R. v. Crockatt, 2016 NUCJ 27

Nunavunmi Maligaliuqtiit NUNAVUT COURT OF JUSTICE Cour de justice du Nunavut Citation: R. v. Crockatt, 2016 NUCJ 27 Date: 20160922 Docket: 21-15-91 Registry: Iqaluit Crown: Her Majesty the Queen -and- Accused Quentin Crockatt ________________________________________________________________________ Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Cooper Counsel (Crown): Sarah Arngna’naaq Counsel (Accused): Joanna Goldenberg Location Heard: Cambridge Bay, Nunavut Date Heard: September 22, 2016 Matters: Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , SC 1996, c 19, s. 5(3) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Delivered Orally) (NOTE: This document may have been edited for publication)

I. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Mr. Crockatt is before the court to be sentenced, having pled guilty to a charge of possession of marijuana for the purposes of trafficking. II. FACTS [ 2 ] In late May of 2015, Royal Canadian Mounted Police [RCMP] in Cambridge Bay received information from two separate sources that Mr. Crockatt was selling drugs from his residence. Police started surveillance on the home and the offender. The offender was observed at the Yellowknife airport with a black suitcase on route to Cambridge Bay.

Police did not intervene at that point. [ 3 ] Once back in Cambridge Bay, police observed that many people were going in and out of the residence, having stayed for only a short time. This is one indicator that there may be trafficking occurring out of the residence. [ 4 ] One of the people who had been at the residence told police that he had bought 2 grams of marijuana from the offender. [ 5 ] Police obtained a search warrant for the residence. During the search of the residence, the police found 7.49 kilos of marijuana in a suitcase located in a bedroom. Drug paraphernalia was also found in the residence.

Small amounts of cash were seized from a third party. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES [ 6 ] The Crown is seeking a sentence of 12 months custody, followed by a period of probation. [ 7 ] The Defence is seeking a sentence of 3-6 months custody, followed by a period of probation. IV. ANALYSIS A. Personal circumstances of the offender [ 8 ] The court has the benefit of a pre-sentence report. [ 9 ] Mr. Crockatt is 32 years of age. [ 10 ] Mr. Crockatt does not know who his biological father is. [ 11 ] He lived with his biological mother and her partner until he was 6 years old. The home was alcoholic and very abusive.

[ 12 ] He was apprehended by Social Services when he was 6 and placed in foster care. He was moved to 7 different foster homes in one year before being placed in the home of Kim and Dave Crockatt, who eventually adopted him. The Crockatt home was a good home. There were many children in the home, some adopted and some foster children. Mr. Crockatt spent time on the land, time in the south with extended family, and was involved with family life, including chores around the house, homework, and time with siblings. [ 13 ] Mr.

Crockatt maintained contact with his biological family, including siblings, but he was no longer subjected to the alcohol, the abuse, and the neglect that were prevalent in that home. [ 14 ] M r . Crocka t t w as diagnosed with unspecified learning disabilities and A ttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder [ADHD] at a young age. He was on medication for some time, but he no longer takes it. He graduated from grade 12 in 2003. [ 15 ] He started helping out with the family business at a young age and had his first job when he was in grade 11. He has a varied employment history.

However, the work has not been steady and he has had to rely on Income Support at various times. [ 16 ] In school he was active in drum dancing and was able to travel to the Canada Games as a cultural performer. [ 17 ] He is currently working full time at the mental health facility in the community. He has the full support of his current employer. He enjoys this work and is considering pursuing a career in Social Work. [ 18 ] Mr. Crockatt is now in a relationship with a young woman who is currently enrolled in the Social Work program and who works part time at the mental health facility.

His new partner has a young daughter from a previous relationship. She has written a letter to express her support for him. She states that he has severed ties with past negative influences and he is spending a lot of time with his step-daughter. [ 19 ] Several letters of support have been filed on behalf of Mr. Crockatt. They describe him as an intelligent, hardworking young man who overcame many challenges early in life. He has a good support network in his family, work colleagues, and friends. [ 20 ] Upon a period of imprisonment being imposed, the status of his housing and his employment will be uncertain. B.

