R. v. Glasco, 2020 NLSC 142

court crest IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR GENERAL DIVISION Citation : R. v. Glasco , 2020 NLSC 142 Date : November 18, 2020 Docket : 201901G4141 Her Majesty The Queen v. Brandon Glasco Before: Justice Vikas Khaladkar Place of Hearing: St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador Dates of Hearing: October 8, 22, 30, 2020 Date of Oral Judgment: November 18, 2020

Summary: The Offender was convicted of one count of possession for the purposes of trafficking in a controlled substance, namely 9.36 grams of cocaine, and one count of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. His involvement in the drug trade was at a level higher than a simple street dealer but not, perhaps, as high as a mid-level dealer. The Agreed Statement of Facts showed that he was well engaged in the circle of a trafficking organization. He was wanting to increase his involvement in trafficking by taking on larger uncut volumes of cocaine. He had knowledge of seizures made by police that evidenced his belonging in a circle of confidence above that of a street level drug dealer.

The Offender’s involvement in the conspiracy was detected as a result of wiretap authorizations that were ongoing in relation to the criminal organization to which he belonged. The conspiracy and the trafficking were two discrete criminal behaviours that subsisted during the same time period. At the time of sentencing, the Offender had recently been sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of five years’ duration in relation to an unrelated conviction, after trial, before another Justice of this Court.

A totality analysis was undertaken and, as a result, the Offender was sentenced to a reduced sentence of 16 months in respect of each of the two counts, concurrent to one another but consecutive to time being served. A number of ancillary orders were also made. Appearances: Elaine M. Reid Appearing on behalf of the Crown Anthony E. St. George Appearing on behalf of the Offender Authorities Cited: CASES CONSIDERED: R. v. Palmer , 2019 NLSC 175 ; R. v. Noseworthy , 2019 NLSC 23 ; R. v. Hussey , 2018 NLSC 138 ; R. v. J.S. , 2018 CarswellNfld 364, 151 W.C.B. (2d) 516 (Prov. Ct.) ; R. v. Kane , 2012 NLCA 53 ; R. v.

Strickland , 2010 NLTD 2 STATUTES CONSIDERED: Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 ; Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , S.C. 1996, c. 19 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Khaladkar, J. : INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] In March, 2017 a police task force comprised of Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”) and Royal Newfoundland Constabulary (“RNC”) members known as the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit - Newfoundland and Labrador (“CFSEU- NL”) commenced investigation into the trafficking activities of Dustin Etheridge who led a drug distribution network and was heavily involved in trafficking cocaine in Newfoundland and Labrador.

This person was trafficking cocaine at the multi-kilogram level. He used violence to collect drug debts and had access to firearms. Through investigation, a number of his associates were identified, including the Offender, Brandon Glasco. [ 2 ] In April, 2017 an Authorization was obtained under

Part VI of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 . The resulting interception of communications for Mr. Etheridge, the Offender and others commenced and evidence was gathered concerning the Offender’s desire to become involved in the acquisition and sales of uncut cocaine, adding a cutting agent to lower its purity (and increase profit) and so on. Some of the conversations centered around the monies owed by the Offender to Mr. Etheridge for drugs that he had purchased. These recorded conversations were with Mr. Etheridge and his associates.

The conversations recorded were guarded and coded - evincing an intention to thwart any potential police investigation into their criminal enterprise and avoid detection. The conversations evidenced the Offender’s knowledge of seizures that had been made by the police - facts that he would not have been privy to had he not been in a circle of confidence higher than a street level drug dealer. [ 3 ] On May 16, 2017 the Offender and another were observed driving in a car that had been used to pick up a suspected stash car.

Upon exiting the vehicle the Offender and his friend were arrested for possession for the purposes of trafficking a controlled substance, cocaine, as they walked towards Mr. Etheridge’s apartment. The items seized from the Offender included: a. $290.00 in Canadian currency; b. Weigh scales and a baggie of white powder (9.38 grams) that was determined, later, to be cocaine;

c. Two cellular telephones. [ 4 ] The amount of cocaine seized from the Offender was, according to police, three times what a person on a binge would purchase for personal use and nine times what a personal would normally have for personal use. The weigh scales and cellular phones are, as well, indicative of a person possessing the cocaine for the purposes of trafficking. [ 5 ] I am satisfied that the offences charged had been made out. I accepted the Offender’s guilty pleas and entered convictions in respect of both charges.

