R. v. Slade, 2022 NLSC 109

court crest IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR GENERAL DIVISION Citation : R. v. Slade , 2022 NLSC 109 Date : June 30, 2022 Docket : 202101G3171 Her Majesty The Queen v. Jonathan Slade Corrected Judgment : The text of the original judgment was corrected on July 6, 2022, and a description of the correction is appended. Before: Justice Glen L.C. Noel Place of Hearing: St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador Date of Hearing: May 30, 2022 Date of Sentencing Decision: June 30, 2022

Summary: The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery, two breaches of probation, and breach of release order. The offender had served 467 days of straight remand time. The Crown and Defense jointly recommended a sentence of four years, subject to the Court’s determination of remand credit. The parties agreed on “ Summers ” credit at 1.5:1 days for credit of 701 days, but disagreed on “ Duncan ” credit. The Crown opposed any additional “ Duncan ” credit, and the Defense sought 180–234 days of enhanced credit.

The Court accepted the joint recommendation of four years and allowed a “ Duncan ” credit of 180 days, leaving a sentence of 580 days to be served (1461 less 881 days credit). The Court held the offender was entitled to “ Duncan ” credit because of the impact that COVID- 19 restrictions and other harsh conditions at Her Majesty’s Penitentiary had on him. Appearances: Kathleen O'Reilly Appearing on behalf of the Crown C. Brodie Gallant Appearing on behalf of the Offender Authorities Cited: CASES CONSIDERED: R. v. Frampton , 2018 NLCA 23 ; R. v. Lundrigan , 2012 NLCA 43 ; R. v. Hutchings , 2012 NLCA 2 ; R. v.

Seers , 2008 NLTD 95 ; R. v. Park (2014) , 1085 A.P.R. 307, 115 W.C.B. (2d) 517, 349 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 307 (N.L. Prov. Ct.) ; R. v. Gladue, 2018 MBCA 89 ; R. v. Kelly, 2014 NLCA 9 ; R. v. Taylor, 2006 BCCA 450 ; R. v. Morales (2021), 174 W.C.B. (2d) 349 , 2021 CarswellNfld 157 (Prov. Ct.) ; R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26 ; R. v. Duncan , 2016 ONCA 754 ; R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344 ; R .v. Newell (2021), 2021 W.C.B. 104, 2021 CarswellNfld 431 (Prov. Ct.) ; R. v. Wade (27 January 2022), St. John’s 0117A02387 (N.L. Prov. Ct.); R. v. Farrell , 2022 NLSC 76 ; R. v.

Hann , 2022 NLPC 0121A02391, 2022 CarswellNfld 179 (Prov. Ct.) ; R. v. Santos (12 August 2021), St. John’s 052A00261 (N.L. Prov. Ct.); R .v. Sweeney (10 March 2022), St. John’s 02120A27728 (N.L. Prov. Ct.); R. v. Hynes (12 April 2022), St. John’s 0122A00632 (N.L. Prov. Ct.); R. v. Deering (2 May 2022), St. John’s 0121A02620 (N.L. Prov. Ct.); R. v. Persad , 2020 ONSC 188 STATUTES CONSIDERED: Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 TEXTS CONSIDERED: Simonne Poirier, Gregory R. Brown, & Terry M. Carlson Decades of Darkness: Moving Towards the Light – A Review of the Prison System in Newfoundland and Labrador (St.

John’s: n.p., 2008); Marlene Jesso, Michelle Hawco & Robert St. Croix, Newfoundland and Labrador Corrections and Community Services: Death in Custody Review (St. John’s: n.p. 2018) REASONS FOR SENTENCE [1] Noel, J. : introduction [ 1 ] Johnathan Slade has pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery contrary to s. 343 - 344(1) of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 , as well as two breaches of probation contrary to s. 733.1(1), and breach of release order contrary to s. 145(5) (

a) of the Criminal Code . Mr. Slade is before the Court for sentencing on these offences for which I accepted his guilty pleas. [ 2 ] At a Case Management Meeting prior to the scheduled trial, the Crown and Defense informed the Court that Mr. Slade would be changing his plea and requested a sentencing hearing. I was advised there would be a joint recommendation on the sentence, subject to one issue that remained in dispute for argument at the hearing. Specifically, the amount of time to be credited toward the sentence in order to account for both the time Mr.

Slade spent on remand (also referred to as pre-trial or pre-sentence custody) and the conditions experienced by Mr. Slade during that period. [ 3 ] The Crown and Defense jointly recommend that four years (1461 days) is the appropriate sentence for the Court to impose, subject to the Court’s decision regarding remand time/credits. [ 4 ] This is my decision on Mr. Slade’s sentence after considering the evidence and submissions at the sentencing hearing. issues [ 5 ] I must decide: 1. Whether four years as jointly recommended is a fit and proper sentence for the offences; and 2.

What is the appropriate credit for Mr. Slade’s pre-sentence custody? analysis

Issue 1: Is the joint recommendation of four years a fit and proper sentence for Mr. Slade for these offences? [ 6 ] A joint recommendation on sentencing is an indication to the Court that the parties consider the recommended sentence reasonable and appropriate: R. v. Frampton , 2018 NLCA 23 , at para. 21 . I am satisfied that a sentence of four years is an appropriate global sentence, subject to my decision on remand credit. [ 7 ] A joint recommendation does not have the same high threshold for acceptance by the Court as a joint submission ( Frampton , at para. 28 ).

However, I have no reason to depart from the recommendation when I apply, as I am required to do, the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing to the circumstances of the offences and the offender, together with the aggravating and mitigating factors ( R. v. Lundrigan , 2012 NLCA 43 at para. 24 ). Circumstances of the Offences [ 8 ] The facts in relation to the offences are outlined in the Agreed Statement of Facts (attached as Appendix “A”). Essentially, Mr. Slade committed two separate robberies a month apart demanding money from victims walking on the street late at night.

Both robberies involved the use of a knife, while Mr. Slade was on probation; and during the second robbery, he was also subject to a release order to keep the peace and be of good behavior. [ 9 ] The victims did not file victim impact statements. Nevertheless, I accept anyone would be traumatized by Mr. Slade’s actions. People should feel secure to walk the streets at night without fear of being mugged. Background of the Offender [ 10 ] Mr.

