantic Institute in 1996, managed to upgrade his education to a grade 10 level. It was here that he also successfully completed a janitorial course and a course in handling hazardous materials. [ 18 ] At the age of 9 - 10 he began to steal and, as a consequence, at the age of 11 was admitted to the boys’ home in Whitbourne, NL.

Thus began a long history of incarceration for various crimes, leading to the matter before me. His history of criminal activity is commensurate with the history of substance abuse and mental illness. Mr. Pennell related to Dr. Ross that the worst time of his life in terms of drug abuse was from age 45 up until 2016. [ 19 ] Mr. Pennell has a lengthy criminal record which includes some 21 convictions for theft, 14 convictions for crimes of dishonesty (fraud and forgery), and 41 convictions for breach of court orders. He has a number of dated convictions for aggravated assault, arising in 1984 and 1994.

More recently he has a conviction for assault with a weapon arising from an incident in 2002 and three convictions for assault, and a conviction for uttering threats, all arising from an incident on 26 June 2012. Mr. Pennell has no prior convictions for robbery. He is currently on probation as a consequence of a conviction for fraud entered on 29 May 2017. [ 20 ] In terms of his mental illness, Mr. Pennell’s diagnosis is chronic posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety and hallucinations (auditory and possibly visual as well) and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. According to Dr.

Ross, his PTSD is a consequence of his reported childhood history of sexual abuse. [ 21 ] Mr. Pennell was married in 1982 and was with his wife for some 38 years, after which she left him on account of his substance abuse and trouble with the law. He has a son and grandson with whom he reports a close relationship. [ 22 ] Mr. Pennell related to Dr. Ross he has had an extensive and varied work history spanning 25 years, on and off.

His various jobs included maintenance, working for a cleaning company, as a short order cook, working at a ski hill, construction, planting seedlings and for eight years as a superintendent at an apartment building in Halifax. He stated that he had never been fired from a job and had been a good worker. [ 23 ] Mr. Pennell suffers from a chronic shoulder injury sustained when he was weight lifting at age 48. He has deteriorating eyesight and while on remand has been waiting to be seen by an ophthalmologist.

He had an appointment for July of this year, but most regrettably, was overlooked due to an administrative oversight. Last winter he suffered an umbilical hernia, requiring surgery. Upon his return to remand was placed in the special handling unit (SHU), so that his condition could be continuously monitored. Unfortunately, his incision opened up and he was returned to the hospital. Last Christmas he suffered from a “mini stroke” which required hospitalization for a few days. He also suffers from kidney stones, requiring medication from time to time. [ 24 ] Mr.

Pennell presently receives treatment to assist him with his shoulder pain and his addiction. His counsel read a statement from him (with the consent of the Crown). He apologized for his actions and expressed the desire to find a good counsellor and psychiatrist upon release and to reacquaint and spend more time with his son and grandson. In his words, “All I want is to be happy again.” victim impact statements [ 25 ] In this case a Victim Impact Statement was provided to the Court, in accordance with

section 722 of the Criminal Code , from the store clerk on duty at the time of the robbery, Sydney Joy. [ 26 ] Victim impact statements assist the sentencing process by bringing home to the offender the consequences of his or her behaviour and alerting the Court to the very real damage done to the victims and community as a whole. Victim impact statements thus assist the Court in crafting sentences which acknowledge the harm done to the community and promote a sense of responsibility in the offender ( R. v.

Okemahwasin , 2015 SKPC 71 , at para. 15 ). [ 27 ] At the same time, vengeance has no role in the sentencing process. Such statements must not seek to compensate harm through the imposition of a harsh sentence ( R. v. Ralph , 2007 NLTD 42 , at para. 19 ). [ 28 ] Ms. Joy read her Victim Impact Statement in court, albeit with considerable difficulty, such was her distress. She was only 19 years old at the time of the robbery and it is apparent that the actions of Mr. Pennell have had a profound effect upon her. [ 29 ] Ms.