I was satisfied, as well, that section 606(1.1) of the Criminal Code had been complied with. [ 6 ] I was provided with a detailed Agreed Statement of Facts. crown’s position on sentence [ 7 ] Ms. Reid, on behalf of the Crown, took the position that the sentences for the possession for the purposes of trafficking charge and the conspiracy charge could run concurrently.

Before undergoing any totality analysis, the Crown’s position is that a sentence of two-three years would be appropriate for the conspiracy charge, whereas a sentence of 20-24 months would be appropriate for the trafficking charge. [ 8 ] The Offender was arrested in respect of other offences and, after a trial, was convicted and sentenced, on October 6, 2020, to a term of imprisonment of five years less time served.

On that date he had 1,625 days left to serve. [ 9 ] The Crown’s position was that any sentence imposed in respect of the possession for the purposes of trafficking and conspiracy charges should be concurrent to one another, but consecutive to the sentence currently being served. In the Crown’s view this was appropriate because the two sets of offences were not part of one criminal enterprise. They were discrete, separate offences that warranted consecutive sentences.

In the Crown’s view a reduced sentence of 18-24 months consecutive to time presently being served would be an appropriate disposition in this case. defence’s position on sentence [ 10 ] Mr. St. George, Defence Counsel, relied upon a Pre-Sentence Report that had been created for the purposes of the October 6, 2020 sentencing. He submitted that the Offender is a young person, now only 21 years of age, 19 years of age at the time of the predicate offences. He is from St. John’s. [ 11 ] The Offender is now in a stable common-law relationship.

He is a step-father to an eight year old child with his common-law spouse and, together, they have a young infant. The Offender has the benefit and support of his family. [ 12 ] Mr. St. George characterized the Offender’s participation as a “bit player” in a much larger enterprise. The Offender was a teenager who was being directed as to what he was to do and how he was to do it. Mr. St. George reminded me that the Offender changed his plea to guilty and that this circumvented the need for a trial. He reminded me that his client was cooperative with the police. [ 13 ] In 2020 Mr. St.

George indicated that the Offender has a growing family and future prospects. [ 14 ] Mr. St. George submitted that a range of 12-16 months (before taking totality into consideration) was appropriate. He pointed to the Offender’s involvement as being further down the ladder. He pointed to the Offender’s lack of sophistication as being one of the factors that I ought to consider. After conducting the totality analysis, Mr. St.

George submitted that a sentence of 10-12 months consecutive to time being served would be appropriate under the circumstances. analysis [ 15 ] The following table outlines the cases referred to me by counsel and illustrates the range of sentencing dispositions in this jurisdiction: R. v. Palmer , 2019 NLSC 175 Offender was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking. Offender sentenced to 24 months’ incarceration. R. v. Noseworthy , 2019 NLSC 23 Offender was convicted of two counts of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and marijuana.

Offender sentenced to 30 months less credit for time spent on remand. R. v. Hussey , 2018 NLSC 138 Offender pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in cocaine. Offender sentenced to 15 months’ incarceration. R. v. J.S. , 2018 CarswellNfld 364, 151 W.C.B. (2d) 516 (Prov. Ct.) Offender pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing cocaine and cannabis for the purposes of trafficking. Offender sentenced to a period of 12 months’ incarceration.

R. v. Kane , 2012 NLCA 53 Offender pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and marijuana. Offender was sentenced to a sentence of two years less a day to be served in the community. The Court of Appeal indicated that four years is an appropriate sentence, however declined to interfere with the sentence because of the Offender’s circumstances. R. v. Strickland , 2010 NLTD 2 Offender pleaded guilty to three counts of possessing cocaine, oxycontin and ecstasy for the purposes of trafficking.

Offender was sentenced to serve 16 months’ incarceration. [ 16 ] The Offender’s participation in the scheme was not at the lowest end of the trafficking spectrum - meaning that the Offender was not merely a street-level drug dealer. The Offender was part of a criminal hierarchy involved in the trafficking of cocaine and marijuana. It is clear from the intercepts in this case that the Offender was attempting to bolster his position within the organization. The Offender was attempting to buy a kilogram of cocaine in hard form.

