R. v. Coady, 2019 NLSC 7

court crest IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR GENERAL DIVISION Citation : R. v. Coady , 2019 NLSC 7 Date : January 21, 2019 Docket : 201801G1148 Her Majesty The Queen v. Brandon Coady Before: Justice Vikas Khaladkar Reasons for Judgment Given Orally Place of Hearing: St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador Dates of Hearing: January 18 and 21, 2019 Date of Oral Judgment: January 21, 2019

Summary : The Accused pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted murder pursuant to s. 239(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code . The Crown and Defence made a joint submission with respect to sentence. The sentence proposed was six years incarceration, together with ancillary orders regarding firearms, DNA and non-contact of the victim and a witness. The proposed sentence does not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and is not otherwise contrary to the public interest. It is in line with the expectations of reasonable persons aware of the circumstances of the case and is not a sentence that would cause an informed and reasonable public to lose confidence in the institution of the courts. The proposed sentence is,

therefore, accepted and endorsed. Appearances: Jeffrey A. Summers Appearing on behalf of the Crown Randolph J. Piercey, Q.C. Appearing on behalf of the Accused Authorities Cited: CASES CONSIDERED: R. v. Anthony-Cook , 2016 SCC 43 ; R. v. Druken , 2006 NLCA 67 ; R. v. O. (B.J.), 2010 NLCA 19 STATUTES CONSIDERED: Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Khaladkar, J. : INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Mr. Coady, through his counsel, entered a plea of guilty to the charge of attempted murder under s. 239(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 . Mr. Piercey, Q.C. filed a document outlining his compliance with s. 606 of the Criminal Code signed by the Accused. Mr. Coady acknowledged in writing, and verbally when questioned by the Court, that he understood that he was pleading guilty to a charge of attempted murder, that he understood the nature and consequences of the plea and that the Court was not bound by any agreement made between himself and the Crown. I am satisfied that s. 606 of the Criminal Code has been complied with.

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS [ 2 ] The parties filed an Agreed Statement of Facts, which were read into the record by Mr. Summers. I reproduce those facts, with necessary editorial modification, as follows: 1. At approximately 3:00 a.m. on February 17, 2017, Brandon Coady (hereinafter “the Accused”) entered the basement apartment and bedroom of Abigail Buswell, located at 17 Weymouth Avenue, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador while armed with a knife … waking Buswell and the victim, Taylor King. 2.

Prior to that morning, the Accused and Buswell had been in an on-and-off again relationship but were not seeing each other at the time. The Accused and King were unknown to each other. 3. Upon seeing King in bed with Buswell, the Accused instantly attacked, stabbing King several times in the chest, arm and leg and kicking him repeatedly in the head. When King attempted to leave the room for medical attention, the Accused prevented him from doing so, telling King repeatedly, “You’re not going anywhere”. “Look at me.

You’re going to bleed out tonight, buddy” as well as threatening to “slit his throat” if King tried to leave the bedroom. When Buswell screamed at the Accused to stop, the Accused replied “this is happening to him because of you”. 4. The noise of the altercation woke the upstairs tenant at 17 Weymouth Street, Glen Breen, who then called 911. 5. As a result of the attack, King suffered multiple deep stab wounds to his chest near his heart, in his arm and leg and had begun to lose a significant amount of blood when two officers responding to the 911 call, Cst. Learning and Cst.

Ryall of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary (“RNC”) knocked on the basement apartment door. The Accused then left the bedroom to answer the door.

6. Upon the Accused answering the door, the two officers noticed blood on the Accused’s hands. The Accused then placed a hand in his jacket pocket and exited the residence, leaving the door open. When the officers instructed the Accused to remove his hands from his pockets, they observed a large brown knife handle in his pocket. Cst. Learning then removed the knife from his pocket and the Accused was handcuffed. 7. As the Accused was being handcuffed by Cst. Ryall and led away from the residence, Buswell exited the bedroom and called out to officers for help, at which point King also exited the bedroom.

