R. v. Aikman Date:, 2014 BCPC 275

Citation: R. v. Aikman Date: 20141024 2014 BCPC 0275 File No: 203062-5-B, 206755-1 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. ANDREW JAMES AIKMAN ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE M.B. HICKS Counsel for the Crown: J. Lester Counsel for the Defendant: M. Swartz Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C.

Date of Hearing: October 24, 2014 Date of Judgment: October 24, 2014 [ 1 ] THE COURT : Mr. Aikman, I am sentencing you on two charges: one is the Provincial offence of being in possession of body armour without proper authorization on the 15th of August of 2014, and the second is your failure to abide by the reporting condition that had been placed on a probation order imposed on the 22nd of July, so really just a matter of roughly three weeks earlier you were placed on a probation order and you, from what I am told, never reported.

That in itself is a serious offence, bearing in mind your past history which includes numerous breaches, and in fact your record shows that when you were sentenced on the 22nd of July you were sentenced on two breach offences. [ 2 ] Mr. Swartz, fairly enough, has attempted to put your breach conviction history in context in terms of the types of sentences and how I should evaluate those sentences, but the bottom line for me is that your compliance with probation orders, bail orders, community supervision, based on your history of convictions, is poor.

Sentences in the past in relation to breach offences have not delivered a message to you that you must comply with court orders and particularly I can say that it is serious when I consider the kind of overall criminal history that you have.

It includes serious criminal offences, including possession of a dangerous weapon, sentenced for that in July of 2014, property offences, but more particularly of concern, flight from police, wilful obstruction in 2013, assault in 2011, assault in 2009, assault in 2009, two separate offences, and again in 2007, again a robbery in 2006, break-in instruments in 2006, threats in 2007, mischief, and a series of breaches scattered throughout that.

So your obligation to comply with probation orders is particularly significant in the community in these circumstances, so I view your breach of that probation order as a serious criminal offence and I am going to sentence you on that basis. That message needs to be clearly understood by you in the future, and it needs to reach you now. If you are going to make a commitment not to come back before these courts again, you are going to have to carry with you a significant reminder about what breaching means. [ 3 ] Then we have the body armour. The body armour offence, I take Mr.

Swartz' point, it is fairly made; you have not pled to offences revolving around the firearms that were found in the vehicle, or what was going to occur with those, or what the other people had in mind. I accept all of that. But the body armour offence is a significant consideration for the legislature; Mr. Lester has referred to why that is the case.

You have told me about your history and I am sympathetic to the fact that you are concerned about your safety, but there is a reason why the community is not prepared to have people who are not properly authorized around in the neighbourhood with body armour, and that plays into the type of criminal history that I have related and you are familiar with it, types of offences that have been involved, your background. [ 4 ] So when I take all of that into account, I have concluded that an appropriate global outcome in respect of these offences would be a seven-month jail sentence.

Now, you have, everyone agrees, 104 days of pre-sentence custody available to your credit. In respect of that, I am going to give you credit for 104 days in respect to the body armour offence, and I impose an additional sentence of two weeks' incarceration, so that would be the equivalent of a four-month sentence in respect to the body armour offence. [ 5 ] In respect to the breach offence, which I have already explained in detail as to why I view that as significant, and the fact that you have just previously, and I take Mr.

Swartz' point, it may have been a global sentence, but significant sentences were imposed in respect to breaches in the recent past, in respect of that, I impose a three-month consecutive sentence, so you will serve an additional three-and-a-half months. [ 6 ] Now, on release, there is a probation order currently in effect, Mr. Lester, do you want additional probation to go with that or -- [ 7 ] MR. LESTER: I don't think so. To be frank, I hadn't pulled that file, I don't know what the terms are.

I'm suspecting that the presiding judge probably considered all of those, the issues that need to be dealt with. [ 8 ] THE COURT: So you are content then that there not be additional probation. [ 9 ] MR. LESTER: I think so. Perhaps Mr. Swartz can just give us a bit of an idea as to the nature, if you're still aware of that, Mr. Swartz? [ 10 ] MR.

SWARTZ: I can't recall exactly, but I believe it's the sort of no-go's, the issues of concern, the extension conditions, report, reside as directed, all the -- all the typical conditions, and there was an 18-month probation imposed just in July, so it's only several months old. [ 11 ] THE COURT: On the basis of what I have heard, I am not going to impose additional probation. There is a probation order in effect. [ 12 ] MR. LESTER: Yes. [ 13 ] THE COURT: I am simply going to -- well, I have to ensure that he reports forthwith on his release. [ 14 ] MR.

LESTER: Yes. [ 15 ] THE COURT: So, I will impose a one-month probation order.

It will be in respect to the breach offence, and it will include the terms like, keep the peace and be of good behaviour and that you report before four o'clock in the afternoon on the first business day following your release to a probation officer at the address to be provided and thereafter as directed by the probation officer, and that will ensure that you are back into the reporting regime. [ 16 ] In terms of the victim fine surcharges, which both apply, I will make those due and payable forthwith and in default one day in respect of each, concurrent with the sentences which I have just imposed.

(REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)