R. v. Manhas, 2018 BCPC 391

Citation: R. v. Manhas 2018 BCPC 391 Date: 20181119 File No: 219289-1 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal Court REGINA v. AMRIT S. MANHAS REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE D.A. JAHANI Counsel for the Crown: E. Blanaru Counsel for the Defendant: P. Dutt Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Date of Hearing: November 7, 2018 Date of Judgment: November 19, 2018 [ 1 ] Mr. Manhas is before the Court having pled guilty to one count of trafficking in cocaine on April 1, 2016.

[ 2 ] The nature of the trafficking involved selling $80 worth of crack cocaine to an undercover officer when the officer called the Surrey dial-a-dope line. Mr. Manhas was the driver of the car who met with the undercover officer to sell him the cocaine. In further discussion with the undercover officer, Mr. Manhas entertained the idea of selling more drugs to him in exchange for a particular type of alcohol. [ 3 ] Mr. Manhas’ vehicle was followed and surveilled after the sale to the officer. It was observed that Mr.

Manhas’ vehicle had one additional “meet” where the surveillance team believes trafficking occurred: A pedestrian approached the car and then walked away. The car made a second stop thereafter and picked up a passenger. [ 4 ] The car went and parked at the Surrey Central Mall. Officers made the decision to arrest after the driver and passenger exited the car. Upon the police call to arrest, the passenger, who was a youth, ran to the mall entrance and the driver, Mr. Manhas, was found hiding in the parkade and was arrested. [ 5 ] Search incident to arrest of Mr.

Manhas resulted in finding $610 in cash in various denominations, inclusive of the undercover buy money, a white cell phone and keys to the car. [ 6 ] The passenger, as he was running away, threw away a dialer bag with packaged drugs for sale; his search incident to arrest resulted in $250 in cash, a ZTE cell phone which was the surrey dial-a-dope line, which was ringing and three drug calls were answered. [ 7 ] The dialer bag contained: 5.3 gram of heroine/fentanyl in 39 packages, 0.6 grams of meth in 2 baggies, and 6.07g of cocaine (crack and powder) in 26 packages. [ 8 ] It is not disputed that Mr.

Manhas was involved in a dial-a-dope operation. Position of the Parties [ 9 ] Crown’s position is nine months of jail time along with the mandatory s.109 Weapon Order, and secondary discretionary DNA Order, along with a s.16 Forfeiture Order. [ 10 ] Defence position is 90 days jail time, as defence argues that exceptional circumstances exist to bring this sentence outside of the range for these kind of offences. Mr. Manhas’ Background [ 11 ] Mr. Manhas was 19 years of age at the time of the offence and 21 years old at sentencing. [ 12 ] He was born and raised in Canada. He lives with his parents and grandparents.

He has an older brother who has hearing impairment. [ 13 ] Mr. Manhas comes before the Court with a record. In 2015, as a youth he was convicted of possession for purposes of trafficking, committed in April 2014, for which he received an Intensive Support and Supervision Order for six months and six months of probation, a mandatory firearm prohibition for two years, along with 40 hours of community work. In May 2017, he has a conviction for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, which was committed a week prior to the indexed offence on March 24, 2016.

He received a 12 month driving prohibition and a $1000 fine. [ 14 ] Counsel filed letters of support from Mr. Manhas’ parents and cousin, and a letter from Mr. Manhas himself as part of the sentencing hearing. [ 15 ] In his letter, Mr. Manhas describes how he became involved with selling drugs. He was a shy, introverted child in school and essentially became involved with unsavoury friends when he was in grade 10, whose friendship made him feel accepted. The friends got him to smoke marijuana, and he found himself smoking marijuana four to five times per week.

