R. v. Hughes-Read, 2023 BCPC 184

Citation: R. v. Hughes-Read 2023 BCPC 184 Date: 20230619 File Nos: 183685-1-K; 184168-3-KC; 185480-1 Registry: Victoria File Nos: 23219-1; 23219-2-A Registry: Western Communities IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REX v. DONOVAN JAMES HUGHES-READ ALEMAYEHU TOWNSEND ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE (re Accused Hughes-Read) OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J. BARRETT Counsel for the Crown: P.J. Cheeseman Counsel for the Accused: J.M.P. Firestone Place of Hearing: Victoria, B.C. Dates of Hearing: April 21, 2023, May 3, 2023, June 15, 2023 Date of Sentence: June 19, 2023

[ 1 ] THE COURT: Donovan James Hughes-Read entered pleas of guilty to several offences set out in three separate informations as follows:

a) In Information 23219-1, to the sole count of assaulting Alexander Long, on December 20, 2021, in Langford, BC, contrary to s. 266 of the Code .

b) In Information 184168-3-KC, to the offences set out in Count 2, as amended, Count 3, and Count 5. Crown proceeded by indictment on this information and Mr. Hughes-Read elected to be tried by a Provincial Court judge. Each offence took place on May 17, 2022, in Victoria, BC. These offences are as follows:

i) In Count 2, possession of a non restricted firearm, namely, a GSG 16 rifle, knowing that he was not the holder of a licence or registration certificate for the firearm, contrary to s. 92(1) of the Code . ii) In Count 3, possession of a prohibited device, notably, a silencer, knowing that he did not have a licence for that device, contrary to s. 92(2) of the Code . iii) In Count 5, possession of the GSG 16 rifle, silencer, and ammunition, while he was prohibited from doing so, contrary to s. 117.01(1) of the Code .

c) Lastly, in Information 185480-1, to the offence of assaulting Daniel Mcclintock with a weapon, contrary to s. 267(

a) of the Code . [ 2 ] In these reasons, I have referred at times to the three offences set out in Information 184168-3-KC, that is the offences contrary to ss. 92(1), 92(2), and 117.01(1), collectively as firearms or firearms related offences. The offences set out in the remaining two informations I have referred to as the assault offences. [ 3 ] Mr. Hughes-Read's sentencing hearing for these offences began on April 21, 2023 and submissions completed on May 3, 2023.

During the hearing, both Crown and defence filed documents, which have been filed as exhibits within the proceeding; and a video of the assault of Mr. Mcclintock was viewed during the hearing and filed as an exhibit as well. The matter was then adjourned for my sentencing decision and these now are my reasons for my sentence for Mr. Hughes-Read, having considered very carefully the submissions of counsel and the information or evidence filed. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCES: [ 4 ] I will begin with a short

summary of the circumstances of each offence Mr. Hughes-Read has pleaded guilty to and is being sentenced for. While Crown read into the record a more detailed account of those circumstances, I have only included a brief

summary to provide context to my decision. [ 5 ] The first offence in time was the assault on Alexander Long on December 20, 2021. On that date, Mr. Hughes-Read was at a residence together with Mr. Long and others. Mr. Long and Mr. Hughes-Read became involved in a discussion, during which Mr. Long made allegations against Mr. Hughes-Read of violence towards his girlfriend. Mr. Hughes-Read, who had been drinking, responded by punching Mr. Long repeatedly in the head and face. Mr. Long put his hands up to protect himself, but never fought back. Mr. Long was going in and out of consciousness while Mr.

Hughes-Read was striking him. Mr. Long attended hospital and was diagnosed with hematomas on his skull, and he believes he suffered a concussion from the assault. [ 6 ] Then, the firearms and firearms related offences occurred on May 17, 2022. On that date, police conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle that had a smashed front windshield and missing right side mirror. It had been driving throughout Victoria and police wanted to ensure the vehicle was roadworthy.

Police stopped the vehicle at around 12:40 p.m. in the 500 Block of Burnside Road East; that is around the Burnside Road and Gorge Road area in Victoria. [ 7 ] Mr. Hughes-Read was sitting in the front passenger seat of the vehicle and a female was driving. There was a large bag located under Mr. Hughes-Read's legs in the foot well of the front passenger seat. At the time, Mr. Hughes-Read had an outstanding warrant for his arrest on another matter, and police took steps to arrest him on that warrant. When they asked Mr.

Hughes-Read to step out of the vehicle, he attempted to have the female driver take the large bag that was beneath his legs, but police prevented that from happening. [ 8 ] Mr. Hughes-Read exited the vehicle as requested and, when doing so, told police that he had a clip in his waistband. In the large bag, police located a .22 calibre GSG 16 semi automatic rifle loaded with a clip containing 22 rounds of ammunition. The clip in Mr. Hughes-Read's waistband was for the same rifle and also contained 22 rounds of ammunition. The rifle's butt stock was not attached, but was located in the large bag.