Joy writes that since the robbery she has suffered from panic attacks, can no longer work alone and has ended up on anxiety and depression medication. She suffers from PTSD and rightly wonders why this happened to her. In a charitable vein, she writes that it is her hope that Mr. Pennell learns from this and that it never happens to anyone again. [ 30 ] For his part, Mr. Pennell wrote a letter of apology in which he states that he has a terrible sense of regret and remorse for the actions he took that day. [ 31 ] When asked if he had anything to say, Mr. Pennell again expressed remorse and apologized to Ms. Joy.

Whether it will assist Ms. Joy in her healing remains to be seen, but I accept the apology as sincerely given. previous decisions [ 32 ] Recently in R. v. Evans , 2018 NLSC 90 , in reliance on our Court of Appeal, I had occasion to review the primary principle of sentencing in cases of armed robbery (at paragraphs 42 – 46): 42. Over 30 years ago, in R. v. Stapleton (1984), 45 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 109, 132 A.P.R. 109 (Nfld. C.A.) ), our Court of Appeal stated that the protection of the public is the primary principle of sentencing to be applied in imposing a sentence for this offence (at paragraph 10):

This Court has consistently stated that armed robberies must attract substantial sentences. The public must be protected and the offendersand like minded people must be deterred. The only way to try to accomplish these aims is to incarcerate offenders for lengthy terms... 43. The Court in Stapleton also observed that in "the absence of exceptional circumstances, a sentence of three years in cases of armedrobbery is not inappropriate ...", but where a loaded gun is used, more is called for (at paragraph 12). 44. Some two years after Stapleton, our Court of Appeal in R. v.

Meadus (1986), (NL CA), 60 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 64,181 A.P.R. 64 (Nfld. C.A.)) made it clear that even in the case of a youthful first offender, while the principle of rehabilitation mustalways be overlooked, in the case of armed robbery "general deterrence must be the principle consideration" (at page 66). The term ofimprisonment must also be such as to reflect society's abhorrence of this type of crime. 45. More recently, in R. v. Hutchings, 2012 NLCA 2 (N.L.

C.A.), Green C.J.N.L. reviewed sentences respecting a number ofconvenience store robberies in this jurisdiction and concluded that (at paragraph 104): The normal level of sentence for armed robberies of convenience stores-gas bars by a young person, masked, late at night, where themoney or merchandise taken is relatively small could range from three to five years. 46. The range is not prescriptive; however, as the Court recognized that the range is a "normal level of sentence" that "could" apply.As our Court of Appeal recently confirmed in R. v. Mitchell, 2017 NLCA 26 (N.L.

C.A.), sentencing ranges are guidelines, not hard andfast rules intended to set a minimum sentence for a particular charge (at paragraph 17). That said, departures from the range must not beundertaken lightly, and only then with proper justification. [33] The principle of parity, that “a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offencescommitted in similar circumstances” (section 718.2(

b) of the Criminal Code) is a fundamental principle of sentencing (R. v. Kane, 2012NLCA 53). Accordingly, the Court was referred to a number of prior sentencing decisions for robbery. [34] In R. v. Symes, [2017] N.J. No. 186, 139 W.C.B. (2d) 413 the offender was sentenced to 39 months’ imprisonment for a singlecount of armed robbery and 12 months concurrent for possession of a weapon and 12 months concurrent for being disguised with intent. He pled guilty and was convicted based on an Agreed Statement of Facts. Mr.

Symes entered a diner in Marystown, NL, with his facedisguised by a mask, brandishing a knife and demanding cash. There were approximately six people present in the diner at the time. Heelbowed the bartender to one side saying “get out of the way and give me your fucking money”. Some $2,500 was stolen. [35] Mr. Symes struggled with a serious drug addiction and had a 17-page criminal record which included convictions for theft,break and enter and breaches of court orders. None of the prior convictions were as serious as armed robbery. [36] In R. v.