Counsel submits he is not addicted to marijuana but this is how he strayed from the normal path. While at one point, Mr. Manhas was an avid sports enthusiast and involved in sports, his smoking pot pulled him away from that and he stopped playing. He describes that his smoking became so severe that he dropped out of grade 12 a few months before graduating high school. [ 16 ] Contrary to his belief that his friends were giving him the drugs for free, one day he was asked to pay the friends back for all the marijuana he had smoked up to that point, and that if he could not pay, he needed to work it off.

Unable to tell his parents about his drug use and this debt, he started selling drugs. The PPT offence on his record is from when he started selling drugs. [ 17 ] Mr. Manhas in his letter admits and regrets that his youth offence was not a wakeup call for him, as he continued to be involved in that lifestyle with these friends, up until June 2018. During this time, he continued to deceive his parents, who were clearly unaware of that lifestyle. Mr.

Manhas describes how he kept his family life and “friends” separate. [ 18 ] I will not repeat the content of his letter, but I will say that it appears that he is genuinely remorseful for his actions and the impacts his act of selling drugs has had on the community. He feels extreme regret, and sees how his convictions have also brought shame to his family and have caused other family members to distance themselves from him.

He describes that he has now changed his life, he has come clean with his parents about his drug lifestyle and despite their disappointment, they are there to support him in whichever way they can and he is grateful that he has once again found closeness with his parents. He has also set out what counsel describes as a realistic plan for himself, going forward, after he has dealt with these charges. Firstly, he says he has disconnected his phone to not be contacted by people, whom I assume he means the unsavoury friends.

In his own way, therefore, he is taking steps to separate himself from that lifestyle by severing communication. On the personal front, he has planned to become fit, working out and eating clean, to help him stay focused. Mr. Manhas also plans to go back to school: he wants to go to BCIT and enrol in the Electrical Foundation Program to get his red seal certification. In the alternative, he wants to be a longshoreman.

[ 19 ] Mr. Manhas’ parents also provided a letter confirming that Mr. Manhas has told them about his lifestyle and how he became involved with the current charges. They state that they have seen the positive changes in their son, in his honesty with them regarding his negative lifestyle and in his behaviour at home: He now stays at home with the family and participates in doing chores and helping out. His parents state that they support their son no matter what and will help him however they can. [ 20 ] Mr. Manhas’ cousin, Mr. Parmar, also wrote a letter for the Court. He describes how Mr.

Manhas is a kind, compassionate, intelligent and considerate person, and how his involvement in the drug life was such a shock to the family. He stated how Mr. Manhas is very remorseful for his actions and is trying his best to surround himself with positive people and to repair his relationship with his family. Mr. Parmar believes in his cousin and in his ability to put this negative life behind him and do great things. The Law [ 21 ]

Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code , which sets out the fundamental principle of sentencing, states that a sentence “must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.” [ 22 ]

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

a) to denounce 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 acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community.” [ 23 ]

Section 718.2 of the Code states : 718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: (

a) A sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender... (

b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances; (

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

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 should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders. [ 24 ] S. 10 of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act : Sentencing 10.

(1) Without restricting the generality of the Criminal Code , the fundamental purpose of any sentence for an offence under this

Part is to contribute to the respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society while encouraging rehabilitation, and treatment in appropriate circumstances, of offenders and acknowledging the harm done to victims and to the community.

(2) If a person is convicted of a designated substance offence for which the court is not required to impose a minimum punishment, the court imposing sentence on the person shall consider any relevant aggravating factors including that the person. . . (

b) was previously convicted of a designated substance offence;. . .

(3) If, under subsection (1), the court is satisfied of the existence of one or more of the aggravating factors enumerated in paragraphs (2) (

a) to ( c ), but decides not to sentence the person to imprisonment, the court shall give reasons for that decision. [ 25 ] Sentencing is an individualized process, which requires a careful weighing of the normative principles set out by Parliament.

