R. v. Stonehouse Date:, 2016 BCPC 269

Citation: R. v. Stonehouse Date: 20160715 2016 BCPC 269 File No: 217778-1 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal Division REGINA v. ROGER MATTHEW STONEHOUSE ORAL RULING ON APPLICATION OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE D.R. GARDNER Counsel for the Crown: D. Assonitis Counsel for the Defendant: J. Myers Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Date of Hearing: July 15, 2016 Date of Judgment: July 15, 2016

[ 1 ] THE COURT : Mr. Stonehouse was arrested and taken into custody this past weekend. Apparently the officers attended a residence in response to a 9-1-1 call from a female who turned out to be the complainant in Count 3, Erika Croft. The complaint was that the accused tried to enter her suite through a window after having a fight with his father. She then went to the bathroom in order to protect herself and her young son. [ 2 ] At 10:45 p.m., she apparently heard yelling and fighting between the accused and his father. When the police attended, they noted that the father was visibly bleeding from the head.

The accused had apparently fled. [ 3 ] The police spoke to a cab driver who was at the scene. The cab driver told them that when the accused was being driven to the residence he told the cab driver he was going there to kill someone. [ 4 ] Earlier that day the father of the accused had picked him up from cells in Delta. An argument took place on the way home and he told the accused to get out of the car and walk home. [ 5 ] At some point he told Ms. Croft that he was going to kill her. Apparently she had helped the accused's girlfriend or ex- girlfriend to find another place to live.

I am viewing this in the sense that Mr. Stonehouse does not appear to have taken the breakup with his girlfriend very graciously. [ 6 ] He returned at 1:30 a.m. The police arrived. They heard yelling and screaming. Apparently this is the point where he had threatened to kill Ms. Croft for assisting his girlfriend. He also had broken a window and had entered the residence through the broken window. [ 7 ] The accused has five breaches on his record and more than 12 criminal offences on his record which takes him into the "a lot" category of offenders.

He does not have a record of violence but it seems he became unglued on this occasion, unglued to the point where he is breaking a window to get into the residence and he is telling a cab driver, who I assume is a stranger to him, that he is going there for the purpose of killing someone. [ 8 ] It has been suggested that he has a bed available at a recovery home.

I have sent a lot of people to recovery homes when they have admitted to the court that they have a problem with substance abuse but if I am going to send somebody to a recovery home, first of all I have to be satisfied that he is going to obey the directions of the court. I do not have that confidence. Not only does he have five breaches as an adult, he has a number of breaches as a youth as well.

But I am also equally concerned, if not more so, that the allegations that led up to his arrest involve engaging in this very violent behaviour, if he chooses to leave Visions they will call the police but it is not a secure environment and he would not be the first person to leave a recovery home within a few days of being ordered to live there. [ 9 ] It has been described by his counsel as a heated situation but, from what I can gather, it was the accused's choice to elevate this heated argument into a physical encounter. I just wish to emphasize he is not in custody simply because of a verbal argument.

His behaviour on that occasion indicates to me that he was out of control at that stage and I am not comforted by the fact that he has a place to reside, a recovery home, if he is released, and I am not comforted by the fact that he is able to post cash bail.

Cash bail usually addresses the court's concerns on a primary basis. [ 10 ] Given the level of violence that was involved here, given what seems to be, on the face of it, a very strong Crown case, I am ordering him detained on the secondary grounds. [PROCEEDINGS] [ 11 ] THE COURT: There will be a no-contact order with both the named complainants. (RULING CONCLUDED)