Slade’s Affidavit establishes that he is a young person, 27 years of age, with complex mental health issues including diagnoses of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (“FASD”), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”), Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”), Bi-Polar Disorder, Depression, and Anxiety. He also has permanent physical disabilities associated with traumatic injuries he sustained in two motor vehicle accidents. These injuries have left him incontinent and reliant on adult protective underwear.

He has residual pain and mobility issues associated with his leg injuries. [ 11 ] I will detail later the circumstances Mr. Slade has endured on remand.

The Sentencing Objectives and Guiding Authorities [ 12 ] The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more objectives, including denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation (s. 718). [ 13 ] The fundamental principle of sentencing is that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender (s. 718.1).

A sentence should also be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances and should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences in similar circumstances (s. 718.2(a)-(b)). [ 14 ] R. v. Hutchings , 2012 NLCA 2 , provides a framework for how to approach a sentence for multiple offences in close proximity. As a first step, Hutchings requires the identification of a proper sentence for each offence.

I am then to consider whether those offences should be made consecutive or concurrent depending on whether they constitute a single criminal adventure. The next step is to review the sentence globally to determine whether it is unduly long or harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. If so, the sentence should be reduced to receive a proper totality.

As a last step, I am to determine whether the sentence should be further reduced to reflect any pre-trial (pre-sentence) custody ( Hutchings at para. 84 ). [ 15 ] Following this framework, I will identify the Crown’s position with respect to the appropriate sentence for each offence and provide the Crown’s position on the suitability of any global sentence. Robbery [ 16 ] The cases relied upon by the Crown put the range for a “mugging” type of robbery at 1–3 years of incarceration. ( R. v. Seers , 2008 NLTD 95 ; R. v. Park (2014) , 1085 A.P.R. 307, 115 W.C.B. (2d) 517, 349 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 307 (N.L. Prov.

Ct.) ; R. v. Gladue , 2018 MBCA 89 ; R. v. Kelly , 2014 NLCA 9 ; and R. v. Taylor , 2006 BCCA 450 ) Breach of Court Order [ 17 ] Breaches of court orders often attract sentences of 30 days incarceration ( Kelly , Park , and R. v. Morales (2021), 174 W.C.B. (2d) 349 , 2021 CarswellNfld 157 (Prov. Ct.) ) Aggravating and Mitigating Factors [ 18 ] There are a number of aggravating circumstances in relation to the commission of these offences which include the following: • A weapon was involved in both robberies and in the second robbery, Mr. Slade punched the victim. • At the time of the first robbery, Mr.

Slade was subject to a probation order. At the time of the second robbery, Mr. Slade was subject to a probation order and a release order.

• Mr. Slade has a lengthy record and although there are no previous robberies, there are numerous assault and property offences. [ 19 ] As a mitigating factor, Mr. Slade is accepting responsibility for the offences and pleading guilty. He did so well in advance of the scheduled six-week trial, avoiding the victims from having to testify. Criminal Record [ 20 ] Mr. Slade has a lengthy criminal record documenting nearly 100 prior convictions dating back to his youth. Half of his record consists of breaches of either probation or release orders.

The other half is comprised of various property offences but also numerous threats and assault convictions. He has, however, to date not been sentenced to a federal term of incarceration. Appropriate Sentence [ 21 ] The Crown submits that the circumstances surrounding the second armed robbery were more aggravating than the first, given that Mr. Slade brandished a knife and physically assaulted the complainant. He was also subject to a release order in addition to his probation order at the time.

For these reasons the Crown submits that the appropriate sentences in the circumstances would be as follows: • s. 343 - Larry Skanes - 22 months • s. 733.1 (x 2) - 30 days • s. 343 - Jeremy Loveless - 26 months • s. 145(5)(a) - 30 days Totality [ 22 ]

Section 718.2(

c) provides that where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long and harsh. If offences are part of the same criminal adventure, they can run concurrent to one another. That would not be the case here as the offences were one month apart.

Even if the offences do not form part of the same criminal adventure, Hutchings requires a review of a global sentence to ensure that it is not disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [ 23 ] The sentences proposed by the Crown as appropriate for the individual offences result in a 4 year, 3 month period of incarceration. The Crown submits that this may exceed what is appropriate given Mr.

Slade’s overall culpability. [ 24 ] Applying the totality principle, I endorse the joint recommendation of four years for the offences, leaving aside the issue of remand credit for my consideration. Ancillary Orders DNA [ 25 ]

Section 344 is a primary designated offence and a DNA order is mandatory.

Section 109 Firearms and Weapons Prohibition [ 26 ] An armed robbery with a knife is an indictable offence in the commission of which violence against a person is used, threatened, or attempted and carries a maximum sentence of 10 years or more. The firearms and weapons prohibition is mandatory in this case and would be for a period of 10 years. Victim Surcharge [ 27 ] In accordance with section 737(2.1), I find a victim surcharge would cause undue hardship to Mr. Slade considering his incarceration and financial circumstances, and I therefore waive the victim surcharge.

Credit for Pre-sentence Custody Issue 2: What is the appropriate credit for Mr. Slade’s pre-sentence custody? [ 28 ] Mr. Slade has been in custody since September 30, 2020. On October 28, 2021, he was sentenced to 150 days, time served, on other offences. The Law and Precedents Applicable to Remand Credit [ 29 ] Section 719(3)–(3.1) provides that in determining the sentence to be imposed on a person convicted of an offence, a court may take into account any time spent in custody by the person as a result of the offence.

The court shall limit any credit for that time to a maximum of one day for each day spent in custody. However, if circumstances justify, the court can give credit for at most 1.5 days for each day spent in custody. “ Summers ” credit [ 30 ] The Supreme Court of Canada has held that circumstances justifying enhanced credit under s. 719(3.1) may include loss of eligibility for early release: ( R. v. Summers , 2014 SCC 26 at para. 71 ), referred to hereafter as “ Summers ” credit.

[ 31 ] The court in Summers (at para. 72 ) concluded that the consequence of capping remand credit at 1.5:1 would be that in some cases the credit would be insufficient to compensate for the harshness of pre-sentence detention. Summers is clear that judges should not deny or restrict credit when it is warranted. “ Duncan ” credit [ 32 ] In addition to the enhanced “ Summers ” credit to reflect his loss of eligibility for early release or parole, Mr. Slade is seeking further credit pursuant to R. v. Duncan , 2016 ONCA 754 .