In fashioning a sentence, the court must take into account not only the specifics of the offence, but also the specific circumstances of the offender. [ 26 ] It is well established in case law that dial-a-dope operations make drugs available to the members of the community with the ease of just placing a phone call and having any type of drug delivered to you at any location. It makes drugs accessible to the purchaser with ease and eliminates the effort or any intimidation by the purchaser to seek out a dealer.

The ease of home delivery permits a variety of drugs (from the least to most harmful) to be readily available to the members of the community, from the young to adult alike, and spreads the drug business through the communities at a greater degree. [ 27 ] Dial-a-dope operations have been described by the courts as being sophisticated since they have a structured business model, regardless of whether or not the operation before the Court is sophisticated ( R. v. Oates , 2015 BCCA 259 ). Dial-a-dope operations

require forethought and planning; they are profitable and are easy to operate with simply a cell phone, a car, a supplier and association with a drug line. [ 28 ] While rehabilitation and other sentencing principles are important, and it does not mean that these types of offences always attract a jail sentence, deterrence and denunciation remain the primary principles to consider when sentencing drug traffickers ( R. v. Voong , 2015 BCCA 285 , para 18 ). [ 29 ] Dial-a-dope traffickers “require a sentence that gives full measure to the principles of denunciation and deterrence.” R. v Oates .

Our courts have repeatedly stated that the Lower Mainland of BC is overrun with heroin and cocaine. The sentence for a dial-a-dope drug seller in hard drugs for a first offence or with a minimal record, absent exceptional circumstances, is in the range of six to 18 months of incarceration depending on the aggravating circumstances ( R. v.

Voong ). [ 30 ] A Conditional Sentence Order is no longer available for these types of offences. [ 31 ] In Voong , Madam Justice Bennett stated that exceptional circumstances “may include a combination of no criminal record, significant and objectively identifiable steps towards rehabilitation for the drug addict, gainful employment, remorse and acknowledgement of the harm done to society as a result of the offences, as opposed to harm done to the offender as a result of being caught”. “This is a non-exhaustive list.

There must be something that would lead a sentencing judge to conclude that the offender had truly turned his or her life around, and that the protection of the public was subsequently better served by a non-custodial sentence”. In Voong , the issue was whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify a non-custodial sentence. [ 32 ] In the case at bar, the issue is whether exceptional circumstances exist to impose a custodial sentence outside of the six to 18 months range. The case at bar is very similar to the case of R. v.

Large ( 2016 BCPC 340 ), in terms of position of the parties, where in the Crown was seeking a sentence of six to nine months’ jail time and defence was seeking a 90 day jail sentence. At paragraph 29, the Court in Large , after citing the comments of Madam Justice Bennett of our Court of Appeal in Voong , stated that the Appellate Court’s direction on what constitutes exceptional circumstances is relevant to whether Mr. Large should receive a sentence outside of the range.

Analysis [ 33 ] The issue is this case is whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify a marked departure from the range to a sentence of 90 days of incarceration. [ 34 ] Most of the cases submitted by the parties deal with a departure from a jail sentence to the imposition of a non-custodial sentence, either a CSO (when that was available) or a suspended sentence (such as was the case in Voong ). Defence Authorities [ 35 ] In R. v. Gill , 2015 BCSC 1556 , the offender was charged with PPT of cocaine, heroin, and marihuana.

He had $885 in cash, along with 18 baggies of heroin weighing a total of 2.3 grams; 23 baggies of either powder or crack cocaine weighing a total of 6.2 grams; and 47 baggies, a Ziploc bag and another container of marihuana. All together, these drugs were estimated to have a value of $1,670. In addition, he had two phones. Mr. Gill fell into the opportunity to sell drugs following a period of unemployment for about six months. He had been working in this enterprise for about two weeks when he was arrested. It was acknowledged that he was employed in a dial-a-dope operation. He had no criminal record. [ 36 ] Mr.

Gill severed his connection with this drug operation following his arrest. At the time of sentencing, he was working as a driver for an airport limousine service working five days a week. The court found as mitigating his youth at the time he committed it (19), his lack of criminal history, his strong family support, his stable employment and relationship, and his two-year post-offence track record of law-abiding and productive conduct.

