R. v. Bajwa Date:, 2016 BCPC 445

Citation: R. v. Bajwa Date: 20161017 2016 BCPC 445 File No: 212263-1 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. KHORUM MAHMOOD BAJWA ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE K. ARTHUR-LEUNG Counsel for the Crown: M. Stacey Counsel for the Defendant: J. Tarnow Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Date of Hearing: May 20, 2016; October 12, 2016 Date of Judgment: October 17, 2016

[ 1 ] Mr. Bajwa appears before me for sentencing after entering a guilty plea to Count 1 of the Information wherein on or about the 31 st day of July 2015, at or near Delta, in the Province of British Columbia, did rob Lisa Finn of money, contrary to

Section 344 of the Criminal Code of Canada . [ 2 ] The facts are not in dispute, that Mr. Bajwa was employed at a Shell gas station located on Annacis Island in Delta, British Columbia, and during the course of his employment had sustained an injury to his foot. He had been employed at this location for approximately nine months prior to the offence. There was a disagreement between Mr. Bajwa and his employer about his required duties and Mr. Bajwa was unhappy having to undertake some tasks in the course of his employment considering the injury to his foot. As a result, Mr. Bajwa planned to rob his place of employment as

an act of revenge against his employer. There is no dispute the motivation behind the robbery was revenge. There is also no dispute that Mr. Bajwa planned this robbery. It may not have been fully thought out in terms of success, however, it was planned and given forethought. [ 3 ] On July 31 st , 2015, at approximately 12:35 a.m., Mr. Bajwa entered his place of employment and into the convenience store located at 12191 Cliveden Avenue, Delta, British Columbia. He approached the staff on duty who were his colleagues, wearing a hoody and wearing a ski mask, concealing his identity while possessing a knife.

Crown submits that the complainant stated that a knife was seen, however, defence counsel submits that the knife was not visible on the security video. The security video was not presented to this court, therefore, the minimum consensus is that Mr. Bajwa was carrying a steak knife on his person that was within the sleeve of his hoody. He approached his work colleagues, disguised, and threatened to stab them if they did not give him money. The sum of $1,462 in cash was deposited into a bag and handed to Mr.

Bajwa, where he then left the premises. [ 4 ] In his endeavour of planning the robbery, he pre-booked a taxi, fully intending at the completion of the robbery to enter a taxi and flee the premises. However, the taxi arrived before the time that he requested it to arrive and departed the premises, leaving Mr. Bajwa on Annacis Island with no mode of transportation to flee. [ 5 ] The police were called and attended on the scene at approximately 12:41 a.m., where a police dog tracker with a canine was dispatched, and Mr. Bajwa and the contents of the stolen money were located. Mr.

Bajwa sustained a bite on his arm from the canine and required some stitches. [ 6 ] I have reviewed both the Pre-Sentence Report and the updated Pre-Sentence Report. Mr. Bajwa appears before this court with no criminal record. He is currently 22 years of age, has had a positive family upbringing and currently resides at home with his parents. He attends a local mosque four times per week and volunteers there once per week, teaching a class to young children.

He graduated from high school in 2011, and was attending BCIT in September 2015 on a part-time basis in the financial management diploma program, however, he has since withdrawn from that program. He self-reports no concerns with his mental health, however, acknowledges that he has difficulty managing his emotions and attributes this offence to that difficulty. He has been attending counselling since January 2016 on a monthly basis, and acknowledges that this has assisted him.

He has not consumed any alcohol since December 2015, and denies using any illegal substances. [ 7 ] He has performed well while on bail and there have been no allegations of any noncompliance. The original bail was granted by the Honourable Judge Oulton on August 7, 2015, without deposit and with one or more sureties of $15,000, with terms that included not to be outside his place of residence between the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., seven days per week, without the prior written consent of his bail supervisor.

He was also required, amongst other terms, to provide his bail supervisor with his BCIT class schedule. [ 8 ] That bail was varied by Judge Oulton on October 22, 2015, plus he was not to be outside his place of residence seven days per week between the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., except with the written consent of his bail supervisor, and an allowance to travel to and from his residence to attend religious observations at his mosque from Sunday to Thursday while in the accompaniment of his father. [ 9 ] That bail was further amended on August 6, 2016 before the Honourable Judge Dossa wherein, amongst other terms, he was not to be outside a place of residence between the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., seven days per week, except with the written consent of his bail supervisor, for the purposes of travelling from his residence to his mosque while in the accompaniment of his father, and there was one named week time period exception, in the accompaniment of family members. [ 10 ] I have read the report dated August 24, 2016, which was a psychological assessment report undertaken of Mr.