A silencer was attached to the barrel of the rifle. [ 9 ] Police also located, in the back seat passenger area of the vehicle, a Lululemon bag containing $600 cash, homemade brass knuckles, and a number of drugs, notably: methamphetamine, fentanyl, oxycodone pills, crack cocaine, and powder cocaine. As well, in the same area, an airsoft or paintball pistol and black case were located. The pistol looked like a real handgun. Mr. Hughes-Read denies any association with these items. [ 10 ] Photographs of the various items found in the vehicle were filed as Exhibit 4 in this proceeding.

The .22 calibre rifle, which is classified as a non restricted firearm, the silencer, and ammunition were analyzed and all found to be functioning, and the firearm was capable of firing with or without the butt stock attached. [ 11 ] On May 17, 2022, Mr. Hughes-Read was subject to a discretionary prohibition order, pursuant to s. 110 of the Code , that was made on August 5, 2021. That order prohibited him from possessing the firearm, silencer, and ammunition he had in his possession on the offence date. He was also subject to a weapons prohibition within a probation order that was made on that same date.

[ 12 ] The last offence took place on October 6, 2022 at the Vancouver Island Regional Correctional Centre (or "VIRCC"). Both Mr. Hughes-Read and the victim, Mr. Mcclintock, were inmates at VIRCC. Mr. Hughes-Read had been detained on the firearms related offences that had occurred on May 17, 2022. [ 13 ] As mentioned, Crown showed a video of the assault on Mr. Mcclintock during the sentencing hearing. Mr. Hughes-Read, together with another inmate, approached Mr. Mcclintock from behind and struck him repeatedly in his head area. When he was attacked, Mr.

Mcclintock was sitting at a table playing cards with other inmates. I am told that Mr. Hughes-Read used as a weapon a coffee mug that had been stuffed with wet paper towel and then frozen. Mr. Mcclintock suffered lacerations to the back of his head and several cuts as a result of the assault. CIRCUMSTANCES OF MR. HUGHES-READ: [ 14 ] I have been informed of Mr. Hughes-Read's personal circumstances through submissions of his counsel, Mr. Firestone. No request had previously been made for the preparation of reports to assist with sentencing. Mr.

Firestone also filed some defence materials, including letters of support for Mr. Hughes-Read and a letter to the court from Mr. Hughes-Read himself. Those documents are filed as Exhibit 1. [ 15 ] Mr. Hughes-Read is currently 26 years of age and, therefore, would have been a bit younger when some of these offences had occurred. He was born in Victoria, BC and completed and graduated high school. Before his arrest in May of 2022, Mr. Hughes-Read was working and has had employment in the past in Alberta. Mr.

Hughes-Read has a young child, although I understand he does not currently have a relationship with that child. [ 16 ] Mr. Hughes-Read has a prior criminal record, but it is relatively limited. The only cognate offence is a prior conviction for assault in August of 2021. He does not have any prior convictions for firearms or firearms related offences. A copy of his JUSTIN conviction list is filed at Tab 1 of Exhibit 2. [ 17 ] Mr. Hughes-Read identifies as Métis, although he has only recently discovered his heritage. He has strong support from both family and friends, who think very highly of him.

The individuals who wrote letters on his behalf do not believe that Mr. Hughes-Read's criminal offending truly or accurately reflects the type of person that he is or wants to be. One friend, Cory Walsh, personally appeared in court to support Mr. Hughes-Read at his sentencing hearing. He speaks well of Mr. Hughes-Read and notes his previous good character. [ 18 ] Mr. Firestone stressed how much Mr. Hughes-Read regrets his actions and how remorseful he feels. In his letter to the court, Mr. Hughes-Read expressed how his experience in jail has impacted and changed him.

He expressed remorse for his behaviour and stated that he has learned his lesson. Mr. Firestone submits that Mr. Hughes-Read has developed insight into his criminal offending. [ 19 ] Mr. Firestone also states that Mr. Hughes-Read has taken some courses and programs while in custody, including upgrading his English, a parenting course, respectful relationships, and he has attended narcotics anonymous. He submits there is hope for Mr. Hughes- Read's rehabilitation. [ 20 ] There is some suggestion within the defence documents that Mr. Hughes-Read may have struggled with substances at some point in his life.