The court rejected imposing a suspended sentence, and imposed a 90 day intermittent sentence after considering the principles of sentencing, the nature of the offence, and the mitigating and aggravating factors. [ 37 ] In R. v. Diabikulu , 2016 BCPC 390 , the charge was trafficking in heroin. Crown was seeking six months of jail time and defence was seeking a suspended sentence. It was argued on his behalf that he had taken active steps to be a better person. Specifically, that he removed himself from his negative peers, had a healthy relationship, and a child on the way. Mr.

Diabikulu had an unrelated youth record consisting of two robberies and using an imitation firearm with a conviction date four years prior to the date of commission of the indexed offence. The court imposed a 90 day jail sentence. [ 38 ] In R. v. Ameeri , 2016 BCSC 1187 , Mr. Justice Kent sentenced Mr. Ameeri to 90 days in jail for trafficking in heroin over a 41 day period. He found as aggravating the number of transactions, his participation in a dial-a-dope operation, the fact he used his own home as a stash house for the dial-a-dope operation, and profit as the motive. Mr.

Ameeri had a record, however an unrelated one for assault and at least one breach of probation. The Court found the accused had not expressed meaningful remorse nor, even acknowledged any harm he had done to the community. On the mitigating side, the Court acknowledged Mr. Ameeri’s guilty plea, that he was only 23 at the time of the offence and he had no police involvement in the three years since the offence, or breach of bail conditions, that he had turned away from the criminal element with whom he had previously associated, and that he was now employed full-time and contributing to his family household.

Also relevant was that if subject to a lengthy jail sentence, Mr. Ameeri might suffer harsh immigration consequences such as removal from Canada. This latter factor is not present in the case at bar. [ 39 ] In R. v. Truong , 2016 BCPC 224 , the offender pled to four counts of trafficking, committed between April to May 2013. Crown sought six months of incarceration and defence sought a suspended sentence. He was 23 at the time of commission of these offences. He was not selling drugs to support an addiction. Mr. Truong did not have a record.

The Court acknowledged his young age, lack of criminal record and the support he has, however the Court found that his circumstances were not exceptional and did not establish objectively identifiable steps towards rehabilitation to justify a suspended sentence. The Court imposed a four month period of incarceration followed by probation, recognizing the need to impose a sentence that has a rehabilitative component. The Court noted that if it were not for the mitigating factors, it would have imposed a lengthier jail sentence.

[ 40 ] In R. v. Aulakh and Toor , 2015 BCPC 179 , Mr. Aulakh pled guilty to one count of trafficking by selling $40 of cocaine to an undercover officer on four different occasions. [ 41 ] Crown sought a sentence of nine to 12 months’ jail time for Mr. Aulakh. He did not have a criminal record. He had the support of his family and was ashamed of his conduct and remorseful for his crime. He wrote a sincere letter of apology to the court. [ 42 ] Mr.

Toor, his co-accused, plead guilty to trafficking by selling $40 of cocaine to an undercover officer, as well as possession for the purposes of trafficking of a small amount of cocaine. Mr. Toor had a prior unrelated conviction for assault. He also had the support of his family and ashamed of his conduct and remorseful for his crime. He had a grade 12 education and at the time of sentencing, he was qualified to be an insurance broker, had successfully written the exams and was awaiting being licenced. He wanted to work in the insurance business.

At the time of sentencing, he worked for his father. [ 43 ] Crown stated that Mr. Aulakh was the delivery man while his co-accused, Mr. Toor, was the boss and supplier, or the middle man. [ 44 ] The Court suspended the passing of sentence on Mr. Aulakh and placed him on probation. As to Mr. Toor, he was given a sentence of 4½ months incarceration, and after taking into account his time served in custody, a 90 day intermittent sentence was imposed. [ 45 ] In R. v. Pepper , 2015 BCCA 476 , the offender was 40 years of age.