The Ontario Court of Appeal held in Duncan that particularly harsh pre- sentence incarceration conditions can provide mitigation beyond the cap of 1.5 credit provided for in s. 719(3.1). In deciding whether to exercise this discretion, the court should consider the conditions of the pre-sentence incarceration and the impact of those conditions on the accused. [ 33 ] The court declined (at para. 7) to award Mr.

Duncan a further reduction beyond 1.5 days because no evidence had been presented that he had in fact experienced particularly harsh treatment that had an adverse effect upon him. [ 34 ] In the more recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Marshall , 2021 ONCA 344 , the court re-affirmed the “ Duncan ” credit and expounded upon several principles to guide practice in assessing “ Duncan ” credit going forward.

Significantly, Marshall confirmed (at para. 50 ) that “[t]he very restrictive conditions in the jails and the health risks brought on by COVID-19 are a good example of the kind of circumstances that may give rise to a ‘ Duncan’ credit: R. v. Morgan , 2020 ONCA 279 .” [ 35 ] The court stated (at paras. 52 and 53) the “ Duncan ” credit is one of the factors in determining an overall fit and proper sentence. A sentence is not a fit sentence unless all of the circumstances of the accused are considered, and this includes unusually harsh conditions if such conditions were experienced by an accused.

It is also equally important that these considerations are not over- emphasized such that an otherwise fit sentence turns into an unfit sentence (as had occurred in Marshall ) by focusing too much on the conditions experienced during remand. [ 36 ] Assigning enhanced remand credit is therefore a qualitative, fact-dependent, and discretionary exercise ( Summers at para. 29 ) to arrive at a fit sentence. Experience of “ Duncan ” credit in this Jurisdiction [ 37 ] In this jurisdiction, “ Duncan ” credit was granted in Morales . Mr.

Morales had been placed in a part of the penitentiary that was ordinarily used for the temporary holding of inmates when they were being transferred from one unit to another. He was moved to this area of the prison as a result of the prison’s efforts to respond to a province-wide lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic. Orr, J. found that for a 60-day period Mr. Morales was subject to harsher conditions than normal and this impacted his health and wellbeing. For that 60-day period, Mr. Morales was granted 2:1 credit for his time on remand. [ 38 ] In R .v. Newell (2021), 2021 W.C.B. 104, 2021 CarswellNfld 431 (Prov.

Ct.) , Orr, J. did not grant “ Duncan ” credit as Mr. Newell did not provide evidence of an adverse effect on him flowing from his conditions in custody, which he said were harsher as a result of the pandemic. [ 39 ] “ Duncan ” credit was also denied in R. v. Wade (27 January 2022), St. John’s 0117A02387 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), and R. v.

Farrell , 2022 NLSC 76 , as the offenders in both cases were found not to have established that the conditions at Her Majesty’s Penitentiary (“HMP”) during the pandemic were sufficiently harsh so as to justify the advanced credit. [ 40 ] Most recently, Orr J, in a thorough review of the authorities and evidence in R. v. Hann , 2022 NLPC 0121A02391 , 2022 CarswellNfld 179 (Prov. Ct.) , granted the offender an additional .5 per day credit for a 90-day timeframe, allowing 45 days credit because of the impact of COVID-19 on the offender. Mr. Hann was 58 and suffered from mental health challenges.

Orr, J. concluded (at para. 26): He has suffered unusually harsh presentence custody conditions impacted by the pandemic. He contracted the virus which unavoidably made conditions worse and his physical and mental health have been adversely affected. This is an appropriate circumstance to grant enhanced credit. [ 41 ] Defense counsel also referenced other sentencing decisions engaging “ Duncan ” credit in this Province that are unreported: • R. v. Santos (12 August 2021), St. John’s 052A00261 (N.L. Prov. Ct.); Enhanced Credit at 1.75:1 for 248 remand days; • R .v. Sweeney (10 March 2022), St.

John’s 02120A27728 (N.L. Prov. Ct.); Enhanced Credit at 2:1 for 14 days while in custody and isolating with Covid-19 and 1.5:1 for the remainder; • R. v. Hynes (12 April 2022), St. John’s 0122A00632 (N.L. Prov. Ct.); Enhanced Credit at 2:1 for 95 days = 190 credit; and • R. v. Deering (2 May 2022), St. John’s 0121A02620 (N.L. Prov. Ct.) . Enhanced Credit at 1.75:1 for 128 days in custody. Position of the Parties [ 42 ] With direction and leave from the Court, the parties filed a Supplemental Agreed Statement of Facts (attached as Appendix “B”) to clarify the locations and duration of Mr.

Slade’s placements while on remand. [ 43 ] The parties agree that the total number of straight days of remand time available to be credited to Mr. Slade’s sentence is 467 days. [ 44 ] It is agreed that a “ Summers ” credit at a 1.5:1 ratio should be applied to reduce the sentence remaining to be served. The total amount of “ Summers ” credit to be applied to reduce Mr. Slade’s sentence is therefore 701 days (467 x 1.5). I allow a “ Summers ” credit

of 701 days. Crown’s Position [ 45 ] The Crown has opposed the application of any “ Duncan ” credit to reduce Mr. Slade’s sentence. [ 46 ] As an inmate on remand, he has had the same access to programming and privileges as inmates serving their sentences. Both of these groups have been equally impacted by increased restrictions implemented to help prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the prison. The lack of accessibility to in-person health services and programming is something that has affected not just the inmate population, but also the broader community during the course of the pandemic.

Even with restrictions, Mr. Slade has had access to a psychologist, psychiatrist, addictions counsellor, and pastoral care. [ 47 ] During the course of his remand, Mr. Slade has been placed at the West Coast Correctional Institute and on various units of HMP. As indicated in the evidence of and Affidavit of Assistant Superintendent Fred Cumby, Mr. Slade has only been placed on the East Wing for brief periods to facilitate his transfer to other units, or at Mr. Slade’s own request. A classification officer determined Mr.