I note he was drinking, and he says was intoxicated, when he committed the assault on Mr. Long. I understand, however, that Mr. Hughes-Read does not believe he has a problem with or addiction to substances. POSITIONS ON SENTENCE: [ 21 ] Crown seeks a global disposition of five years in custody for all matters, broken down as follows:

a) For the assault on Mr. Long on December 20, 2021, a period of four months in custody, to be served concurrent with the other custodial sentences.

b) For the offence of possessing a non restricted firearm, contrary to s. 92(1) of the Code , a period of three years in custody.

c) For the offence of possessing a silencer, the prohibited device, contrary to s. 92(2), a period of six months in custody, to be served consecutive to the three year term on Count 2.

d) For possessing a firearm, a prohibited device, and ammunition contrary to a prohibition order, contrary to s. 117.01 of the Code , Crown seeks a period of 12 months in custody, to be served consecutive to the other offences.

e) For the assault of Mr. Mcclintock with a weapon on October 6, 2022, Crown seeks a period of six months in custody, again to be served consecutive to all other sentences.

f) Additionally, Crown seeks two ancillary orders, a DNA order, as the assault with a weapon is a primary designated offence, and a firearms prohibition under s. 109 of the Code . [ 22 ] Defence submits that a global sentence of 30 months in custody is the most fit and appropriate sentence in this case. If the court imposes a 30 month sentence for the 92(1) offence, all other custodial sentences should be served concurrently, based on the principle of totality. [ 23 ] Regardless of the penalty imposed, Mr.

Firestone urges the court to impose a global sentence that will enable his client to remain within the provincial correctional system and not be so harsh as to result in Mr. Hughes-Read losing hope. He does not take issue with the ancillary orders sought by Crown. [ 24 ] Counsel agree that Mr. Hughes-Read should be given appropriate credit for his predisposition custody. As of today, he has spent

a total of 394 real days in custody on these matters, and, therefore, based on an additional credit of 1.5 days, he should be credited with 591 days towards any custodial sentence imposed. SENTENCING PROVISION IN THE CODE : [ 25 ] When sentencing an offender generally for any criminal offence, the court must consider and apply sections 718 to 718.2 of the Code , wherein the overall purpose, objectives, and principles of sentencing are set out. [ 26 ]

Section 718 provides that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society. This is achieved by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (

a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct; (

b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (

c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (

d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (

e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (

f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community. [ 27 ]

Section 718.1 identifies proportionality as the fundamental principle of sentencing; that is: A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [ 28 ] Other sentencing principles are set out in s. 718.2 of the Code . Those include: (

a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender; the circumstances set out in s. 718.2(a)(

i) through to and including (vii) are recognized as aggravating; (

b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances; this is the principle of parity; (

c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh; this is the principle of totality; (

d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and (

e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders; these last two principles codify the principle of restraint. [ 29 ] It is also well recognized by our courts that sentencing is a very individualized process and a sentencing court must ensure that any sentence imposed responds to the specific circumstances of each offence and takes into account the unique personal circumstances of the offender.

CASE AUTHORITIES: [ 30 ] In addition to the statutory provisions in the Code , I have been provided several case authorities to consider. Most of those authorities relate to sentencing decisions on offences under s. 95(1) of the Code (that is the “s. 95 cases"), although a few relate to sentences imposed for s. 92(1), 92(2), and s. 117.01 as well. I have also been provided with two cases relating to prison assaults. Discussion re Cases Regarding Firearms or Firearms-Related Offences: [ 31 ] Mr.

Firestone urges caution in following the s. 95 cases, given the evolution of the law relating to available sentences for that offence, and also based on the fact that s. 92 and 95 are distinct offences under the Code . Mr. Cheeseman urges me to follow the line of s. 95 cases in this case. [ 32 ] In my view, given the circumstances in this case, the s. 95 cases are helpful when crafting a sentence for Mr. Hughes-Read for the firearms related offences. The circumstances in this case, including that Mr.

Hughes-Read was found in possession of a loaded firearm, with a silencer attached, which was within easy reach, as well as additional ammunition, align very closely, in my view, with many of the circumstances present in many of the s. 95 cases. [ 33 ] I find that the concerns expressed about gun violence within our communities, the serious risk to public safety that guns pose to our communities, and the general principles enunciated throughout the s. 95 cases are equally applicable when considering an appropriate sentence for Mr.

Hughes-Read in this case. [ 34 ] As well, while I appreciate ss. 92 and 95 are distinct offences under the Code , it is clear the legislature considers both offences to be equally serious, given each can attract the same maximum penalty of 10 years' incarceration under the Code . [ 35 ] Throughout the case authorities I reviewed, courts have repeatedly recognized and emphasized the serious nature of firearms offences due to the inherent danger of firearms and the high risk they pose to both users and the public, particularly when they are possessed for an illicit or criminal purpose.

[ 36 ] Judge McCarthy, in his 2020 decision R. v. Lemmen , 2020 BCPC 67 set out a comprehensive review of several of the cases he reviewed when sentencing Mr. Lemmen for offences, including firearm offences under ss. 92(1) and 94(1), as well as a breach of a firearms prohibition under s. 117.01(1) of the Code . Judge MacCarthy, referencing the BCCA's decision R. v. Guha , 2012 BCCA 423 noted the Court of Appeal's emphasis on the inherent dangerousness of firearms related offences and the need for sentences to reflect that nature. [ 37 ] In paragraph 139 of Lemmen , Judge MacCarthy states: In doing so, the Court of Appeal at paragraphs 28 through 30 emphasized as follows:

a) The serious and inherently dangerous circumstances associated with firearm-related offences that have been forcefully underscored by front-line judges.

b) Sentences for firearms offences must reflect their very serious and dangerous nature.

c) In short, firearms, and in particular handguns, are extremely dangerous when possessed for an illicit purpose. That purpose can only be to threaten or inflict serious bodily harm or death. Therefore sentences for these type of offences must reflect society's absolute rejection of such unacceptable conduct. [ 38 ] Judge MacCarthy concluded that these comments "have a general application to firearms that are possessed for an illicit purpose" and they applied to the case before him.