He was found to be in possession of 31 flaps, each containing 0.4 grams of cocaine, for a total of 12.4 grams. He also had cash totalling $1,030. At the time of the offence, he was unemployed, drinking excessively and heavily using drugs. He was pressured into working for his drug dealer to pay off a drug debt. Mr. Pepper had no criminal record, and there was no evidence to suggest that Mr. Pepper had engaged in the offence other than on the date of his arrest. The sentencing judge found as mitigating Mr. Pepper's remorse, steady work history, and community and family support.

The judge also took into account the impact of a prison term on Mr. Pepper's children and their mothers who regarded him as an excellent father. Crown Authorities [ 46 ] In R. v. Ahmed , 2001 BCCA 504 , the Crown appealed an 18 month Conditional Sentence Order. Mr. Ahmed pled guilty to six counts of trafficking by selling cocaine to an undercover officer. He sold a total of 7.2 grams for $640. The court found it aggravating that the sales spread over several weeks, hence showing a continued involvement. Mr.

Ahmed sold the drugs purely for profit, and five of these sales occurred from a convenient store near a school. He committed these offences while on bail. The sentencing court found that there was nothing in the sentence proceedings to show that he had accepted responsibility for his unlawful conduct or saw a route to his own rehabilitation. The British Columbia Court of Appeal found that while Mr.

Ahmed had positive support letters from his community, has a job and is in a stable relationship with a new baby, these were not enough to show he was rehabilitated, and that deterrence and denunciation remained the most important considerations. [ 47 ] In R. v. Oates , supra , the offender, who was 29, sold $40 of crack cocaine to an undercover officer. At the time of arrest he threw away baggies of heroin. The offence was purely for profit. Mr. Oates, at the time of the offence, was on probation attached to a conditional discharge for the offence of mischief. Crown appealed the suspended sentence order.

Although the court found that it would be unlikely that Mr. Oates would engage in such offences again, the court found that his circumstances were not out of the ordinary to present a marked departure from the range of sentences imposed for similar offences. The court stated that his involvement was for financial gain and he was actively in the justice system and on probation. The court imposed a sentence of six months incarceration. [ 48 ] In R. v. Cisneros , 2014 BCCA 154 , the offender was 27 years old with no criminal record.

He had a grade 12 education, and had taken a two year automotive technician course and some marketing courses. He pled guilty to possessing cocaine for trafficking in relation to a dial-a-dope operation - the quantity was 25 rocks and 29 baggies of heroin, half a gram each. The offence was done purely for profit and not to support an addiction. Crown appealed a sentence of $2000 fine. The British Columbia Court of Appeal imposed a sentence of six months’ incarceration. [ 49 ] In R. v. Large , supra , the offender sold $240 worth of crack to an undercover officer.

He had no criminal record, he was a young adult of 19 years of age at the time of the offence. He became involved in the business of selling drugs due to unsavoury friends. His father became ill and he and his mother had the responsibility of supporting the family. Mr. Large expressed remorse for the harm he had caused his community by participating in a dial-a-dope operation. The court, not having found that he has expressed remorse in an objectively identifiable way, sites a passage quoted in R. v. Batista , 2016 BCSC 572 , citing the BC Court of Appeal decision in R. v.

Anderson , ( 1992 Can LII 6002 ), to show what it means to show remorse for criminal actions: The factor of "remorse" is often important. Insofar as it might be suggested that the court should regard those who come before it in a submissive or contrite manner as deserving of more lenient treatment than those who accept their predicament with whatever fortitude they are able to summon, there would be little in this factor which could assist the sentencing judge.

But to the extent that an accused person is able to demonstrate that he or she has, since the commission of a crime, come to realize the gravity of the conduct, and as a result has achieved a change in attitude or imposed some self-discipline which significantly reduces the likelihood of further offending, the existence of remorse in this sense obviously has much importance.