Bajwa. He self- reported that the motivation was revenge, because a few weeks before the offence the electronic gas price station had stopped working and the employees had to use a ladder to climb to change the price of fuel, and on one occasion he fell off and hurt his foot. He asked for time off, however, his employer refused, stating that he had no one to cover the shift. This upset Mr.

Bajwa. [ 11 ] He self-discloses that he planned the robbery on July 29, 2015, a few days before the offence, and on page 2 of the report it states: He noted that the concept of robbery had always been present because there were frequent discussions amongst employees about what to do if a robbery were to occur. On this day his foot was hurting and he asked the manager not to have to take out the garbage because of the pain. His request was denied and he was informed that he had to do it.

This reinforced his idea that his employer did not care and the thought of the robbery came as a way to get back at them. [ 12 ] The report continues to note that Mr. Bajwa spent about three hours formulating the plan on July 31 st and a further one hour at home gathering items. Bajwa self-discloses that he felt "embarrassed, ashamed and disappointed in himself", and stated that he did have a wonderful relationship with the two employees with whom he robbed.

He acknowledged that the fellow employees were "shocked, scared and terrified" on page 3 of the report. [ 13 ] The results of the psychological testing found on page 7 of the report note that his intellectual test results fell at the 10 th percentile, and a second subtest resulted in the borderline range of the 3 rd percentile, resulting in a finding that he is relatively low

functioning in terms of aspirations and would function better at repetitive tasks rather than complex problem solving. [14] He does have some anxiety arising from the event that occurred. He denies any suicidal thoughts or thoughts of self-harm.

Thereport found a complete absence of risk factors, including no known history of violence; no known antisocial behaviour; no pattern ofdrug or alcohol use; no major mental illness; personal support; no mood or behavioural instability; no personality disorder; and is able toundertake daily life responsibilities, thus concluding that he is a low risk for future violence. [15] At the conclusion of the submissions from counsel, Mr. Bajwa appeared before me and apologized for his actions. He statedthat he broke his family both emotionally and financially.

His intention that evening was not to hurt anyone, however, it is agreed uponthat he did carry a knife on him; that he feels deeply ashamed; that he wishes to write letters of apology to his former co-workers; andthat he wishes to take full responsibilities for his actions. [16] Crown counsel is seeking a period of incarceration of 12 months and defence counsel is seeking a period of 90 daysincarceration to be served intermittently on the weekends. [17] R. v. Brogan, 1999 BCCA 278, a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, is the leading authority on sentencing for anarmed robbery in British Columbia.

It stands for the proposition that the sentencing range is two to nine years, also noting that s.718.2(

b) of the Criminal Code of Canada requires similar offences to be imposed in similar circumstances for similar offences.

Morespecifically, at paragraph 10 of the Brogan decision the court stated: The age of the offender, his previous criminal experience, the level of violence, the number of offences, the level of premeditation,whether the perpetrator was disguised or not, the type of weapon used and how it was used, the possibility of rehabilitation, therequirement of deterrence in a particular community, are some of the factors which serve to distinguish one fact pattern from another. [18] It is important to note that Brogan provided a range, and no one fact pattern fits another.

Sentencing is an art and unless there isa requirement such as the mandatory sanction or a minimum, it must be crafted taking into consideration the principles of sentencing, thefacts before the sentencing judge, and the circumstances of the offender and of the offence itself. [19] Crown counsel seeks to rely upon the British Columbia Provincial Court decision of R. v. Tattersall, 2016 BCPC 81, a decisionof the Honourable Judge Doulis, out of the Prince George Registry. A sentence of two years less a day was imposed on a bank robber.

In imposing the sentence, Judge Doulis took into consideration the premeditated nature of the offence, that the defender was disguised,an absence of prior criminal entries, a guilty plea, and a high prospect of rehabilitation. The similarities to the matter before me includepreplanning, carrying a weapon, wearing a disguise, running away on foot, threatening employees on duty, and remorse. However,factors in the Tattersall matter that are not before me include that Mr. Tattersall was of indigenous background; he had a horrific familyupbringing that included sexual abuse; he also had a substance abuse problem; Mr.