Slade’s placements on other units at HMP, and they were units that are ordinarily used to house prisoners. Mr. Slade’s own evidence is that he has requested placement on the West Wing because of his anxiety and preference to be around smaller groups. [ 48 ] Mr. Slade’s situation is different than that of Mr. Morales, who was placed on the East Wing for 60 days, when this unit is only intended to hold prisoners temporarily to facilitate their transfer to other units. The direct cause of Mr.

Morales’ placement was the COVID-19 pandemic and the logistical issues the institution faced in trying to prevent the spread of the illness. In contrast, Mr. Slade’s placements were on units that are intended to house inmates and the reasons for his placements were unrelated to COVID-19. [ 49 ] There is general agreement that HMP has deficiencies and is in need of replacement. As recognized by O’Brien, J. in Farrell at para. 45 , “[y]et, for now, HMP continues to house inmates and the building’s deficiencies are not such that they should habitually or universally impact sentences.” [ 50 ] The Crown contends Mr.

Slade was impacted by COVID-19 restrictions in the same manner that he would have been had he been part of the inmate population serving a sentence. The restrictions, while difficult for inmates, were reasonable and in accordance with public health guidance. The Crown submits that this is not an appropriate situation to grant enhanced “ Duncan ” credit and any further reduction of Mr. Slade’s sentence would take it below a sentence that is fit and appropriate in the circumstances.

Defense Position [ 51 ] The Defense submits the evidence justifies application of a “ Duncan ” credit and that a credit in the range of 180–234 days is appropriate. The Defense submitted that applying a “ Duncan ” credit at a ratio of .5:1 results in a credit of 234 days (467 days x .5 = 234). Such a credit represents 7.8 months and if there is any concern that this overemphasized the Duncan factors, the credit should be reduced to no less than 6 months or 180 days. [ 52 ] The Defense submits that the personal circumstances of Mr. Slade must be taken into account in crafting a fit sentence. [ 53 ] Mr.

Slade’s personal circumstances include a multitude of complex mental health diagnoses and physical disabilities. Within HMP, Mr. Slade was placed in the West Wing or East Wing for significant periods of time. These are the oldest sections of the facility still in use to house prisoners. Even within HMP the conditions within the Wings are unusually harsh in comparison to the newer areas of the prison. [ 54 ] Moreover, Mr.

Slade was remanded during the COVID-19 pandemic and as a result he has experienced unusual restrictions and increased confinement, lack of access to programming, and no or limited access to physical exercise or recreation time. Although these measures were intended to protect inmates from COVID-19 infection, their unintended consequence was a negative impact on the mental health, physical health, and rehabilitation of inmates, especially so for those predisposed by pre-existing conditions, as is Mr.

Slade. [ 55 ] Not unlike the experience in other institutions or the community generally, the pandemic precautions failed to prevent the spread of the virus. Mr. Slade tested positive for COVID-19 on March 21 of this year. Other inmates and guards at HMP also contracted the virus at various times during Mr. Slade’s remand. [ 56 ] Mr. Slade’s mental and physical illness predisposed him to suffer adverse effects when compared to an individual without his disabilities. He experienced suicidal ideation, and he admitted that he acted out at times resulting in increased segregation and confinement for him.

The Evidence in Support of “ Duncan ” credit [ 57 ] I find the evidence tendered supports the granting of “ Duncan ” credit. Impact of COVID-19 Restrictions on Mr. Slade [ 58 ] Mr. Slade’s mental and physical health declined while in custody. Mr. Slade’s Affidavit describes that it is really the period from February 2021 forward that he experienced conditions he feels were unusually harsh, and negatively impacted his mental and physical health. It was during this period that he was transferred to HMP from the West Coast Correctional Center.

This occurred during the “Alpha variant” wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, which precipitated increased restrictions on inmates. [ 59 ] When Mr. Slade arrived at HMP, the delivery of rehabilitative programming was suspended completely. All programming remained suspended between February 8, 2021 and April 12, 2021, and it was again suspended from December 23, 2021, to February 24, 2022. Between these periods, programming resumed at a reduced capacity. However, Mr. Slade was placed on the waitlist for eight

rehabilitative programs. Mr. Slade remains on the waitlist, and has not had access to any rehabilitative programs. As of March 7, 2022, he was on the waitlist for: 1. Addictions Awareness; 2. Peer Support; 3. Mindfulness; 4. Alcoholics Anonymous; 5. Narcotics Anonymous; 6. Horticulture Therapy; 7. Healthy Minds; and 8. Seeking Safety. [ 60 ] Mr. Slade describes that since transferring to HMP he has not been allowed recreation time; there were increased restrictions on inmate movements; in-person visitation was suspended; and everyone was under stress. Mr.

Slade describes increased lockdowns being confined to his cell most of the day. He describes inmates on his range testing positive, and his being fearful of how COVID-19 would affect him given his medical issues. [ 61 ] Mr. Slade’s description is not contradicted by Assistant Superintendent Fred Cumby’s responding Affidavit, which confirms that “COVID-19 has had a significant impact on the operations of HMP including a loss of programming, recreational time and in-person visits. Inmates need to remain with their cohorts and there has been an increase in the confinement of inmates.” Mr.

Slade’s Leg Injuries [ 62 ] Mr. Slade describes in his Affidavit having pain associated with his leg injuries and having no access to physiotherapy. During cross-examination, he testified to the impact that the smaller West Wing and East Wing had on restricting his ability to walk, to the detriment of his mobility. There are no common or recreational areas, resulting in him having to pace back and forth the narrow hallway of the cells, often impeded by opened inmate cell doors protruding into the hallway. I find that such restrictions would have caused Mr. Slade reduced mobility and increased pain. Mr.

Slade’s Incontinence and Associated Embarrassment [ 63 ] He also describes dependence on adult protective underwear for his incontinence; he experienced great embarrassment from the lack of privacy and his inability to use these hygiene products discretely. He became the target of ridicule from other inmates, and even at times, the guards. I find this would have had a particular profound effect on Mr. Slade’s mental health struggles. [ 64 ] When I specifically put Mr. Slade’s Affidavit reference to having suffered such indignity to Mr. Cumby, the concern and decency of Mr. Cumby was readily apparent. Mr.