The capacity of human beings who have erred to recognize the magnitude of their wrongdoing, and to redeem themselves, offers the only possibility that those who have committed crimes may again become contributing members of the community, rather than its burden for the rest of their lives. [ 50 ] The court in Large found that unlike the offenders in R. v. Wong , 2016 BCSC 1568 , R. v. Dickey , 2016 BCCA 177 , Voong , supra , or Batista , supra , Mr.

Large had not established that he has moved on in his life and has disassociated himself from his criminal lifestyle. [ 51 ] For example, in Wong , supra , the offender did not have a criminal record, and although not an addict, the court found that he

had completely changed his life around; he had returned to his family. He had begun to carry his weight at home and had participated more and more in family life. He had taken steps and had returned to school and completed his high school; Mr. Wong had gone on to complete several training courses at the BCIT Marine Campus and obtained a Marine Medical Certificate. Mr.

Wong started to work part-time at a law office where his mother worked and his employer spoke positively about him. [ 52 ] In Dickey , supra , the accused, who was 27 years old, had an unrelated record; he used cocaine to relieve pain following a knee surgery relating to an accident. He became addicted and sold drugs to support his habit. At the time of his sentencing, he had overcome his addiction and had obtained steady employment. He also had the support of his family. [ 53 ] In Large , supra , the Court was not convinced that Mr.

Large’s remorse or commitment to change was not simply to try to get a lesser sentence. The court stated that Mr. Large had not demonstrated that since the commission of the trafficking offence he has manifestly changed his attitude or imposed some self-discipline. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors [ 54 ] Being involved in a dial-a-dope operation is an aggravating factor in sentencing. [ 55 ] Mr. Manhas was selling crack cocaine, a

Schedule I substance, which is a highly addictive; based on the officers’ observations, two sales occurred on April 1, 2016, one with the officer and one with another person, based on the nature of the “meet”. Although it appears that this is a street level trafficking, I note that Mr. Manhas had enough authority to bargain with the officer to give the officer more drugs in exchange for Mr. Manhas’ choice of alcohol as opposed to cash. Also, the amount of cash found on Mr.

Manhas in the denomination found, suggests that his sale of drugs to the officer was not an isolated event on that day and that he had prior sales worth of $610 in cash. [ 56 ] Mr. Manhas was involved in the sale of drugs for profit, albeit that it was to pay off his drug debt. He was not selling drugs to support an addiction. As previously mentioned, he was not addicted to marijuana. Therefore, he is not accorded the leniency the courts offer to dealers who sell drugs to support a habit. [ 57 ] Mr.

Manhas has a youth record for a similar designated offence of possession for the purpose of trafficking, and he has an adult and unrelated record for an offence under the Motor Vehicle Act . As a designated offence, this is an aggravating factor and I note that just less than two years after his conviction for a similar designated offence, he committed the present offence. [ 58 ] Crown submits that it is also an aggravating factor that he had engaged a youth (the passenger) in the sale of drugs and/or in the commission of a designated offence.

Based on the evidence before me, I cannot conclude this to be applicable to the case at bar; the evidence does not support Mr. Manhas engaging this youth: the youth, who has already been sentenced, seemed to have his own stash or dialer bag of drugs, with a cell phone for the drug line and his own cash, while Mr. Manhas had the cash from his sales including the buy money on his own person. Mr. Manhas did the “meets” without the youth present in his car. There is, therefore, no evidence that the youth was engaged by Mr.

Manhas to sell drugs - at least based on the evidence before me - and as such, I cannot conclude that the presence of the youth in his car at the time of arrest is an aggravating factor. [ 59 ] The trafficking does not take place near school grounds or in areas where children under the age of 18 frequent; no weapons were used, carried or threatened with. [ 60 ] With respect to the mitigating circumstances, Mr. Manhas is a young adult: he was 19 at the time of the offence and 21 at the time of sentencing. By all accounts, he is good person and has the support of his family.