Tattersall's wife had become ill; and the offence wascommitted for financial reasons. However, for Mr. Bajwa, he committed the offence simply out of revenge to this boss. [20] Crown counsel also seeks to rely upon R. v. Muncey, 2014 BCSC 855, a decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court,wherein the court imposed a global five-year sentence for a robbery with the use of an imitation firearm. Similarities to the matterbefore me include that both the accused were remorseful. However, dissimilarities include that Mr.

Muncey was not masked in thecommission of the offence; he was on a probation order at the time of the offence; and he had a lengthy criminal record. [21] Defence counsel relies upon a number of authorities of which not all were reviewed at the sentencing submissions. However, Ihave ensured that I have reviewed each case as follows. [22] R. v. Brooks, 2011 ONCJ 447 , [2011] O.J. No. 4127, wherein Mr. Brooks entered a plea of guilty to two counts ofrobbery and one count of attempted theft. The trial judge stated that such warranted a period of incarceration of six to nine months.

However, the judge carefully considered the strict bail terms upon which Mr. Brooks had been placed, including house arrest, andimposed a sentence of 60 days to be served intermittently. While both Mr. Brooks and Mr. Bajwa were similar in age and active in theirlocal communities, Mr. Brooks was subject to a strict bail for 18 months and house arrest of six months. Mr. Bajwa has not been subjectto house arrest at any time, and over the course of the time his curfew had been amended and varied with conditions. [23] R. v. Conlon, [2011] A.J. No. 1422.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the sentence of 90 days incarceration to beserved intermittently. While both Mr. Conlon and Mr. Bajwa were on bail conditions for the curfew, Mr. Conlon's bail was over a three-year period, seven days per week, and was only varied two months before his guilty plea. In addition, Mr. Conlon had significantsubstance abuse issues with both alcohol and illegal substances. The time from the offence date to the plea in Mr. Conlon's matter wasthree years. The intermittent sentence was imposed to allow Mr.

Conlon to work and such employment allowed him to pay the court-ordered restitution. [24] R. v. Desmond, [2012] B.C.J. No. 633. This 2012 decision by the court imposed a sentence of 90 days incarceration to beserved intermittently for three counts of robbery. However, in the matter before me, and unlike in the Desmond matter, Mr. Bajwa hadpre-planned the offence, and it was a joint submission. [25] R. v. Fleming, [2013] N.J. No. 9 is a decision wherein Mr. Fleming entered a guilty plea to an attempted robbery and to using aforged prescription. He had an addiction and threatened to use a gun.

He was sentenced to 90 days to be served intermittently, to befollowed by a two-year probation order. While also in the Fleming matter and with Mr. Bajwa, neither have a criminal record. However, Mr. Fleming was addicted to drugs after sustaining a shoulder injury and a family member had committed suicide. [26] R. v. Huff, [2013] A.J. No. 527. In 2013, Mr. Huff entered a guilty plea to robbing a bank, and was sentenced to 90 days and an18-month probation order. Mr. Huff had pre-planned the offence.

He wore a disguise in the form of makeup and a ball cap, had avehicle waiting to allow him to exit after the offence, and had dyed his hair. However, Mr. Huff had a traumatic childhood. He wasdiagnosed with cancer seven years before the sentencing date, struggled with depression and was unable to maintain employment. Theoffence was committed to financially allow his daughter to attend a softball tournament trip. Those factors were not before me with Mr.Bajwa.

[27] R. v. King, [1990] M.J. No. 414. In the King decision, there was an appeal of a one-year sentence rendered at trial after a guiltyplea to Mr. King being a party to a robbery. The Manitoba Court of Appeal imposed a 90 day intermittent sentence upon Mr. King, andwhile similar to Mr. Bajwa, Mr. King was young. Mr. King had a short criminal record and like Mr. Bajwa, had a prospect ofrehabilitation. Mr. King, however, actively sought treatment for his alcohol abuse and his employer, Boeing Canada, where he workedfull-time, strongly supported him.

These were significant factors for the intermittent sentence, thus allowing Mr. King to maintain hisemployment and not lose his job. [28] R. v. Mikhail, [2015] O.J. No. 4471. In this decision, Mr. McHale was a young man with no criminal record, and he pled guiltyto four counts of robbery with an expression of remorse. His bail was strict house arrest that only permitted absence for employmentpurposes, where Mr.