Cumby indicated he had not witnessed or had been aware Mr. Slade endured such treatment. He turned to Mr. Slade and apologized to him for anything that he may have endured. I found the moment particularly poignant and helpful in acknowledging the respect for Mr. Slade’s inherent dignity and value as a human being. Decline in Mental Health [ 65 ] Mr. Slade further confirmed that over time he experienced a marked decline in his mental health. He stated: “I got really low. I thought about suicide. I even told the guards I was thinking about it.” Unfortunately, this resulted in Mr.

Slade being confined in the Special Handling Unit (“SHU”). [ 66 ] Other times Mr. Slade became frustrated with his situation and acted out. It is expected that an individual with Mr. Slade’s mental health problems would have emotion regulation deficits. Psychiatrist, Dr. Gill’s report describes that difficulties with impulsivity and anger management would be associated with his diagnoses. His outbursts were not always recognized as mental-health related but instead he was placed in administrative segregation. During these periods of isolation, whether medical or administrative segregation, Mr.

Slade describes being locked in a cell by himself 22 hours per day and he experienced increased anxiety and panic. [ 67 ] Mr. Slade asked to see the prison psychologist every day, and he would be told by the guards that they would “relay the message.” He was given the opportunity to see Psychologist, Mr. Martin for five appointments during the 20 months he has been on remand. He asked to see his psychiatrist, but he did not get to see Dr. Gill very often, sometimes the only time he saw her was while he was in the SHU. Mr.

Slade was keen to engage with programming, and he met with the Mental Health Counsellor, Alex White who helped place him on the waitlist for programming, but he remained on the waitlist throughout his remand. [ 68 ] Mr. Cumby, in his evidence, confirmed that COVID-19 restrictions at HMP have caused delays in Mr. Slade accessing medical and counselling services and longer waitlists for programs. Systemic Conditions and Problems at HMP [ 69 ] HMP is an updated and long-outlived facility to house, treat, and rehabilitate inmates. Spending any time at HMP is hard even

without the extra COVID-19 restrictions, but with the impact of COVID-19 conditions were even worse. Mr. Slade describes the conditions he experienced as “terrible,” “inhumane,” and “would be shocking to the public.” He describes spending extended periods in the older parts of the facility referred to as the “Wings” and how conditions in these areas of the jail were worse than in the newer “Living Units.” [ 70 ] The “East Wing” was constructed in 1944, the “West Wing” in 1945, and newer “Living Units” in 1982. [ 71 ] The Defense relies on R. v. Persad , 2020 ONSC 188 , in support of “ Duncan ” credit for Mr.

Slade because of how systemic conditions and problems at HMP have adversely affected Mr. Slade. Although issues present at of the Toronto South Detention Center (“TSDC”) are distinct from those within HMP, there is some concerning overlap. Furthermore, like the conditions at the TSDC the deficiencies within HMP have been persistent and longstanding. [ 72 ] The Court in Persad emphasized (at para. 35 ) the communicative function of sentencing, which justified increasing the “ Duncan ” credit in that case. I find it intolerable and unacceptable that Mr.

Slade has had to endure certain aspects of the conditions he describes at HMP. Rodent Infestation [ 73 ] Mr. Slade describes that the rodent infestation involves both rats and mice, which reside in the walls and in the ceilings. They enter the cells and the halls. He describes that they run in the open and have lost their fear of humans, entering the beds even when occupied. Inmates resort to hanging their food from the ceiling while they sleep. Inmates experience rodent droppings in their stored food and personal belongings. [ 74 ] Mr.

Cumby’s Affidavit acknowledges that “HMP is an old institution with deficiencies” and that “the conditions in the West Wing are less than ideal.” He acknowledges “issues with rodents” requiring interventions by pest control “weekly to deal with issues, and more often when required.” Mr.

Cumby confirmed in his evidence that rodent infestation is monitored and mitigated by an outside professional contractor, but “there’s hardly a day that would go by, especially in the nighttime, that you wouldn’t see a mouse somewhere.” He had no experience or report of rats in the facility but stated there are some “big mice.” Mr. Slade may very well have perceived “big mice” as “rats.” Other Health and Hygiene Issues [ 75 ] Mr. Slade describes other health and hygiene issues within HMP and the Wings.

In particular, he describes discolored water flowing from taps, low water pressure, toilets being inoperable or only partially operable such that feces would not flush properly resulting in unpleasant aromas diffusing throughout the Wings. Mr. Cumby conceded there are daily issues with plumbing. Lack of Inmate Privacy in the Wing Cells [ 76 ] The cells in the Wings have no window and no door, with iron bars fronting them. Without cell doors the inmates are deprived of basic privacy, and they must use the washroom in full view of anyone, guard or other inmate, walking the halls. For someone in Mr.

Slade’s circumstances with medical issues and dependence upon adult protective underwear, I find this would be particularly distressing for him. “Decades of Darkness” at HMP [ 77 ] More generally, Mr. Slade’s Affidavit describes the atmosphere of the Wings as looking and feeling “old and dark.” There are “exposed pipes, mold, and dirt everywhere. There was mold on the walls, floor, and near windows.” [ 78 ] Mr. Cumby’s evidence does not contradict Mr. Slade’s evidence regarding the general overall state of the older facility. Outside contractors abate mold issues but mold issues continue from time to time.

Concerns with the state of the outdated facilities at HMP are not a new development and the conditions within HMP are the subject of at least two major government reports. [ 79 ] In October 2008 an Independent Review Panel formed by the Department of Justice released the first of those reports: Simonne Poirier, Gregory R. Brown, & Terry M. Carlson Decades of Darkness: Moving Towards the Light – A Review of the Prison System in Newfoundland and Labrador (St.

John’s: n.p., 2008) (“ Decades of Darkness ”). [ 80 ] In December 2018 a subsequent Independent Review Panel formed by the Department of Justice authored a second report: Marlene Jesso, Michelle Hawco & Robert St. Croix, Newfoundland and Labrador Corrections and Community Services: Death in Custody Review (St. John’s: n.p. 2018) (“ Deaths in Custody ”). [ 81 ] The Decades of Darkness report outlined several areas of concern and recommendations to address the concerns.

The concerns focused on the deplorable physical condition of an antiquated facility, the need for a cohesive strategy to address mental healthcare for inmates, and the importance of programing and recreation time, all of which were significant concerns during Mr. Slade’s remand. [ 82 ] The Decades of Darkness report identifies as the first concern the physical infrastructure of HMP to be “the deplorable physical condition of the Penitentiary. The cleanliness or the lack of it is horrendous. There is a build up of dirt and grime throughout the Penitentiary” (at pages 16 and 17).