Roberts, 2016 NLTD(G) 82, following a trial Marshall, J. sentenced the offender to 3.5 years’ imprisonment forrobbery and one year concurrent for being disguised with intent. [37] Mr. Roberts attended the Hayloft Lounge, where earlier that evening he had been a patron, with his face masked and wavingwhat appeared to be a gun. He made away with some $4,300, but not before damaging computer monitors and phone lines in thelounge. As aggravating factors, he was on a recognizance and subject to a driving prohibition at the time of the offences. Following hisconviction he expressed remorse to his victims. [38] Mr.

Roberts was 34 years old with 69 prior convictions, but none for robbery. His convictions included assault, theft, breakand enter and uttering threats. Evidence was led on the sentencing hearing to establish that Mr. Roberts had a history of mental healthand addiction issues leading to incarceration. [39] In R. v. Peters, 2000 NFCA 55 our Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of four years for robbery, but to be served concurrent totime Mr. Peters was already serving. The overall time spent in prison was thereby extended by 13 months. Mr. Peters was 42 years oldwhen he robbed a bank in Corner Brook, NL.

He suffered from attention deficit hyperactive disorder and bipolar illness and was in themanic phase of his illness, having stopped taking his medication, when he committed the robbery. Mr. Peters had a lengthy criminalrecord, which included prior convictions of robbery of banks and firearms’ offences. [40] At issue was the role of the offender’s psychiatric condition on the appropriateness of the sentence imposed. On this questionthe Court wrote (at paragraphs 17 – 19): 17. In this case, the sentencing judge purported to rely on the totality principle in making the sentence concurrent.

She was of theview that to make the sentence consecutive to the existing sentence would make the overall period of incarceration "excessive". She wasobviously influenced by Mr. Peters' medical conditions and the need to try for one last chance at his rehabilitation. 18. Deterrence and punishment assume less importance in cases of mentally ill offenders. See R. v. Hynes (1991), (NL CA), 89 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 316 (Nfld. C.A.). In R. v. Robinson (1974), (ON CA), 19 C.C.C. (2d) 193 (Ont.

C.A.)the Court emphasized that in cases where offenders commit crimes while they are out of touch with reality due to mental illness, specific

deterrence is meaningless to them. Further, general deterrence is unlikely to be achieved either since people with mental illnesses thatcontribute to the commission of a crime will not usually be deterred by the punishment of others. As well, severe punishment is lessappropriate in cases of persons with such mental illnesses since it would be disproportionate to the degree of responsibility of theoffender. This decreased emphasis on punishment and deterrence in these circumstances is consistent with the proportionality principlein s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code. 19.

Thus, the mental illness of an offender will often be considered a mitigating factor in sentencing even though it is not of the sortthat would establish a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder at the time of the commission of the offence. The focus in sentencing such offenders may properly therefore be placed on mechanisms that will promote rehabilitation and treatment,rather than on punishment. This is especially so where lengthy prison terms are often regarded as counterproductive, even in cases notinvolving the mentally afflicted. See R. v.

Gladue (1999), (SCC), 133 C.C.C. (3d) 385 (S.C.C.) at p. 408. [41] While recognizing that bank robbery, in any form, is a serious offence, the Court concluded that it was not an unreasonableresponse for the judge to tailor the sentence in such a way as to not subject Mr. Peters to further lengthy incarceration, which might havethe effect of ostracizing him, without any concerted means to address his medical problems. The concern in the words of Mr. Peters’psychiatrist was that he not be “left behind”. [42] There are undeniable parallels between the case of Peters and that of Mr.

Pennell, as well as some notable differences. Bothsuffer from mental illness and addictions and both have lengthy criminal records. Unlike Mr. Peters, however, there is no evidence thatMr. Pennell was manic or otherwise “out of touch with reality” at the time of the robbery. However, Mr. Pennell’s criminal record doesnot include prior convictions for robbery, whereas Mr. Peters had been recently convicted of six counts of robbery of banks and threefirearms’ offences. Unlike Mr. Peters, Mr. Pennell is not currently serving a sentence to which the present sentence could be madeconcurrent.