I agree with this conclusion and find that these comments also apply in this case. [ 39 ] Another concern expressed throughout the various sentencing decisions is the court's increasing concern with the proliferation of gun violence in Canada and how that has detrimentally impacted society as a whole. [ 40 ] The case authorities consistently hold that when sentencing an offender for possessing a firearm for an illicit purpose, the paramount objectives to be met are deterrence and denunciation, as well as the overall protection of the public.

This is succinctly stated by Madam Justice Horsman in paragraph 39 of her 2021 decision R. v. Lambert , 2021 BCSC 2199 wherein she stated: The paramount considerations on this sentencing are denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public. The possession and use of firearms is highly regulated in Canada and, if unlawful, criminalized to ensure public safety, express society's condemnation, and to punish offenders.

Courts strive to achieve these goals when imposing sentences for firearms-related offences by prioritizing deterrence and denunciation, and following customary sentencing ranges in all but exceptional cases . . [ 41 ] Sentencing courts have recognized there is a broad spectrum of unlawful conduct that falls within the scope of s. 95. It is apparent, reading s. 92, that same observation applies in circumstances caught within that

section as well. [ 42 ] Judge MacCarthy, in Lemmen , described that broad spectrum of offences caught within s. 95 in paragraphs 130 to 132 of his decision, wherein he states: [130] A further consideration of s. 95 is canvassed by the B.C. Court of Appeal in R. v. Holt , supra, which at paragraph 12 adopts the analysis of Doherty J.A. in R. v.

Nur , 2013 ONCA 677 , found at paragraphs 51 and 52 . [131] That decision identifies a spectrum of potential offenders caught by s. 95 starting with the “true crime end of the spectrum”: At one end of the spectrum stands the outlaw who carries a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm in public places as a tool of his or her criminal trade.

By any reasonable measure, this person is engaged in truly criminal conduct and poses a real and immediate danger to the public. [132] At the other end of the spectrum, says Doherty J.A.: . . . stands the otherwise law-abiding responsible gun owner who has possession of an unloaded restricted or prohibited firearm, but with readily accessible ammunition stored nearby. That person has a licence and registration certificate for the firearm, but knowingly possesses the firearm at a place that falls outside of the terms of that licence. That person’s conduct may well pose little, if any, risk to others.

I would characterize that misconduct as more in the nature of a regulatory offence. [ 43 ] Courts have considered what evidence is required to find that an offender's unlawful possession of a firearm falls at the true crime end of the spectrum. In Kachuol ( R. v.

Kachuol , 2017 BCCA 292 ), Justice Dickson found that it is not necessary for there to be evidence that an offender's unlawful possession of a firearm is directly connected with other criminal activity for that offender's possession to fall within the true crime end of the spectrum. [ 44 ] In paragraph 28 of that decision, Justice Dickson stated: There was nothing in the evidence to indicate that Mr. Kachuol’s possession of the loaded, prohibited “crime gun” was for anything other than a criminal purpose. Nor did he even suggest it.

There was simply no possible benign reason for his unlawful possession of the loaded gun apparent on the evidence. In such circumstances, proof of a direct connection with other criminal activity was unnecessary to situate the offence at the “true crime” end of the s. 95(1) spectrum. In my view, requiring such proof would tend to defeat the purpose of the provision. [ 45 ] Counsel in this case agreed that Mr. Hughes-Read's possession of a firearm, in the circumstances, falls within the true crime end of the spectrum. There was simply no legitimate purpose for Mr.

Hughes-Read to be in possession of a loaded firearm, silencer attached, within his reach, as well as readily available ammunition, while sitting in the passenger seat of a vehicle, travelling throughout populated areas in Victoria. He has not offered any reasonable explanation or justification for his possession of a firearm in those circumstances. [ 46 ] The s. 95 cases identify the customary range of sentence for true crime offences under that

section as beginning at the low end

between 30 months to three years in custody. The high end would be 10 years' imprisonment, which is the maximum penalty allowable under the Code . [ 47 ] Justice Dickson, in paragraphs 25 and 26 of Kachuol , explains why it is necessary to impose "severe exemplary sentences” for these type of offences: [25] In recent years, Canadian courts have become increasingly concerned by the proliferation of handguns, gun violence and the dire consequences for our society. Guns are inherently, often lethally, dangerous, all the more so when they are possessed for an illicit purpose.

As a result, their possession and use is highly regulated and, if unlawful, criminalized to ensure public safety, express society’s condemnation and punish offenders.