The report goes on to describe that: “Overall, Her Majesty’s Penitentiary, has outlived its life expectancy. The Department of Justice is in the preliminary stages of planning for a new institution. The Panel believes there is an urgent need to move forward with this plan in order to provide a humane, safe environment for both correctional staff and inmates” (at page 19). [ 83 ] As for Mental Health Care within HMP, the report (at pages 113-114) notes: The environment of Newfoundland and Labrador provincial prisons often has a detrimental effect on mental health. This is particularly

true of Her Majesty’s Penitentiary. Inmate and ex-inmate respondents describe a gloomy, tension-filled prison with a lack of programs and recreational opportunities. They spoke of boredom, of frustrations in getting things done, of their isolation from family and friends, and the often fearful and sometimes violent atmosphere, which at times manifests itself in assaults, desperate self-mutilating behaviour or suicide attempts.

A number spoke of fellow inmates with mental disorders who are highly vulnerable, who often have difficulty understanding the rules, have a limited ability to cope and whose unpredictable behaviour has to be tolerated by the inmate community and managed by the prison staff. [ 84 ] On Programming and Structure Leisure Activities within HMP, the report stated: “The biggest issue identified by inmates was the need for more programming” (at page 127). [ 85 ] When the Deaths in Custody report was released in December 2018 it echoed many of the concerns from Decades of Darkness report, and expressed “the fact that many of the issues identified in these reports continue to arise within the prison system cannot be ignored” (Executive

Summary at page ii). [ 86 ] HMP remains outdated and in dire need of replacement. The problems with its decaying infrastructure remain and continue to negatively impact inmates, and I have found on the evidence particularly so for Mr. Slade. The existing problems were compounded during the COVID-19 pandemic with the increased confinement of inmates, termination of recreation and leisure, the prohibition on in- person visitation, and suspension of rehabilitative programing. Mental health and addictions problems remain pervasive within the prison population and the affected individuals like Mr.

Slade were profoundly impacted. What Is Being Done to Address Concerns at HMP [ 87 ] Mr. Cumby testified that remand population at HMP is combined with the regular inmate population on different Units and face similar waiting times for programming and clinicians. It has always been that way. Inmates are seeing longer wait times to see their clinicians. He readily conceded there is a lack of clinicians. He noted there are 150 individuals that are incarcerated looking to see one psychologist.

Efforts are underway through Eastern Health to make more clinicians available for the inmates to meet their needs on a timely basis. [ 88 ] Mr. Cumby in his capacity as Assistant Superintendent is directly involved in the planning process for the construction of a new prison. He brought to the Court’s attention some much-needed optimism to the Decades of Darkness at HMP in stating: “In my 27 years and all the new prisons that I’ve heard tell of, this is the closest I’ve ever seen it.

I’m engaged in weekly and bi-weekly meetings on design, security, infrastructure, placement, types of units, healthcare,” and [other associated matters.] When asked if he felt confident that it is moving forward, he expressed, “I feel the most confident I ever have, yes.” [ 89 ] It is indeed encouraging that steps are actively being pursued to better the conditions inmates face at HMP. The best protection the community can have from crimes Mr. Slade committed is to ensure resources are available for his rehabilitation. [ 90 ] Mr.

Slade shows remarkable insight to his medical and addictions problems and the willingness to seek the appropriate help. He is motivated and desires seeking the necessary medical treatment, counselling, and programs to assist him with his rehabilitation and a better life. [ 91 ] Most unfortunately, the conditions he described at HMP, and which I accept he endured, has hindered and delayed his ability to make the progress he so desperately needs and desires.

Further Considerations on Parity and Fitness of Sentence [ 92 ] The three appellate authorities the Crown has submitted ( Gladue ; Kelly ; and Taylor ) demonstrate that a global sentence of 3.5 years, taking remand credit to the extent I have, is in keeping with the principle of parity for similar offences. Rowe, JA (as he then was) in our Court of Appeal emphasized in Kelly (at paras. 16 and 25 ) that the impact on the victim, including ongoing psychological harm, is a key component in assessing the fitness of the sentence. There was no evidence presented to the Court that Mr.

Slade’s actions had any lasting physical or psychological harm on the victims. [ 93 ] When considering the imposition of consecutive sentences, a mathematical totaling of 4.3 years is inappropriate, if doing so produces an unduly harsh result in all the circumstances: ( Hutchings , at paras. 41 and 49 ). I am satisfied a total sentence of 3.5 years is fit for the nature of the offences and all of the circumstances specifically pertaining to Mr. Slade. [ 94 ] The qualitative assessment of “ Duncan ” credit is not simply an exercise in a mathematical calculation.

Applying a ratio of .5 for each day in custody or some other multiplier is helpful as a starting point and guide. In the final analysis, arriving at the appropriate “ Duncan ” credit is an exercise of judicial discretion.

It cannot result in a sentence that is unfit in all the circumstances. [ 95 ] I have not allowed the full extent of the “ Duncan ” credit of 234 days sought by the Defense for two reasons. [ 96 ] Firstly, as seen from the cited case law authorities from this Province, there are other offenders that suffered similar COVID-19 restrictions and delays in programming and medical/counselling appointments that were denied “ Duncan ” credit. [ 97 ] And secondly, as the Crown points out, Mr. Slade did not face harsher conditions on remand than are common to offenders serving their sentences at HMP.

Regrettably, there is a measure of truth to this, and sadly, the Decades of Darkness continue at HMP. Nevertheless, HMP was required to consider Mr. Slade’s particular medical circumstances and reasonably accommodate his special needs. It has been shown in relation to his lack of privacy in showering and using bathroom facilities, and his need for mobility, that HMP failed him in this regard. Whether he receives such accommodations post-sentence is not in my jurisdiction, whereas it is in my authority to recognize and give credit to Mr. Slade for harsher conditions that he ought not to have had to endure.

Further, Mr. Humby confirmed during COVID-19 restrictions certain offenders serving sentences received early release or temporary absences. Mr. Slade, on remand, did not have the benefit of availing of these potential options.