King was observed by officers to be covered in blood as well as dripping blood onto the floor. 8. Cst. Learning, who had previously worked as a paramedic before becoming an RNC officer, became concerned that King was going into hemorrhagic shock. He observed King’s injuries, including those near his heart, the significant external blood loss as well as King having trouble breathing and shaking uncontrollably. He then immediately radioed for an ambulance and retrieved a first aid kit from his police vehicle to begin immediate treatment on King’s injuries. 9. When Cst.

Learning came outside and indicated the situation inside the residence, the Accused uttered to Cst. Ryall “I’m the bad guy here, I stabbed him”. Cst. Ryall then placed the Accused under arrest for assault with a weapon and attempted murder. 10. After his arrest, the Accused gave a cautioned statement to police. He indicated that he had consumed approximately half of a 26 oz. bottle of liquor beginning after 12:00 a.m. as well as smoked “a draw” before deciding to go over to Buswell’s residence and “surprise” her.

He denied having a plan of killing anyone prior to going to the residence and said he had no idea someone else was with Buswell. He also told police that he had recently been diagnosed with anxiety two to three weeks prior and had been prescribed Paxil, which he felt contributed to making him more “emotional”. 11. The victim, Taylor King, was later stabilized at hospital after intensive medical intervention including multiple transfusions and surgeries, including surgery on his left arm – for which he has yet to regain full function. His injuries are documented in Consent Exhibit #1 (Photobook, Tab 2).

His medical records are submitted as Consent Exhibit #2. 12. The parties agree that they can adduce such other evidence as necessary to supplement the facts herein agreed to. VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS [ 3 ] Victim impact statements were read into the record. Mr. King’s mother read in her own victim impact statement. Mr. Summers read in the victim impact statements on behalf of Mr. King’s father and Mr. King himself. [ 4 ] It would be an understatement to say that the Accused’s actions have profoundly affected this family. Mr.

King’s parents’ anguish at finding their son in the hospital with life-threatening injuries is unimaginable. The only worse outcome would have been if Mr. King had died as a result of his injuries. But for the training and recognition of the seriousness of Mr. King’s condition by Cst. Learning, the outcome might well have been very different. [ 5 ] Mr. and Mrs. King agonized over the fact that a normal, healthy child was suddenly unable to care for himself and needed the most basic attention.

Luckily they were willing and able to help their son Taylor when he needed them the most. [ 6 ] Taylor King described a life that had been turned on its ear as a result of the attack. He will bear the physical and psychological trauma of an unprovoked attack for the rest of his life. He will be unable to participate in many of the activities, such as skateboarding, that he once enjoyed.

He will have some difficulty raising his daughter because of the physical infirmities that he must now contend with. [ 7 ] One can hope that since he has been saved the further trauma of having to testify in Court, he can now concentrate on getting his life back together to the extent that is possible. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ACCUSED [ 8 ] Mr. Coady was sworn in and gave evidence. [ 9 ] He is 24 years of age and lives with his parents. He has no criminal record. He has been on judicial interim release for the past two years and has not breached the conditions of his release.

He has the support of his family members. [ 10 ] Mr. Coady has suffered from anxiety issues since leaving intermediate school and attending high school. Once he moved to a larger school, he began to feel anxious around people he did not know. This resulted in him not wanting to attend school. Despite that, he received all of his credits for Grade XII but did not matriculate because he was unable to complete the 40 volunteer hours assigned to him as part of his curriculum. He found that he was unable to comply because it required him to go out and meet people he did not know

and interact with them. He felt unable to do this. [ 11 ] Since being released on bail he has been seeing counselors. The waiting time to see a psychiatrist was about two years. So, Mr. Coady arranged to see a psychologist at his own expense and he has been receiving counseling from his family physicians as well. He testified that his medical team was able to properly regulate his medications. As a result he has been able to work, and has been working for most of the time since he was released from custody. [ 12 ] Mr. Piercey, Q.C. filed a letter from Mr. Coady’s union as Consent 3 that outlined the fact that Mr.