He is extremely remorseful for his actions and understands the harm he has caused to the community by engaging in trafficking. [ 61 ] He has pled guilty to the offence in August 2018. The Information was laid in November 2016. He does get some credit as a mitigating factor for his plea, even though it will not be as significant as it would have been in the case of an early plea. It is also mitigating that while on bail on these charges, he has not committed any further offences nor breached his bail conditions in the last two years. [ 62 ] I do accept that Mr.

Manhas has been genuine in his letter, when he states that in the last few months he has come to appreciate the harm he has caused to the community, and that he wants to put this part of his life behind him; that as a first step, he has disconnected his phone, has made a plan for himself to get fit, to further his education and enrol in BCIT or become a longshoreman; and that he now is honest and close with his family, and has their support. [ 63 ] I do accept that Mr. Manhas is unlikely to engage in trafficking again and that perhaps specific deterrence is met.

However, the main concern is the protection of the public, and the importance of deterrence given the prevalence of drugs in the Lower Mainland of BC, hence discouraging this type of conduct by imposing stern sanctions. Looking at the facts before me, and all the mitigating and aggravating factors, and recognizing that Mr.

Manhas is in the early stages of starting a path towards rehabilitation and advising the court of what that may look like, and that he is awaiting for these charges to be dealt with to go to school or work, a sentence of four months’ incarceration is appropriate in this case along with a probation period of 12 months. [ 64 ] Mr. Manhas, please rise: I sentence you to four months of jail time. [ 65 ] The jail sentence will be followed by 12 months of probation, and the conditions are as follows:

a) Keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

b) Appear before the Court when required to do so by the Court.

c) Within two business days of your release from custody, you must report to probation officer at 102-14245 56 Avenue in Surrey, BC and report thereafter as and when directed by your probation officer.

d) Notify the Court or your probation officer in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the Court or the probation officer of any change of employment or occupation.

e) You must attend and participate in any counselling that may be directed by your probation officer this may include but is not limited to drug counselling.

f) You must not consume alcohol or possess those drugs as defined by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , expect those drugs for which you have a medical prescription.

g) You will attend, and participate in and complete 40 hours of community work.

h) You will not be in a motor vehicle unless with the Registered Owner present, with the exception that you may use public transit for transportation.

i) You will only possess one cell phone and you will provide your cell number to the probation officer. ANCILLARY ORDERS

j) Weapons Prohibition Pursuant to s. 109 of the Code , Mr. Manhas is prohibited from possessing any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, cross-bow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance for a period of 10 years.

k) DNA Pursuant to s. 487.051(3), the Crown applies to the Court for an order that Mr. Manhas provide a sample of his DNA. As such, the Court needs to determine whether the best interests of the administration of justice requires the making of such an order. Pursuant to s. 487.051(3)(b), I have considered factors such as Mr. Manhas’ criminal record, whether he had previously been found not criminally responsible, the nature of the offence before the Court, the circumstances of its commission and the impact that such an order would have on his privacy and security of the person: Mr.

Manhas does have an unrelated criminal record as an adult, and a related youth record. There is no evidence that he has ever been found not criminally responsible for an offence. He was convicted of one count of trafficking cocaine wherein a purchase was made by under-cover police officers. With respect to Mr. Manhas’ privacy and security of his person, the taking of a DNA sample is minimally intrusive, and all information gained protected. However, Considering all of the factors and recognizing the changes that Mr.

Manhas has commenced to make in his life, I am not satisfied that the making of a DNA order is, in the circumstances, in the best interests of the administration of justice. As such I will not grant the DNA application.

l) Victim Fine Surcharge A Victim Fine Surcharge will be imposed, payable forthwith, one day concurrent in default. _____________________________ The Honourable Judge D.A. Jahani Provincial Court of British Columbia