[ 98 ] For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Slade is entitled to an additional “ Duncan ” credit up to the maximum 180 days. [ 99 ] Before concluding, I want to recognize the exemplary conduct of counsel in this matter. Mr. Gallant, on behalf Mr. Slade, presented a strong evidentiary foundation to ground comprehensive written and oral submissions. Ms. O’Reilly, for the Crown, produced a well-written brief that concisely laid out the Crown’s position and applicable authorities. She was resolute in advancing the Crown’s position. Her questioning of Mr.

Slade was probing but with compassion and sensitivity to his situation. I thank both counsel for your valuable assistance and true professionalism. conclusion [ 100 ] In

summary, I waive the victim surcharge and impose: 1. A sentence of four years’ incarceration; 2. DNA Order; 3. A 10-year weapons and firearms prohibition pursuant to s.109. [ 101 ] I grant a “ Summers ” credit of 701 days and an additional “ Duncan ” credit of 180 days. The sentence that remains to be served is therefore 580 days (1461 less 881 days credit). [ 102 ] Mr. Slade, I wish you the best in getting the treatment you require to deal with your physical injuries, addictions, and mental health.

My hope is you will come out of prison this time and put forward every effort to build a better life for yourself, and the community will never have to worry about you committing further offences. _____________________________ Glen L.C. Noel Justice

SCHEDULE “A” AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. On August 29, 2020 at 12:46 am, Larry Skanes reported to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary (RNC) that he had been robbed at knife point on Long’s Hill, St. John’s, NL. Mr. Skanes advised police that he had been walking around downtown and encountered two women working in the area of Long’s Hill. He described one as having blonde hair and the other had red hair. One woman asked him if, “he was looking”. Mr. Skanes asked how much. The female told him $40 for twenty minutes. Mr. Skanes turned down the offer. 2. Mr.

Skanes noticed a male standing across the street from 43 Long’s Hill in the area of the stairs leading to Harvey Road. The male called for the blonde haired female to come over and he observed them conversing. The male was wearing a black hoodie with red stripes and some kind of design. The male with the black hoodie called out to another male who was down the road by the pharmacy on Long’s Hill. At this point, the red headed female was with the male by the pharmacy. Mr. Skanes described her as wearing a black nylon jacket and “raggedy” pants.

The male by the pharmacy was tall with short hair, wearing a grey hoodie and jeans. Both males approached Mr. Skanes. The male with the grey hoodie, who now had his face covered with a black and white scarf, grabbed him. The male with the black hoodie brandished a knife. They demanded Mr. Skanes money. Mr. Skanes gave them $140. Both males then went up the stairs towards Harvey Rd. The female with the red hair was also with them. The blonde female left the area before the robbery. 3. Cst. Andrews obtained the video from Long’s Hill pharmacy and viewed the male and female described by Mr. Skanes.

At one point, the female was pointing up towards Long’s Hill in the same area where Mr. Skanes indicated he was located. The video shows the male walking in that direction with the female following. Cst. Geoffrey Hall reviewed the video. He identified the male and female as Jonathan Slade and Carrie Russell. Having worked in the area of Long’s Hill for an extended period of time, he was familiar with both parties. He advised that Russell was a known sex trade worker and was in a relationship with Slade who was known to hang out in the area. Cst.

Hall also advised that Slade had a limp from a previous injury which was noticeable in the video. Cst. Andrews submitted an FIS request for preparation of photo lineups for Jonathan Slade and for Carrie Russell.

4. On September 28, 2020 Mr. Skanes called the RNC to say that he saw the same female and one of the males who had robbed him near the pharmacy the previous evening. He described the female as wearing a purple top, black purse and leggings. The male was wearing a red hoodie, baseball hat and jeans. He said that the male was limping. Mr. Skanes attended RNC Headquarters to view the photo lineups but was unable to identify Jonathan Slade or Carrie Russell. 5. The male with the black hoodie who brandished the knife was never identified or located. Page 2 6. The male with the grey hoodie was Jonathan Slade.

At the time of the armed robbery, Jonathan Slade was on a probation order dated July 29, 2020 with a condition to keep the peace and be of good behavior. On September 30, 2020 at 12:13 am, Constables Faulkner and Tucker were flagged down in their patrol car in the area of Newtown Road and Goodridge Street by Jeremy Loveless who reported that he had just been robbed. Mr. Loveless said that he had been walking home from his job at The Rooms. At about 12:10 am he was walking on Newtown Road, St. John’s, NL and had just passed Field Street when a male ran across the road towards him.

The male began to talk to him but Mr. Loveless had earphones in and couldn’t hear what he was saying. When Mr. Loveless removed his headphones the male pulled out a knife and demanded money from him. Mr. Loveless did not have any money on him but pulled out his cell phone and cigarettes and gave those to the male. When Mr. Loveless averted his gaze, the male punched him in the left cheekbone and walked away. 7. There was a female on the other side of the road who was screaming at the male. He ran to catch up with her and they walked towards Sobey’s on Merrymeeting Road. 8. Mr.

Loveless described the male as 5’7” -5’9”, slender, about 160 pounds with spiky blond hair, silver ball eye piercing and a goatee. He was wearing dark clothing consisting of a t-shirt with an over-shirt, sneakers and baggy pants. Mr. Loveless described the knife as a survival hunting knife with a blade 5 inches to 7 inches long. The female was described as being 5’11” with brown hair. She was wearing a white sweater with blue jeans. 9. Mr. Loveless described his cellphone as an old LG phone with a cracked screen and the logo on the front was partially missing. The power button was located on the back.

The cigarettes stolen were McDonald’s Original Kings. 10. Cst. G. Hall was on also on patrol in the area. At 12:21 he was advised that Cst. Rowe had located a male and female matching the description given by Mr. Loveless. He attended at the scene and identified the individuals as Jonathan Slade and Carrie Russell. Mr. Slade was searched incident to arrest and on his person, Cst. Hall located a steak knife with a serrated blade, a 20 pack of McDonald Original Kings cigarettes and an LG phone matching the description given by the complainant. 11. At. 12:24 am, Cst. Hall gave Mr. Slade rights and caution.

