R. v. Reddock Date:, 2012 BCPC 143

Citation: R. v. Reddock Date: 20120502 2012 BCPC 0143 File No: 216629-1 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. JULLIAN JORDEA REDDOCK EXCERPTS FROM PROCEEDINGS REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE R. R. LOW Counsel for the Crown: M. McGivern Counsel for the Defendant: L. Myers; B. Anderson Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Judgment: May 2, 2012 [ 1 ] THE COURT: Twenty-six year old Mr. Reddock has pled guilty to the manslaughter of Neil Andrew Barnnett on March the

30th 2011. These are my reasons for sentence. [ 2 ] Essentially after a brief altercation on the streets of downtown Vancouver, Mr. Reddock stabbed Mr. Barnnett once. Mr. Barnnett died very shortly thereafter. [ 3 ] The Crown seeks a sentence of seven years less the 13 months Mr. Reddock has spent in pre-trial custody. The Defence seeks a sentence of three to four years less a credit of the pre-trial time in custody. [ 4 ] I have received the following materials: a victim impact statement; copies of Mr.

Reddock's criminal record and the probation order he was bound by on March the 30th 2011; plus a pre-sentence report; pre-sentence psychological evaluation prepared by Dr. Bartel; a sketch of the Vancouver streets where this event occurred; and briefs of case law prepared by the Crown and defence. [ 5 ] Mr. Barnnett's parents submitted a lengthy and eloquent victim impact statement. It was very difficult to read of the profound impact their son's death had on these two people. Clearly they have suffered a very deep loss and will probably never fully recover the life they used to enjoy with their son.

Due to their grief, they were unable to attend the sentencing proceedings, but other members of their family did. [ 6 ] Some of the events which led up to the stabbing were recorded by security video cameras operated in the area by the City of Vancouver and various businesses. Witnesses also provided statements to the police concerning what they observed of Mr. Reddock and Mr. Barnnett. [ 7 ] As is often the case, there were discrepancies amongst the witnesses' observations. I have based my sentence on the following circumstances. [ 8 ] Mr. Reddock and Mr. Barnnett were strangers. Mr.

Barnnett was the larger of the two men. I was not told Mr. Barnnett's specific age, but apparently he was older than Mr. Reddock. However, from the photograph attached to the victim impact statement, it does not appear there was a wide discrepancy in their respective ages. [ 9 ] For unknown reasons, Mr. Barnnett was in the vicinity of East Hastings and Columbia Street around 11:00 p.m. He was carrying a white plastic bag with groceries in it. There are no other witnesses to their initial contact, but according to Mr. Reddock, when he came upon Mr. Barnnett, Mr. Barnnett was urinating on the street.

This offended Mr. Reddock and so as he passed by, Mr. Reddock either slapped or punched Mr. Barnnett's back or neck and remonstrated with him. Mr. Barnnett reacted angrily to this intervention, which caused Mr. Reddock to run from Mr. Barnnett, cross to the north side of East Hastings Street, and proceed towards Carrall Street. What took place thereafter was recorded by surveillance cameras and observed by several witnesses. [ 10 ] Mr. Reddock entered Carrall Street and proceeded south. Mr. Barnnett who had run along the south side of East Hastings Street pursued Mr. Reddock. They ran down Carrall Street with Mr.

Reddock in the lead, to a vehicle parked on the east side of Carrall Street just north of the mouth of an alley which runs parallel to East Hastings Street. The two ran around the parked car. Although portions of various witness statements were read into the record, it is not clear who was chasing who around the car. However, the witnesses saw Mr. Reddock produce a knife and move away from the parked car into the alley. [ 11 ] Witnesses could hear Mr. Barnnett and Mr. Reddock discuss having a fight. The two exchanged angry words. Mr.

Barnnett appeared ready to engage in a fight, but made it clear he was not prepared to fight Mr. Reddock so long as he possessed the knife. Mr. Barnnett either swung his plastic bag or threw some of its contents at Mr. Reddock. Mr. Barnnett also kicked at the knife. Mr. Reddock took swipes with the knife at the air in front of Mr. Barnnett. Mr. Reddock then broke from the alley and again ran south on Carrall Street still carrying the knife. [ 12 ] Although the Crown initially took the position that Mr. Reddock chased Mr. Barnnett south on Carrall Street, this was contradicted to varying degrees by eye witnesses.