The sentencing judge in Peters was thus in a position to achieve denunciation (with a sentence of four years) while tailoringits impact on Mr. Peters (at para. 26). [43] There are also some parallels between Symes and Roberts and the case before me. In both cases the offenders’ actions werefueled by addiction and both offenders had lengthy criminal records, but not for robbery. Mr. Symes entered a guilty plea but Mr.Roberts did not. However, unlike Mr. Pennell, both Mr. Symes and Mr. Roberts had their faces disguised with a mask.

Also, thequantity of money stolen was considerably higher ($2,500 and $4,300 vs. $115). In addition to stealing, Mr. Roberts damaged computerequipment in the lounge. disposition [44] The initial sentencing step in the context of multiple convictions is to determine the appropriate sentence for each individualoffence. The sentence arrived at should presumptively be imposed consecutively (see R. v.

Hutchings, 2012 NLCA 2, at paragraph 20). [45] Applying the principles of sentencing to the circumstances of this case leads me to the conclusion that a just and appropriatesentence in this case is 36 months’ imprisonment for robbery and six months’ imprisonment for possessing a weapon dangerous to thepublic peace. [46] In reaching this conclusion, I have taken into consideration the serious nature of armed robbery and the lasting impact it canhave on the victims of this crime.

I am therefore mindful of the need for general deterrence and denunciation and our Court of Appeal’sobservation that while not prescriptive, a sentence of three years’ imprisonment is at the low end of the range. [47] At the same time the circumstances of Mr. Pennell are not to be ignored. While he is older than the offender in Peters, he haslong suffered from mental health challenges and addictions. He is presently receiving medication to assist him with his addiction and hissentence must not be such as to deprive him of future rehabilitation. While Mr.

Pennell has a lengthy criminal record, like the offendersin Roberts he has no convictions for robbery. However, unlike Symes and Roberts, Mr. Pennell was not masked and was not on arecognizance at the time. Mr. Pennell entered a plea of guilty, thus sparing his victim the trauma of a trial. He was genuinely apologeticfor his actions, fueled as they were by his addiction. [48] The second step is to consider whether some or all of the offences are so related that they can be considered to constitute asingle criminal adventure (see Hutchings, paragraph 21).

If so, those that are so regarded are generally made concurrent to the heaviestsentence arising from that single criminal adventure. [49] In this case, I am satisfied possession of the knife and the robbery formed part of a single criminal adventure. I thus accept thesubmission of the Crown and defence that the sentence for possession of a weapon should be concurrent to the sentence for robbery. [50] The third stage in sentencing involves giving the sentence one last look to ensure that in totality it is not disproportionate takinginto consideration the factors enumerated in Hutchings.

In this case, the overall sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment is notdisproportionate. For ease of calculation I have treated each month as 30 days. Therefore, 36 months equates to 1,080 days. Credit for Time Served [51] The Supreme Court of Canada observed in R. v. Safarzadeh-Markhali, 2016 SCC 14, citing its earlier decision in R. v.Summers, 2014 SCC 26 that a credit of one day for every day of pre-trial custody will "almost never" put the person on equal footingwith those denied bail (at paragraph 1).

Time spent in pre-trial custody does not count for the purposes of parole eligibility, earnedremission and statutory release. [52] To date, Mr. Pennell has been on consent remand for the current offences for a period of 522 days. I agree with the defence

submission (with which the Crown did not take exception) that Mr. Pennell should receive a credit of 1.5 days for each day in pre- sentence custody. He thus has a credit of 783 days to apply toward his sentence of 1,080 days. The application of this credit means that Mr. Pennell has 297 days remaining to be served. A warrant of committal will issue accordingly. Ancillary Orders DNA Order [ 53 ] Armed robbery is a "primary designated offence." Therefore, it is hereby ordered that samples of bodily substances be taken from Mr. Pennell for DNA analysis in accordance with

Part XV of the Criminal Code . Weapons’ Prohibition [ 54 ] Pursuant to subsection 109(3) of the Criminal Code , Mr. Pennell is prohibited from possessing any firearm, crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance for life. _____________________________ Donald H. Burrage Justice