Despite those attempts, however, the Offender had not as yet succeeded in achieving what would be characterized as a middle level status within the pyramid. [ 17 ] I am mindful of the objectives and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 , 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code . In

section 718, the Criminal Code outlines the fundamental purpose of sentencing - which is to foster respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful society. In order to reach that goal the Court must impose a sentence that meets one or more of the following objectives: a. Denunciation; b. Deterrence of the offender and other persons; c. Separation of offenders from society, where necessary; d. Rehabilitation; e. Reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and f.

The promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders and an acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community. [ 18 ] Conspiring to traffic in drugs such as cocaine is a serious offence.

As a result of the trauma that drug trafficking precipitates, Courts have held that general deterrence and protection of the public are paramount considerations in sentencing. [ 19 ] Absent a totality analysis in this case, an appropriate sentence for the Offender’s activities would be in the range of 36 months’ incarceration for the conspiracy charge and two years less a day for the trafficking charge. totality [ 20 ] On October 6, 2020 the Offender was sentenced to serve five years. Shortly afterwards he changed his plea in this matter, before me, to guilty.

Submissions on sentence were heard by me some two weeks later. [ 21 ] The charges before me are completely distinct from the charge that resulted in the five year sentence. Accordingly, consecutive sentences are appropriate in the circumstances. However, the conspiracy and possession for the purposes of trafficking charges are, essentially, matters that flow from a series of interconnected behaviours.

It is appropriate, therefore, that the sentences for the conspiracy and possession for the purposes of trafficking charges be served concurrent to one another but consecutive to any other sentences being served. [ 22 ] Would a sentence of three years, consecutive to a sentence of five years, be unduly long or harsh? I have no hesitation in saying that a total sentence of eight years’ imprisonment would be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and the Offender’s degree of responsibility. [ 23 ] The following factors are germane to the analysis: a.

The combined sentence, if imposed without adjusting for totality, would be 60% greater than the sentence for the most serious of the individual sentences involved; b. The Offender has a very minor criminal record consisting of some breaches of undertakings and possession of scheduled substance for which he received a sentence of 15 days time served. c. The Offender has entered into a relationship since he was charged with these offences and is now a father and step-father. His spouse speaks highly of him and says that he is an engaged and attentive father to both children.

The prospect of spending many more years away from his family would undoubtedly be daunting to the Offender and might, potentially, severely compromise his prospects for rehabilitation.

[ 24 ] I have concluded, therefore, that a combined sentence of eight years is unduly long or harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of the offences and the Offender’s degree of responsibility. It is appropriate, therefore, to reduce the length of the sentences I am about to impose in order to adjust for totality. [ 25 ] As noted earlier, it is appropriate that the sentences for possession for the purposes of trafficking and conspiracy to traffic be made concurrent to one another.

Without adjusting for totality these sentences would be two years less a day for trafficking and 36 months for the conspiracy to traffic. [ 26 ] A sentence of 16 months in addition to time being served is an appropriate disposition in this matter.

Therefore, I order as follows: • Count 1: Possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking – I sentence you to 16 months incarceration; • Count 2: Conspiracy to traffic in cocaine – I sentence you to 16 months incarceration concurrent to the sentence imposed in respect of Count 1. [ 27 ] The sentence imposed today shall be consecutive to any time currently being served. [ 28 ] I make the following additional ancillary orders: a. A firearm prohibition is mandatory for offences relating to section 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , S.C. 1996, c. 19 . An Order will be issued under section 109(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code prohibiting Mr. Glasco from having possession of any firearm, ammunition or other items referred to in

section 109. The prohibition is effective immediately and shall continue for a period of 10 years after Mr. Glasco’s release from imprisonment. Mr. Glasco must immediately arrange surrender of any weapons or ammunition referenced in the Order and Mr. Glasco must surrender any related authorizations, licenses and registration certificates. b. There shall be an Order for forfeiture of the items seized from you incidental to your arrest on the charge of possession for the purposes of trafficking, namely: $290.00 in cash, weigh scales, cocaine and two cellular telephones. [ 29 ] Mr.

Glasco, since you have been in custody on other matters since October 6, 2020 it is not necessary for me adjust your sentence on account of pre-trial custody. _____________________________ Vikas Khaladkar Justice