Bajwa has an evening house arrest, including exceptions to attend his mosque and also "with the prior writtenconsent of his bail supervisor", thus not making this as strict a bail order, as defence counsel wishes to convince this court, in the matterbefore me. Mr. McHale participated in excess of 297 hours of counselling, which was to be commended, and while Mr. Bajwa isengaged in counselling, it commenced less than one year ago and is far short of that completed by Mr. McHale. In addition, Mr. McHalepaid a significant amount of monies towards restitution. [29] R. v. Nghiem, 2009 BCCA 170. Mr.

Nghiem pled guilty to two counts of sexual assault and one count of possession of afirearm. Defence counsel, in the matter before me, impresses upon this court to consider this decision for the proposition that it standsfor regarding strict bail terms, in that it is within the discretion of the trial judge to consider strict bail terms and conditions that a personwas placed upon before the disposition of the matter. More particularly, at paragraph 11, the court stated: With respect to credit of compliance with strict bail conditions, it seems to me that this was a matter within the discretion of the trialjudge.

A sentencing judge is generally required to give some credit for time spent by an accused in pre-trial custody ...Time spent onbail conditions, even strict ones, is not treated in the same way. [30] In Nghiem the court relied upon the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Irvine, 2008 MBCA 34, and at paragraph 27stated: The impact of the bail conditions on an accused person are to be "put into the mix" along with other potential mitigating factors such asthe relative youth of the accused, the lack of a record, prospects for rehabilitation, remorse, family responsibilities and the like.

Unlikethe "credit" to be given - after the fit and appropriate sentence has been determined - for time spent in pre-trial custody, any considerationto be given for pre-trial bail occurs at the same time as the sentencing judge considers all of the other mitigating and aggravating factors. Time spent on pre-trial bail, in contrast to pre-trial custody, does not form part of the punishment itself; rather, it forms part of the initialanalysis to arrive at the fit and appropriate sentence. [31] R. v. Panchan, 2013 ONSC 5567 , [2013] O.J. No. 4022.

The distinction in the Panchan decision is that there was athree-year delay in time to trial for a conviction for a first-time offender being young in age, and a conviction for one count of robbery. In addition, the distinction in the matter before me is that Mr. Bajwa was the sole planner and participant in the offence, whereas Ms.Panchan did not engage in violence and was a party to an offence. Further, there was no weapon used in the Panchan matter. [32] R. v. Secter, [2012] A.J. No. 403 is a 2012 decision wherein Mr.

Secter received a 90-day intermittent sentence that wasfollowed by an 18-month probation order. Factors in support of that decision that are similar to that of Mr. Bajwa include a supportivefamily, a guilty plea, an expression of remorse and no criminal record. However, the differences to the matter before me are striking inthat Mr. Secter was not the key participant to the robbery and merely drove the getaway vehicle. He had a historical family traumaarising from his childhood and he was diagnosed with ADHD. [33] And finally, R. v. Valliers, [2014] B.C.J. No. 896, a 2014 decision of the British Columbia courts.

Mr. Valliers was ultimatelysentenced to 160 days in jail, less enhanced credit for pre-trial detention of 70 days, which was significant. The balance was servedintermittently in addition to a two-year probation order. The pre-trial time in custody taken into consideration was significant and washarsher than a bail order, making this distinctive. Mr. Valliers was on a downward spiral being addicted to crack cocaine.

He hadfamily problems and was addicted to crack cocaine at the time of the offence. [34] As noted, the key decision for sentencing purposes on a robbery charge in British Columbia is that of the Brogan decision. It isthe gold standard in which both counsel and the court are required to ensure has been considered, and I have done so. I will repeat, onceagain, at paragraph 10, wherein Madam Justice Ryan succinctly summarized: An analysis of the range produced by these cases is that the sentencing range is somewhere between 2 and 9 years.

The age of theoffender, his previous criminal experience, the level of violence, the number of offences, the level of premeditation, whether theperpetrator was disguised or not, the type of weapon used and how it was used, the possibility of rehabilitation, the requirement ofdeterrence in a particular community, are some of the factors which serve to distinguish one fact pattern from another. [35] The Brogan decision imposes a range and outlines factors for consideration that impact sentences to be imposed not only withinthat range, but also for offenders that may be outside of that range.