Coady is in good standing with his union, that he is a good, dependable worker and is dedicated to his job. He has a job at the shipyards doing maintenance on ships. Mr. Coady testified that he works from 40-60 hours per week, and he has been assured that he will have his job back once he is released from the penitentiary. At that time, he wishes to establish his own home and is hopeful that he can someday enter into a relationship and raise a family. [ 13 ] Mr. Coady apologized to Mr. King and his family and stated that he was deeply sorry about what had happened.

He broke down on the stand while giving his apology and I believe that he is truly remorseful. THE JOINT SUBMISSION [ 14 ] Counsel jointly submitted that six years incarceration was an appropriate sentence in this case. They indicated that there was a quid pro quo in arriving at the arrangement. In particular, the defence was in possession of a pharmacological report that was filed with the Court that indicated it was possible a drug that was prescribed to Mr. Coady some two weeks prior to the incident may have caused a suicidal/homicidal reaction in him. Mr.

Piercey, Q.C. frankly acknowledged, however, that there was a risk that the Court may not have accepted that the medication was responsible for sufficient diminished capacity to justify a finding that Mr. Coady was not criminally responsible. [ 15 ] On the other side, Mr. Summers indicated that Ms. Buswell was adamant that she did not wish to testify. That might have impacted upon the Crown’s ability to fully put forward its case. [ 16 ] Both counsel are experienced and have arrived at an agreement that recognizes the strengths and weaknesses in their respective cases.

I have no doubt that there exists an appropriate quid pro quo as a result of which each side gives a little, but gains a lot. The joint submission was entered into for the appropriate reasons. THE TEST FOR ACCEPTING A JOINT SUBMISSION [ 17 ] The Supreme Court of Canada recently had occasion to give guidance on what is required for a Court to be satisfied that a joint submission by counsel is acceptable. In R. v.

Anthony-Cook , 2016 SCC 43 , Moldaver, J. indicated that under the proper test, a trial judge should not depart from a joint submission on sentence unless the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest. He cited two decisions from the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal as helpful in determining whether the threshold had been met. [ 18 ] In R. v.

Druken , 2006 NLCA 67 our Court of Appeal held that a joint submission should be accepted unless it is so “markedly out of line with the expectations of reasonable persons aware of the circumstances of the case that they would view it as a break down in the proper functioning of the criminal justice system”. [ 19 ] In R. v.

O. (B.J.) , 2010 NLCA 19 the Court said, at paragraph 56, that when assessing a joint submission, trial judges should “avoid rendering a decision that causes an informed and reasonable public to lose confidence in the institution of the courts”. [ 20 ] I have reviewed the extensive precedents provided to me by counsel. The range of sentence for attempted murder varies from a suspended sentence at the very low end to life imprisonment at the high end.

Many of the precedents are in the six to eight year range. [ 21 ] Inasmuch as the joint submission is for a sentence well within the range of sentencing, I am satisfied that an informed and reasonable public would not lose confidence in the proper functioning of the criminal justice system as a result of it being accepted by the Court. [ 22 ] I, therefore, accept the joint submission and sentence Mr. Coady as follows: 1. I sentence you to a term of incarceration of six years. 2. I make the following ancillary orders:

a) An Order under s. 109 of the Criminal Code that you are prohibited from possessing any firearm or ammunition for a period of 10 years after your release from prison.

b) An Order under s. 109 of the Criminal Code that you are prohibited from possessing any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition for life.

c) The offence is a primary designated offence and there shall be a mandatory DNA Order pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code

requiring the offender to provide the number of bodily substances that are reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis.

d) Pursuant to s. 743.21(1) of the Criminal Code , the offender is to have no contact or communication with the victim, Taylor King or Abigail Buswell, during the custodial period of sentence. _____________________________ Vikas Khaladkar Justice