He spoke with Legal Aid. At the time of the offence he was subject to a release order dated September 9, 2020 with conditions to keep the peace and be of good behavior and not to conceal a knife on his person. He was also subject to a probation order dated July 29, 2020 with a condition to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

SCHEDULE “B” SUPPLEMENTAL AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. This matter proceeded to a sentencing hearing on May 30, 2022. At the conclusion of the hearing a return date was set for

a written decision to be delivered June 30, 2022. The Court further directed counsel, and counsel agreed, to obtain an updated placement/housing record documenting the locations where Jonathan Slade was placed/housed during his remand, and to provide the court with a supplemental agreed statement of fact stating the total time Jonathan Slade was placed/housed in each location. 2. The updated placement history was received from Assistant Superintendent Fred Cumby on June 1, 2022 as is attached at Consent Exhibit C1 . 3.

A color coded calendar has been prepared identifying the locations where Jonathan Slade was placed/housed by marking the calendar in color as follows: Yellow: HMP - East Wing Bottom Orange HMP - West Wing Pink: HMP - Segregation Blue: HMP - Special Handling Unit Green: HMP - Living Unit Blank: WCCC/West Coast Correctional Center The color coded calendar is attached at Consent Exhibit C2 and it is agreed that this calendar may be used a visual aid representation of the placement/housing history. 4.

The following factual statements are also agreed upon by the crown and defense, and counsel have endorsed this supplemental agreed statement of fact with their signatures below. 5. It is agreed that the Table 1 below accurately states locations where Jonathan Slade was placed/housed while on remand and the total days in each location during the period from Sept 30, 2020 - March 19, 2021 (170 days). It is further agreed that the first 170 days of Jonathan Slade’s remand time have already been credited to sentences on other offences pursuant to a sentence imposed October 28, 2021.

It is agreed that these first 170 days are not available to be credited to the sentence for offences currently before the court and the table below is included for illustration of that remand time only. Page 2 Table 1 Lock Up 1 (overnight day of arrest) (partial days for court attendance are excluded) HMP East Wing 12 West Wing 18 Segregation 4 Special Handling Unit 0 Living Unit 89 West Coast Correctional Center 46 Total 170

6. It is agreed that Table 2 below accurately states the locations where Jonathan Slade was placed/housed and the total days in each location while on remand during the period from March 20, 2021- May 30, 2022 (436 days spanning the period after the first 170 days illustrated by Table 1 and up to and including the date of this sentencing hearing date). It is agreed that these 436 days are available to be considered in the court’s determination of a fit sentence/credits to be applied toward Mr. Slade’s sentence.

Table 2 Lock Up 0 (partial days for court are excluded) HMP East Wing 47 West Wing 150 Segregation 49 Special Handling Unit 28 Living Unit 162 West Coast Correctional Center 0 Total 436 Page 3 7. It is agreed that Table 3 below is included to illustrate that the precise locations where Jonathan Slade will be placed/housed during the period that he will remain on remand from May 30, 2022 – June 30, 2022 (31 days from sentencing hearing date to decision date) cannot be accurately predicted or stated in advance.

It is agreed that these 31 days are available to be considered in the Court’s determination of a fit sentence/credits to be applied toward Mr. Slade’s sentence. Table 3 Lock Up unknown (partial days for court are excluded) HMP East Wing Unknown West Wing Unknown Segregation Unknown Special Handling Unit Unknown Living Unit Unknown West Coast Correctional Center Unknown

We will not be able to provide documentation of this period to the court 31 Total 31 8. It is acknowledged and agreed that the Crown and Defense have jointly recommended a sentence of 4 year (1460 days) less applicable “ Summers ” credit (agreed) and “ Duncan ” credit (to be determined by the court). 9. It is agreed that the total number of straight days of remand time available to be credited to Mr. Slade’s sentenced is 467 straight days. 10. It is agreed that a “ Summers ” credit at a 1.5:1 ratio should be applied to reduce the sentence remaining to be served.

It is agreed that the total amount of “ Summers ” credit to be applied to reduce Mr. Slade’s sentence is therefore 701 days (467 x 1.5). 11. It is acknowledged that the issue of “ Duncan ” credit is in dispute and remains for the court to determine. 12. The Crown has opposed the application of any “ Duncan ” credit to reduce Mr. Slade’s sentence. The Crown relies upon the evidence before the Court and its written submissions and oral argument. Page 4 13. The Defense have submitted that a “ Duncan ” credit should be applied and have submitted that a credit in the range of 180- 234 days is appropriate.

The Defense relies upon the evidence at before the 14. court and its written submissions and oral argument. The Defense have submitted that applying a “ Duncan ” credit at a ratio of .5:1 results in a credit of 234 days (467 days x .5 = 234). The Defense has submitted that such a credit represents 7.8 months and if there is any concern this overemphasized the Duncan factors, the credit should be reduced to no less than 6 months or 180 days. 15. The following

summary of the Crown and Defense positions marked Table 4 is submitted for the assistance of the court: Table 4

Summary of Joint Recommendation / Disputed Credit Crown Position Defense Position

Joint Recommendation on Global Sentence less applicable Credits Four years – 1460 days This figure is joint recommended to the court subject to a reduction to account for “ Summers ” credit and “ Duncan ” credit. “ Summers ” credit is also agreed upon. “ Duncan ” credit is to be determined by the court. 1460 days 1460 days Remand Days Available Straight Remand Days Available as of Decision Date June 30, 2022 467 days Straight Days 467 days Straight days “ Summers ” credit “ Summers ” credit (agreed) (467 days x 1.5 = 701 days) 701 days (at 1.5:1) “ Summers ” credit 701 days (at 1.5:1) “ Summers ” credit “ Duncan ” credit “ Duncan ” credit (in dispute) Crown opposes any “ Duncan ” credit Defense has recommended a “ Duncan ” credit in the range of 160 – 234 days This range is arrived by considering a credit ratio of 0.5:1 (467 days x .5 is 234 days which is 7.8 months); alternatively a sentence reduction of 6 month or 180 days 0 days “ Duncan ” credit 180 - 234 days i.e. 6 – 7.8 months “ Duncan ” credit Time remaining to be served: 759 days 525-579 days APPENDIX Correction [2] made on July 6, 2022: Calculation of the 4 years is corrected to 1461, not 1460 as originally noted in the

summary and paragraphs 3 and 101, as there is a leap year in 2024 resulting in an additional day. Once the remand credit time is subtracted from the total aggregate, Mr. Slade would be serving a total sentence of 580 days.