Mr. Reddock claimed through his counsel that indeed Mr. Barnnett was chasing him when they left the alley. Ultimately the Crown advised they would not be calling evidence to contradict this version. I accept that Mr. Barnnett pursued Mr. Reddock after he left the alley and headed south on Carrall Street towards Pender Street. [ 13 ] The two left Carrall Street and went west on Pender Street for a short distance where they stopped and confronted each other. An eye-witness, who was nearby on a motorcycle waiting for a traffic light to change, saw Mr. Reddock jab his knife at Mr. Barnnett.

This jab did not contact Mr. Barnnett and Mr. Barnnett then kicked at Mr. Reddock. Mr. Reddock jabbed the knife once more towards Mr. Barnnett and again the knife did not contact Mr. Barnnett. Mr. Reddock then raised the knife, stepped towards Mr. Barnnett and stabbed him in the heart. [ 14 ] Mr. Barnnett before he collapsed was able to flag down a passing vehicle. An ambulance subsequently took Mr. Barnnett to hospital where he shortly succumbed to his injury. [ 15 ] Mr. Reddock immediately fled the stabbing scene. By now the police had arrived. After a one block chase, Mr.

Reddock was arrested near the intersection of Hastings and Carrall Street. [ 16 ] Mr. Reddock later told police that while he was worried that Mr. Barnnett could hurt him in a fight, he was not afraid for his life. Mr. Reddock did not intend to kill Mr. Barnnett. Rather, according to Mr. Reddock, he decided to stab Mr. Barnnett to ensure Mr. Barnnett left him alone and to demonstrate that he was not to use Mr. Reddock's words, "a pussy". [ 17 ] The knife used to stab Mr. Barnnett was recovered at the scene. Part of its broken blade was recovered from Mr.

Barnnett's body by his attending surgeon. [ 18 ] Counsel have placed before me 16 different sentencing authorities. I have read them all but will refer only to some of them. The lowest sentence recorded by these authorities was in R. v. Johnson, [1987] B.C.J. No. 3023 (S.C.B.C.) where an effective sentence of four years 12 months was imposed by Mr. Justice Legg. Although it was remote in time from the offence, there was evidence of some

considerable provocation and alcohol was a factor. [19] The longest sentence imposed in the authorities provided was 12 years. In R. v. Aburto, 2009 BCCA 446, the Court upheld aneffective sentence of 12 years where the 33 year old accused with a significant record for violence planned and deliberately carried out asavage beating of his victim in his place of residence in order to enforce rules concerning the drug trade. [20] A common sentence in the authorities provided was seven or eight years. In R. v. Sousa, (BC CA), [1991]B.C.J.

No. 2758, a seven year sentence was imposed upon a 20 year old man with a somewhat related criminal record, who deliberatelybrought a knife to a confrontation and at the first opportunity, employed it with deadly force. [21] In R. v. Coopper, 2002 BCCA 259, an eight year sentence was upheld where a 19 year old man with a substantial record forviolence, although goaded to fight, armed himself with a knife and attacked the victim intending to harm him. [22] A feature of all of these cases is that the killings were near the murder side of the manslaughter continuum. In R. v. Ansari,[2009] B.C.J.

No. 1153, [sic] the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld a five year sentence imposed on a young man with no criminal recordwhose offending was described as an aberration. The trial judge described the circumstances as being in the mid range of themanslaughter spectrum and imposed a sentence within the range of four to six years suggested as a guide by R. v. Gillies, (BC CA), [1998] B.C.J. No. 1153, B.C. Court of Appeal, for most cases of manslaughter. [23] As was pointed out by the B.C. Court of Appeal at paragraph 10 of R. v. Fujimori, [1995] B.C.J.

No. 2648, when reviewing afive year sentence for manslaughter: It is often useful to distinguish between cases where death is caused by foolishness adventure, as opposed to deliberate criminal activity. If this case fell within the former category, it might be said that the sentence imposed in this case was more by at least a year or more,than was required to satisfy the principals of sentencing, particularly moral culpability and denunciation. The tendency of the accusedtowards violence however, as already mentioned, takes this case out of the class of less serious cases.