To the extent possible, courts strive to achieve these goals when imposing sentences for firearms related offences by prioritizing deterrence and denunciation, following customary sentencing ranges in all but exceptional cases and fully accounting for aggravating factors where they exist. [26] As Madam Justice Smith recognised in Guha at para. 30 , when an offender possesses a firearm, particularly a handgun, for an illicit purpose, that purpose can only be to threaten or inflict serious bodily harm or death, if and when considered necessary.

Common sense and human experience suggest no other reasonable explanation or lesser risk posed by possession of this sort. As Crown counsel aptly put it, most unlawful possession of loaded firearms represents nothing short of “tragedy in gestation”. By criminalizing such conduct via s. 95(1), the law intervenes before someone is actually harmed or some other crime actually committed.

By imposing severe exemplary sentences for possession simpliciter, courts support and advance the goals of this intervention. [ 48 ] While courts have imposed sanctions that do fall below the lower end of this customary range of sentence, they have done so in cases where courts have found there to be exceptional circumstances present that warrant a lesser sentence or where Crown has proceeded summarily rather than by indictment, thereby limiting the maximum available sentence to one which is below the lower end of this customary range. [ 49 ] In this case, Crown has proceeded by indictment and counsel are not suggesting there are exceptional circumstances present upon which the court could find that a penalty falling below the customary range of sentence can be supported. [ 50 ] Some of the case authorities also deal with sentencing offences contrary to s. 117.01(1).

I accept those cases state that generally, although not necessarily, sentences for this offence are served consecutively to a s. 95 offence. I accept that this same approach should be taken when considering Mr. Hughes-Read's sentence for the offence under s. 92(1) in this case. [ 51 ] I also accept that, typically, the range of sentence imposed is between six to 12 months and the paramount objectives to be met when imposing a sentence for this offence are denunciation and deterrence.

Discussion re Cases Regarding Assault Offences: [ 52 ] Crown provided me with two case authorities relating to sentencing for prison assaults. The first decision is R. v. Baptiste , 2013 BCSC 1918 ; and the second is R. v. J.P.B. , 2012 BCPC 29 . Crown relies on these decisions to support the proposition that any sentence imposed on Mr. Hughes-Read for his assault with a weapon on Mr.

Mcclintock should be imposed consecutively to other sentences imposed at this hearing. [ 53 ] It is clear, from both cases, that when sentencing an offender for an assault that occurs within a jail setting, the primary sentencing objectives are deterrence and denunciation.

The offender's rehabilitation and protection of staff have also been identified as important objectives to meet. [ 54 ] Crown submits the authorities stress the importance of ensuring that, when imposing a sentence for this offence, the court does not condone inmates that do not follow rules or regulations of prisons and who act out aggressively towards other inmates or staff while incarcerated. [ 55 ] In the Baptiste case, the court found that imposing a concurrent sentence in that case was wholly inappropriate.

For one reason, the offence, which was an aggravated assault of another inmate, did not arise out of the same transaction of the offences for which the offender was currently serving a sentence. The other reason was the court's conclusion that a concurrent sentence would not meet the sentencing objectives of deterrence and denunciation. [ 56 ] Justice Donegan, in Baptiste , stated, in paragraph 26 : [26] As Mr. Justice Joyce stated in E.J.S. at para. 7: In my view, this is a situation where the Court has to be concerned with both general and specific deterrence. It is clearly a case for a consecutive sentence.

If a concurrent sentence were imposed here, it would not meet the principles of general deterrence. Saying it would be an invitation to engage in this sort of conduct would be putting it too strongly, but such a sentence would not sufficiently deter an inmate who is serving a long sentence from engaging in violent conduct while in prison.

Therefore, general deterrence is an important feature, in my view. [ 57 ] I am satisfied, based on these authorities, that, as a general rule, a sentence imposed for a prison assault should be served consecutive to other sentences imposed for unrelated offences in order to ensure that the paramount sentencing objectives of deterrence and denunciation are met. [ 58 ] While I do not have any authorities that address specifically sentencing for simple assault, I am satisfied that, again, the paramount objectives to be met when sentencing for that offence are deterrence and denunciation.

There may be other sentencing objectives as well to be met, such as rehabilitation or reparation, depending on the circumstances present in each specific case. APPLICATION OF SENTENCING PROVISIONS AND CASE LAW TO THIS CASE:

[ 59 ] I have considered all of the factors set out above when crafting a sentence for Mr. Hughes-Read for these offences. [ 60 ] I find that all of the offences he committed are serious ones, but the most serious are the firearms and firearms related offences, for the reasons stated. Those offences pose the most significant risk to the community at large, as well as to Mr. Hughes-Read and those within his orbit. [ 61 ] Based on the information available to me about Mr. Hughes-Read, I am lead to conclude that his responsibility or moral culpability for all of these offences is high.