No one fact pattern will fit another. Sentencing is an art and it is nota one-size-fits-all approach. For every case presented in support of a submission, there will be both similar and dissimilar fact patterns. However, courts are guided by similar offences with similar offenders with similar circumstances. [36] I am also guided by s. 718 of the Criminal Code of Canada wherein the purpose and principles are set out.

The purpose ofsentencing is for the protection of the community, to ensure respect for the law and to maintain a peaceful community by imposingsanctions that will denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims; to deter the offenders and others from committing such anoffence; to assist in the rehabilitation of offenders; to provide reparations for harms done to the victim or the community by the offender;and to promise responsibility on the part of the offender. [37] The principles of deterrence, denunciation and rehabilitation all must be carefully balanced and considered in the crafting of asentence.

In doing so, the trial judge must be guided by s. 718 of the Criminal Code of Canada, case law, and both the aggravating andmitigating circumstances of the particular offender and the offence before the trial judge.

[ 38 ] In carefully considering the matter before me, I am not convinced by the submissions of both Crown and defence counsel. Those submissions, while articulate, are not convincing for the matter before me. That being said, I do however concur that the sentence to be imposed upon Mr. Bajwa falls outside of the range articulated in the Brogan decision. [ 39 ] The aggravating factors before me are that this offence was committed by Mr.

Bajwa against his fellow employees, and while they did not know who he was at the time of the offence, they were in a place of employment, in an isolated area of the Lower Mainland known as Annacis Island, in a convenience store with a gas station in the middle of the night, thus, leaving his co-workers in a vulnerable position, and by his actions, he has no doubt left them traumatized and emotionally devastated by that act of the robbery. [ 40 ] Defence counsel respectfully submits that Mr.

Bajwa only placed a few hours of thought into the planning process of the robbery and in the end, particularly with the taxi leaving the scene in the middle of the night on Annacis Island, thus leaving Mr. Bajwa stranded and so he took flight, shows unsophistication. The fact, however, is that Mr. Bajwa pre-planned this offence, and he put time and effort into the planning process, including wearing a disguise in the form of a ski mask; he carried a kitchen knife on him; he committed the offence in the middle of the night when there would have been few people around; he threatened to stab his co-worker. Mr.

Bajwa's motive for the offence was that of seeking revenge against his employer, simply because an electronic gas price sign was not working, and he injured his foot and sought accommodation. [ 41 ] Revenge is an aggravating factor. There were clearly legal avenues available to Mr. Bajwa if he was unhappy with his employer. Pre-planning a robbery with a disguise and having a knife on his person for the purpose of revenge against an employer is very troubling. [ 42 ] The fact that Mr. Bajwa wore a disguise in the form of a ski mask to conceal his identity is very disturbing. Mr.

Bajwa chose to carry a knife on his person and threaten to stab his co-worker. Mr. Bajwa fled on foot from the scene with $1,462 of money in a bag. Carrying a weapon on his person, even if not visibly produced, and threatening the victim are aggravating factors for consideration in sentencing. Mr. Bajwa took off on foot after the offence and was located by the police canine unit, and the monies were recovered. [ 43 ] Mitigating factors for consideration include that Mr. Bajwa appears before me as a young adult with no criminal record.

He has a conditional discharge which correctly means no criminal record before me. Mr. Bajwa is actively involved in his local mosque including volunteering as a youth leader. Mr. Bajwa apologized before me at sentencing and is remorseful. He outlined the impact that this has had on his family and his community. He explained that he had no intentions of hurting anyone; however, this flies in the face of the fact that he had a knife on his person and he threatened to stab the victim, his co-worker, if the monies were not to be handed over. He has entered a guilty plea in this matter.

He has undertaken counselling for approximately 10 months. [ 44 ] Mr. Bajwa is at a low risk to reoffend and rehabilitation is possible. He has the support of his mother and of his father. There are letters of support from his family, a member of his mosque, a former employer, and confirmation of volunteering at BCIT. He was fully compliant on all of his bail orders. [ 45 ] Defence counsel places emphasis that Mr. Bajwa was on a strict bail order. I have carefully reviewed the terms of the bail order and respectfully disagree. Unlike the Nghiem matter, Mr. Bajwa spent little time in pre-trial custody. Mr.