Persons who have a history ofviolence or whose violence is as excessive as it was in this case, must expect to be sentenced more severely. [24] The circumstances in R. v. R.E.A., [2003] B.C.J. No. 1377 are somewhat similar to the case before me. The accused was 25years old and had an extensive criminal record for violence. The deceased who was the bigger of the two men, started a fight with theaccused which ended when the accused stabbed the deceased twice, killing him. Both men had been using cocaine beforehand.

Thetrial judge imposed an effective sentence of two months shy of six years. [25] Generally speaking the authorities, given the gravity of the offence of manslaughter, even in the case of offenders who havejust become adults, give priority to the protection of the public, denunciation and deterrence, over rehabilitation of the accused. [26] Counsel also invoked s. 718 and s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code which sets out various factors I must consider in sentencingMr. Reddock.

All of those factors are summarized by s. 718.1 which provides that, "...a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity ofthe offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender." [27] It is necessary to first determine from the facts before me, where on the spectrum of manslaughter offences thesecircumstances are situated. The defence say they are more closely situated towards self defence, pointing to Mr. Barnnett's persistentpursuit of Mr. Reddock, his desire to fight with Mr. Reddock, and their disparity in size. [28] The Crown says the circumstances are much closer to actual murder given Mr.

Reddock's self-professed calculation to harmMr. Barnnett sufficiently so that he would stay away and to ensure that Mr. Reddock's peers knew Mr. Reddock was capable of takingcare of himself in such situations. [29] I have concluded that the circumstances placed Mr. Reddock's offending, somewhat to the murder side of the middle of thatspectrum. On the one hand, the larger Mr. Barnnett was persistent in his pursuit of Mr. Reddock and his announced intention to fightwith Mr. Reddock. Like the witnesses, it is difficult for me to understand why Mr. Barnnett continued to chase Mr. Reddock once heknew that Mr.

Reddock possessed a knife. On the other hand, Mr. Reddock knew that Mr. Barnnett was only prepared to fight withoutthe benefit of weapons such as a knife, and there is no evidence to suggest Mr. Reddock believed Mr. Barnnett was armed with any sortof effective weapon. Mr. Reddock deliberately intended to cause Mr. Barnnett significant harm when he stabbed him. Even if Mr.Reddock was acting in self defence, Mr. Reddock intended to use much more force than was necessary to protect himself. Although Mr.Reddock did not specifically intend to kill Mr. Barnnett he targeted Mr. Barnnett's chest area.

A person who stabs another in the area oftheir heart runs a high risk of killing them. Mr. Reddock's comments afterwards indicate he clearly knew there was a likelihood he hadcaused Mr. Barnnett's death. Finally, not only did Mr. Reddock resort to excessive force in defending himself, but it was also clear on hisown statements that Mr. Reddock stabbed Mr. Barnnett to send a message to everyone in the area, not just Mr. Barnnett. [30] I have considered the following as aggravating circumstances. There is no evidence Mr. Reddock was other than entirelysober at the time of the offence.

This adds to the deliberateness of his actions when he resolved to stab Mr. Barnnett. [31] Mr. Reddock was on probation at the time for assault and mischief. One of the terms of his probation order was not topossess weapons or knives. Mr. Reddock advised that not only did he not want to be on probation and therefore moved away fromVancouver to avoid the order, but continued his custom of carrying a knife for protection. He had been sentenced to 27 days jail onMarch the 9th 2011 for carrying a knife in breach of the order, and had been released from custody just five days before his encounterwith Mr.

Barnnett. [32] Mr. Reddock has a substantial related criminal record. As a young person from the age of 13 in 1999, he was convictedduring the next five years of a variety of criminal offences, many of which involved violence and weapons. He was convicted threetimes of robbery and twice for carrying concealed weapons. As an adult he was first convicted in 2006 of robbery and sentenced to 30months jail. He was also convicted in other years of threatening, carrying a concealed weapon, assault causing bodily harm and assaultwith a weapon.

The last two convictions were reported in 2009 and he received a global sentence of 14 months. His last conviction was

in 2010 for assault for which he served the equivalent of 60 days jail and was on probation as described above. [ 33 ] The pre-sentence report and the psychological report do not portray a favourable picture of Mr. Reddock. Although he did not provide a great deal of information about his boyhood to the authors of these reports, it appears that his home life was dysfunctional and he spent a lot of his formative years in foster homes. The results of that environment are reflected in his youth record. [ 34 ] Probation Officer Jones reported that Mr. Reddock, while in pre-trial custody, has been difficult to manage.