There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. He has provided little explanation for any of his actions when the offences occurred. While he was drinking, and he says intoxicated when he assaulted Mr. Long, that fact does not mitigate his responsibility for that offence. His explanation for having the firearm and other items in his possession (that is, he wanted to impress his new girlfriend) is insufficient to reduce his responsibility for the firearms and firearms related offences. [ 62 ] Mr. Firestone described the assault on Mr.

Mcclintock as "street justice", but no further explanation for the assault on him was provided. This information, in my view, does not mitigate or lessen his responsibility for that offence. [ 63 ] There is nothing in the information relating to Mr.

Hughes-Read's personal circumstances that warrant a finding that his responsibility for these offences is lessened. [ 64 ] I appreciate that he has recently discovered his Métis heritage, and therefore there may be Gladue factors to consider, but I simply do not have enough information at this point to make that assessment. [ 65 ] I am satisfied that the paramount sentencing objectives to be met when crafting a sentence for Mr. Hughes-Read for all of the offences are deterrence and denunciation. I accept that some specific deterrence may have been achieved through Mr.

Hughes-Read's experience within predisposition custody, but the prison assault that occurred in October of 2022 raises a question as to whether that objective has been sufficiently met. [ 66 ] A serious objective to be met is general deterrence, particularly with respect to the firearms offences and the prison assault. The message must be loud and clear that possession of a loaded firearm within the community, in the circumstances that are present in this case, is a very serious offence that poses a significant risk to the community at large and will be seriously consequenced by the courts.

The prison assault must be discouraged to ensure both the safety of inmates and staff within the institutions. [ 67 ] The sentence imposed, as well, must ensure that society's condemnation of these behaviours is evident. [ 68 ] When considering what sentence to impose for each offence and when considering the suitability of the sentences proposed by counsel, I have to consider and balance both the aggravating and mitigating circumstances present in this case. [ 69 ] I find the aggravating circumstances are, with respect to the firearms and firearms related offences, that:

a) The firearm in Mr. Hughes-Read's possession was loaded with a clip containing 22 rounds of ammunition; and he had readily available a further clip, also containing 22 rounds of ammunition, in his waistband.

b) The silencer was actually attached to the barrel of the firearm, in place and ready to be used.

c) The firearm was in working order and able to be fired in the condition in which it was found by police in the bag at Mr. Hughes-Read's feet in the vehicle.

d) Mr. Hughes-Read had possession of a loaded firearm while travelling in a vehicle within the City of Victoria, including within areas that were populated by both residents and businesses.

e) At the time of these offences, Mr. Hughes-Read was on probation that contained an order prohibiting him from possessing any weapon as defined by the Criminal Code . That would include firearms. [ 70 ] I recognize that Mr. Hughes-Read was also subject to the discretionary prohibition order under s. 110 of the Code , but I have not considered that an aggravating circumstance, given that he has been independently charged with, and pled guilty to, and is being sentenced for, that offence. [ 71 ] With respect to the assault offences, the aggravating factors include that:

a) Mr. Hughes-Read's assault on Mr. Long involved repeated punches to his head and face, resulting in Mr. Long going in and out of consciousness. Mr. Long did not fight back and only protected himself from those punches.

b) The timing of this offence is aggravating. This offence took place about four and a half months after Mr. Hughes-Read had been sentenced for a prior assault, as well as uttering threats.

c) Based on the information available to me, Mr. Hughes-Read's attack on Mr. Mcclintock was unprovoked and predatory. He attacked him, with another inmate, from behind when Mr. Mcclintock was sitting at a table playing cards.

d) Mr. Hughes-Read's assault of Mr. Mcclintock was planned. He used a weapon that required some preparation to make.

e) The place of that assault is aggravating. A violent attack on another inmate within a jail can create significant risk to other inmates and/or staff within that facility.

f) Mr. Mcclintock suffered physical injury to his head as a result of that assault.

g) When the prison assault occurred, Mr. Hughes-Read was detained on very serious offences. That is, the firearms and firearms

related offences. [ 72 ] With respect to all offences, another aggravating circumstance is that Mr. Hughes-Read has a criminal record that includes a prior conviction for assault. However, there are no prior convictions for firearms or firearms related offences. [ 73 ] I find the mitigating circumstances present in this case include the following:

a) Mr. Hughes-Read is a relatively young man. He is currently 26 years of age and would have been slightly younger when these offences occurred.

b) Mr. Hughes-Read has a strong support system within the community, who view his offending as out of character for him.

c) Mr. Hughes-Read has pleaded guilty to these offences and thereby has accepted responsibility for his offending.

d) Mr. Hughes-Read is remorseful for his actions. He wrote a letter to the court expressing that remorse; and his counsel was clear in his submissions, as well, that Mr. Hughes-Read feels tremendous remorse and regret for his actions.

e) Mr. Hughes-Read has taken steps, during his time in custody, to improve his situation. He has taken courses and participated in some programs to improve his education, gain skills, and receive support.

f) I accept, as his counsel suggests, there is hope that Mr. Hughes-Read can rehabilitate himself and make better decisions in the future.

g) Mr. Hughes-Read has been gainfully employed in the past and anticipates having work waiting for him when he is ultimately released from custody. That is due to the support he receives within the community; and he has the skills and the aptitude to be a positive contributing member of society.

h) While Mr. Hughes-Read does have a criminal record, it is relatively limited and, as indicated, he has no prior firearms or firearms related offences on his record.

i) With respect to the arrest that occurred relating to the firearms and firearms related offences, Mr. Hughes-Read was cooperative with the police. CONCLUSION: [ 74 ] Having considered the circumstances of each of the offences, Mr.