Case law [ 21 ] Because the amount of marijuana i nv ol v ed e x cee d s 3 kilos, M r . Crocka t t is not eligible to be considered for a conditional sentence orde r, i.e . a jail term to be served in the community. [ 22 ] Counsel have provided me with a number of cases. [ 23 ] R v Hickes, 2012 NWTSC 24 , [2012] NWT J No 37 (QL) , is a decision from the Northwest Territories. The offender pled guilty to possession for the purposes of trafficking. The offender was in possession of 7.3 kilos of marijuana and $20,000 cash.

A joint submission of 24–26 months was put before the court. [ 24 ] This decision can be distinguished in a number of ways: • the offender was on a 14 month Conditional Sentence Order [CSO] for the same offence at the time he committed the offence before the court; • the offender was not of Aboriginal heritage and therefore it was not necessary for the court to consider the Gladue/ Ipeelee

factors [ 1] ; and • there was a joint submission. [ 25 ] R v Burton, 2016 ABPC 122 , [2016] AJ No 568 (QL) , is a case from Alberta. It involved a nineteen year old first offender who was being sentenced for having 24 kilos of marijuana in her possession and was transporting it from one province to another. The offender did not have a prior criminal record. The sentence imposed was 9 months imprisonment followed by probation . [ 26 ] R v St. Croix , [2014] NJ No 106 (QL) , 113 WCB (2d) 586 , is a case from Newfoundland and Labrador.

The offender pled guilty to a number of drug charges, including possession of marijuana for the purposes of trafficking; for which he received a suspended sentence and probation. [ 27 ] R v Peter {unpublished decision}, is a case from Nunavut that was decided in 2010. The offender entered a guilty plea. The offender transported just under $10,000 of cash to the south and was subsequently arrested at the airport in Nunavut with just under three kilos of marijuana and 1.5 kilos of hash.

Guilty pleas were entered to possession for the purposes of trafficking for the marijuana and simple possession in relation to the hash. [ 28 ] The offender had a prior criminal record. It is clear that specific deterrence was a significant factor in determining the sentence. The sentence imposed was 8 months for possession for the purposes of trafficking and one month concurrent for the simple possession. The period of imprisonment was to be followed by probation for one year. [ 29 ] R v Eeseemailee {unpublished decision}, is also a case from Nunavut.

The offender brought marijuana up from Ottawa and was selling it from his residence. The police executed a search warrant at the residence and seized .45 kilos of marijuana and $745.00 in cash. The offender had other charges before the court which he was also being sentenced on. [ 30 ] The sentence imposed on the charge of possession for the purposes of trafficking was a conditional sentence of one year followed by one year of probation. But for the amount of marijuana, the circumstances in R v Eeseemailee are similar to the matter before me. V. CONCLUSION [ 31 ] I am required to consider Mr.

Crockatt’s circumstances as an Aboriginal offender when determining an appropriate sentence. This requires not only that I take notice of systemic factors, such as colonization and the impacts of the residential school system, as factors that tend to bring Aboriginal people before the court in disproportionate numbers, but that I also consider any individualized factors that are unique to Mr. Crockatt; as previously discussed.

This requires the Court to consider sentencing sanctions that are appropriate to the circumstances of both the offender and his community. [ 32 ] I am required to consider sentencing options that will meet the principles and objectives of sentencing set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code , but which are also the least restrictive. [ 33 ] While the amount of marijuana seized was large, the drug seized is known as a “soft drug” as opposed to a hard drug such as cocaine. [ 34 ] I am of the view that rehabilitation is an important sentencing principle in this matter. I accept that Mr. Crockatt is remorseful.

I accept that specific deterrence is not a concern. [ 35 ] The sentence is:

• 4 months in custody; • 16 months’ probation with statutory conditions requiring he report within 5 days of release from custody to the probation office; • take counselling, as directed; • 100 hours community service work; • forfeiture of the drugs and the related paraphernalia; • a DNA order as this is a primary designated offence; and • a firearm prohibition for 10 years under Criminal Code

section 109. Dated at the City of Iqaluit this 22nd day of September, 2016 ___________________ Justice S. Cooper Nunavut Court of Justice