Nghiem was given an enhanced credit of 70 days in addition to strict bail terms. Mr. Nghiem was under strict house arrest for a period, and thereafter, relaxed conditions. Mr. Bajwa's bail orders are very different. The initial bail order of August 7, 2015, placed Mr. Bajwa on a curfew not to be outside his place of residence between the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. However, of particular note, it specifically allowed for consent from his bail supervisor for blanket exceptions. That is not unduly harsh or strict within that blanket exception being granted.

There were no submissions made by defence counsel where Mr. Bajwa was denied any request for exceptions that he made to his bail supervisor, or anything that precluded his attendance or participation. Further, the court was mindful of Mr. Bajwa's religious observations and allowed for attendance at his mosque. The initial bail order was shortly varied thereafter on October 22, 2015, but again maintained the same curfew; however, again contained the same blanket exception "with the written permission of the bail supervisor", and so too permitted attendance and participation at his mosque.

Finally, his bail was once again varied on August 5, 2016, that contained the same curfew hours, however, contained the same blanket standard exception clause, continuing to allow his attendance and participation at the mosque, and also contained a period of a blanket curfew exception in the accompaniment of a family member. These terms were not house arrest.

There was nothing that precluded his attendance at school, nor his engagement in employment. [ 46 ] Factors prevalent throughout the case law submitted regarding intermittent sentences unique to the matter before me included a traumatic family background, being indigenous, having employing in place and the support of the employer, financial stress and significant addiction issues. None of these are before me. Mr. Bajwa attended BCIT briefly and was briefly employed. He is neither attending school nor employed at this time. Mr.

Bajwa, if you will please stand. [ 47 ] In conclusion, in carefully considering and reviewing all of the foregoing, I will impose a six-month period of incarceration upon Mr. Bajwa to be followed by a 12-month probation order. There will be a mandatory DNA order and a mandatory 10-year firearms prohibition. [ 48 ] These are my reasons. [ 49 ] MR. STACEY: Did Your Honour – I'm sorry, I might have missed that. Did Your Honour impose probation? [ 50 ] THE COURT: Twelve months. [ 51 ] MR. STACEY: Okay. So we just need conditions on that. [ 52 ] THE COURT: Absolutely. Mr. Sheriff, if we could please have Mr.

Bajwa stand there so he can be aware of the conditions of his probation order. [ 53 ] You are to keep the peace and be of good behaviour; appear before this court as and when required to do so.

[ 54 ] Within 72 business hours of your release, you are to report in person to your bail supervisor, and thereafter, as and when directed to do so. [ 55 ] You are not to go within a one-block radius of 12191 Cliveden Avenue, Delta, British Columbia. [ 56 ] You are to have no contact directly or indirectly with Lisa Finn.

You are not to go within a one-block radius of any known, or may become known to you, residence, workplace, school and place of worship of Lisa Finn. [ 57 ] There will be a firearms prohibition. [ 58 ] There will be a knives prohibition, save and except in the immediate preparation and consumption of food. [ 59 ] You will abstain absolutely from the possession and consumption of alcohol and those drugs as defined by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act . [ 60 ] You will enrol, attend and successfully complete to the satisfaction of your probation officer any and all such counselling as so may be directed. [ 61 ] Within the first 10 months of this probation order you are to complete to the satisfaction of your probation hours 30 hours of community work service to be completed outside of your mosque. [ 62 ] Any other terms? [ 63 ] MR.

STACEY: Just the standalone firearm prohibition should be 10 years under Section109. [ 64 ] THE COURT: That 109 order goes for a 10-year period. [ 65 ] MR. STACEY: And a DNA order, please, under 487 – [ 66 ] THE COURT: I did indicate that the DNA order goes. [ 67 ] MR. TARNOW: I just want to speak to the probation condition that relates to no possession of knives. [ 68 ] THE COURT: Save and except in the immediate preparation and consumption of food and the actual course of lawful employment. [ 69 ] MR. TARNOW: Thank you. [ 70 ] THE COURT: And victim surcharge fine, he will have 10 months to pay. [ 71 ] MR.

TARNOW: Sorry. Course of lawful employment and perhaps Your Honour would consider educational purposes because he's going to be going to school to be an electrician. [ 72 ] THE COURT: And in the actual course of attendance during education. [ 73 ] MR. TARNOW: Thank you. [ 74 ] THE COURT: Thank you. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)