Hughes-Read's personal circumstances, the sentencing provisions of the Code , the case authorities provided to me, counsel's very helpful submissions, and, taking into account the specific aggravating and mitigating circumstances present in this case, I conclude that a global custodial sentence of 42 months, or three and a half years, is a fit, appropriate, and proportionate sentence for Mr.

Hughes-Read. [ 75 ] I found that the global sentence of five years sought by Crown was unduly harsh, in the circumstances, and did not adequately consider the principles of totality or proportionality. [ 76 ] I also found, however, that the global penalty of 30 months proposed by defence fell short of properly taking into account the aggravating circumstances present in this case, Mr.

Hughes-Read's moral culpability for these offences, and was not adequate to meet the paramount sentencing objectives of deterrence and denunciation. [ 77 ] I have set out below the sentence I have determined as fit and appropriate for each offence, and my determination as to what sentences are to be served concurrently or consecutively has been governed by my application of the totality principle and what global sentence I have found to best ensure the overall sentence imposed is proportionate. Therefore, the following sentence is imposed:

a) For the sole count on Information 23219-1, that is the offence of assaulting Mr. Long on December 20, 2021, I impose a sentence of three months in custody. This sentence is to be served concurrent to the other informations.

b) For the offences on Information 184168-3-KC, I impose the following sanctions:

i) For Count 2, that is the offence of possessing a non restricted firearm, a GSG 16 rifle, contrary to s. 92(1) of the Code , I impose a custodial sentence of 36 months, or three years. ii) For Count 3, that is the offence of possessing a prohibited device, a silencer, contrary to s. 92(2) of the Code , I impose a custodial sentence of six months.

This sentence is to be served concurrent with Count 2 and Count 5 on the information. iii) For Count 5, that is the offence of possessing a firearm, prohibited device, and ammunition while prohibited from doing so, under the prohibition order made on August 15, 2021 and contrary to s. 117.01(1) of the Code , I impose a custodial sentence of six months. That is to be served concurrent with the sentences imposed on Counts 2 and 3.

c) For the sole count on Information 185480-1, that is the offence of assaulting, with a weapon, Mr. Mcclintock on October 6, 2022, I impose a sentence of six months in custody. That sentence is to be served consecutive to Information 184168-3-KC. [ 78 ] This equates to a global sentence, as I have indicated, of 42 months in custody; and, based on my calculations (and I would ask counsel to double check this), that would equate to 1,275 days in custody. [ 79 ] CNSL P. CHEESEMAN: Sorry, Your Honour, could you say that again? I apologize. I have a calculator -- [ 80 ] THE COURT: Twelve seventy five.

[ 81 ] CNSL P. CHEESEMAN: Thank you. [ 82 ] THE COURT: Mr. Hughes-Read’s credited time of 591 days will be deducted from that sentence, leaving (again, based on my calculations), 684 days remaining on that global disposition. And I would ask counsel to double check that. [ 83 ] CNSL P. CHEESEMAN: Sorry. [ 84 ] THE COURT: I may be off. [ 85 ] CNSL P. CHEESEMAN: I'm having trouble with the math. Can I have the bottom line number again? I apologize, Your Honour. I know that -- [ 86 ] THE COURT: Six eight four is the remaining. Twelve seventy five less 591, leaving 684.

And so we can go back to that if counsel have a question as to those calculations. [ 87 ] CNSL P. CHEESEMAN: Sorry. [ 88 ] THE COURT: I will impose the DNA order sought by Crown, as well as the firearms prohibition under s. 109. The DNA order will apply to the assault with a weapon offence, and that is Information 185480-1. That is a primary designated offence; and, pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Code , Mr. Hughes-Read, I am authorizing the taking of samples of bodily substances from you. That will be done while you are in custody and you have to -- I just want to make sure you are listening. [ 89 ] CNSL J.

FIRESTONE: I apologize, Your Honour. I'm trying to help him. [ 90 ] THE COURT: That is all right. I just want to make sure that you know that that order has been made and that those samples will be taken from you while you are in custody. [ 91 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes, Your Honour. [ 92 ] THE COURT: There will be the firearms prohibition as well, under s. 109 of the Code . If you could just keep standing. I should have had -- [ 93 ] CNSL J. FIRESTONE: I apologize. I -- [ 94 ] THE COURT: No, no, I should have asked you to stand. [ 95 ] CNSL J. FIRESTONE: No, I -- [ 96 ] THE COURT: -- before.