He has been in verbal and physical altercations with inmates and staff. According to Ms. Jones, Mr. Reddock blamed corrections staff for the incidents. [ 35 ] Dr. Bartel described Mr. Reddock as having a number of personality disorders which Dr. Bartel stated were consistent with anti-social and psychopathic personality. Dr. Bartel opined at page 6 of his report that: Mr. Reddock presents as a high risk for future violent offending.

His risk to re-offend is indicated by a lengthy history of serious violence and non-violent criminality, early initiation of violence, early and life-long behavioural maladjustment, repeated supervision failures, employment problems, likely substance abuse problems, and psychopathy and personality disorder. [ 36 ] There are mitigating factors. First, Mr. Reddock pled guilty. While it is true the case against him was very strong, his guilty plea nonetheless saved the cost of a lengthy trial and further trauma for the witnesses and Mr. Barnnett's family. I accept that Mr.

Reddock entered the plea to accept responsibility for his offending and to express his remorse. [ 37 ] Second, although given Mr. Reddock's propensity for violence and his attitude after the offence, I am sceptical he attacked Mr. Barnnett out of fear -- I am sorry. Second, although given Mr. Reddock's propensity for violence and his attitude after the offence, I am sceptical that he attacked Mr. Barnnett out of fear; however I accept that Mr. Reddock was provoked by Mr. Barnnett's actions. [ 38 ] Third, Mr. Reddock is a relatively young man. [ 39 ] Fourth, Mr.

Reddock has since his guilty plea, expressed his remorse during various court appearances. In a rambling statement to the court, he repeatedly stated his remorse together with his intention to learn from this tragedy. [ 40 ] His counsel advances two other factors in mitigation. First, according to Mr. Reddock, a large part of his violent tendencies were learned in response to the need to protect himself from other prison inmates. According to Mr. Reddock, much of his criminal record is as a result of him having to resort to violence in prisons to prevent harm to himself.

However, not only is it difficult to determine from his criminal record which of his offences occurred while he was in prison, given Ms. Jones and Dr. Bartel's reports, it is likely that Mr. Reddock was in fact a person that other inmates needed to be protected from. [ 41 ] Second, since his incarceration on this offence, Mr. Reddock has been closely studying the tenets of the Jewish faith. He believes that through subscribing to the principles of this faith, he will find the means to overcome his violent tendencies. While this is a commendable approach for Mr.

Reddock to take, I am enormously sceptical that all Mr. Reddock needs is the spiritual guidance of a Rabbi, to put his criminal activities behind him. He is mistaken to believe that he does not need or would benefit from any correctional program. This mistaken belief underscores Dr. Bartel's opinion concerning Mr. Reddock's risk to re-offend. [ 42 ] After considering all of these factors, I have concluded that the protection of the public plus denunciation and deterrence, and in particular specific deterrence to Mr. Reddock, must outweigh consideration of his rehabilitation. He must be in prison for this offence.

On the other hand, despite the enormous tragedy wrought by Mr. Reddock, the circumstances of this offence do not warrant a sentence at the high end of the scale for manslaughter. [ 43 ] A fit sentence would be six years jail. Mr. Reddock's record will reflect that he is entitled to a credit of 13 months for the time he has spent in pre-trial custody.

The net sentence is four years, 11 months jail. [ 44 ] He is banned for life from possessing the items proscribed by s. 109 of the Criminal Code . [ 45 ] I direct that a sample of his DNA be taken before his release. [ 46 ] I waive the imposition of the victim fine surcharge as it is unlikely Mr. Reddock will be able to pay this in the foreseeable future. [ 47 ] I thank counsel for their assistance with this difficult matter. [ 48 ] THE ACCUSED: Thank you, sir. [ 49 ] MR. MYERS: Thank you, Your Honour. [ 50 ] MS. MCGIVERN: Thank you, Your Honour. [ 51 ] MR.

MYERS: He thanked the court when he left, just so you know; Mr. Reddock did. [ 52 ] THE COURT: Yes, I understand. Thank you Mr. Myers. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)