But, pursuant to s. 109 of the Code , you are prohibited from possessing any firearm, other than a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, and any crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition or explosive substance for a period of 10 years -- no. That would be -- I just want to make sure that I have got that correct. This is the first -- no. It is the sec -- no, it is the first offence. So that would be for a period of 10 years -- [ 97 ] CNSL P.

CHEESEMAN: Correct, Your Honour. [ 98 ] THE COURT: Yes -- from today's date; and any prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device, and prohibited ammunition for life. [ 99 ] I was a bit confused because I was thinking there was a prior order made. That is where I was confused. [ 100 ] All right. Now, are there any -- you can have a seat now. [ 101 ] CNSL J. FIRESTONE: Sorry about that. [ 102 ] THE COURT: Do counsel have any questions with respect to the calculation of the days? Mr. Cheeseman? [ 103 ] CNSL P.

CHEESEMAN: No, Your Honour, I think your math is correct. [ 104 ] THE COURT: Oh, good. [ 105 ] CNSL J. FIRESTONE: Your Honour, just -- sorry for siting, it's my back. [ 106 ] THE COURT: It is okay. [ 107 ] CNSL J. FIRESTONE: Based on the 1,275 -- and I know you would have thought this through -- as I calculated it, in terms of months, it's 22 -- 22.8 months, so you're anticipating that he has now time left, which means he has a provincial sentence of two years less a day or less, based on this calculation? [ 108 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 109 ] CNSL J.

FIRESTONE: Yeah, I just wanted to make sure, because I was looking at it in terms of the bottom line. No, I have no further questions. And, if I need, I'll order the reasons, and I know you've got other things to do today, and I thank Your Honour for those very considered reasons. [ 110 ] THE COURT: Thank you.

[ 111 ] CNSL P. CHEESEMAN: And, Your Honour, Crown directs a stay on the outstanding counts and the outstanding informations. [ 112 ] THE COURT: All right. Thank you. [ 113 ] Now, Mr. Hughes-Read, do you understand the prohibition order that I have made? [ 114 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes, Your Honour. [ 115 ] THE COURT: All right. Madam Clerk, do I need to waive signature on that or will that be done? [ 116 ] THE CLERK: I'm not sure, Your Honour, if he's remaining in custody. [ 117 ] THE COURT: He is remaining in custody. [ 118 ] CNSL P.

CHEESEMAN: Yeah -- [ 119 ] THE COURT: -- so it will likely be signed there. [ 120 ] CNSL P. CHEESEMAN: -- they usually sign the orders before -- [ 121 ] THE COURT: Okay. [ 122 ] CNSL P. CHEESEMAN: -- they take them out. [ 123 ] THE COURT: All right. Good. [ 124 ] CNSL P. CHEESEMAN: Or they fax them out to -- [ 125 ] THE COURT: Okay. I will leave that, then, to be done. [ 126 ] CNSL P. CHEESEMAN: -- to Wilkie. [ 127 ] THE COURT: All right. And -- [ 128 ] CNSL P. CHEESEMAN: Thank you, Your Honour.

I thank my friend. [ 129 ] THE COURT: -- are there any submissions with respect to the victim fine surcharges? [ 130 ] CNSL J. FIRESTONE: Yes, I'd like it to be waived, given his circumstances, and I -- [ 131 ] THE COURT: All right. [ 132 ] CNSL J. FIRESTONE: -- thank Your Honour for reminding -- [ 133 ] CNSL P. CHEESEMAN: No issues with that, Your Honour. [ 134 ] THE COURT: All right. So the victim fine surcharges will be waived, in the circumstances. [ 135 ] CNSL J.

FIRESTONE: Thank you, Your Honour. [ 136 ] THE COURT: Good luck to you. (JUDGMENT CONCLUDED) CORRIGENDUM - Released August 11, 2023 In the transcript dated June 19, 2023, the following changes have been made: [1] In all instances throughout the transcript where the accused’s name is spelled “Hughes Read”, the name should be corrected to “Hughes-Read”. [2] Paragraph 24 should read as follows: . . . .As of today, he has spent a total of 394 real days in custody on these matters, and, therefore, based on an additional credit of 1.5 days, he should be credited with 591 days towards any custodial sentence imposed. [3] Paragraph 61 should read as follows: Based on the information available to me about Mr.

Hughes-Read, I am lead to conclude that his responsibility or moral culpability for all of these offences is high. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. He has provided little explanation for any of his actions when the offences occurred. While he was drinking, and he says intoxicated when he assaulted Mr. Long, that fact does not mitigate his responsibility for that offence. . . . [4] Paragraph 82 should read as follows:

THE COURT: Mr. Hughes-Read’s credited time of 591 days will be deducted from that sentence, leaving (again, based on my calculations), 684 days remaining on that global disposition. And I would ask counsel to double check that. _____________________________ The Honourable Judge J. Barrett Provincial Court of British Columbia