R. v. Kwong Date:, 2013 BCPC 8

Citation: R. v. Kwong Date: 20130103 2013 BCPC 0008 File No: 223500-2-VC Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. TIMOTHY TIN-CHEW KWONG EXCERPTS FROM PROCEEDINGS REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE D. ST. PIERRE Counsel for the Crown: R. Flannigan Counsel for the Defendant: B. Mickelson Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Judgment: January 3, 2013 [ 1 ] THE COURT: So Timothy Kwong is on Information 223500-2-VC. He, along with a fellow named Lincoln Kennedy

Williams, Dylan Long, Nigel Li, Alexander Peepre, John Sawicki, and Jensen White are charged with various counts on this Information. Mr. Kwong has pled guilty to two counts on a multi-count Information. [ 2 ] Those two counts are, one, that on the 15th of June, 2011, he participated in a riot contrary to s. 65 of the Criminal Code and the next one he pled guilty to was the -- well, on the same date, that he intentionally caused a fire, the vehicle belonging to Mr.

Hermanus, and that is contrary to s. 434 of the Criminal Code , commonly called arson, that charge. [ 3 ] So he has pled guilty to two offences on that Information which places him in a somewhat different position than the some of the other individuals on this Information who have been sentenced for their participation in the riot, Count 1 of the Information. [ 4 ] So essentially, we are again dealing with a relatively young man. Mr. Kwong is not one of the younger ones that are involved in these activities on June 15th, 2011, the Stanley Cup riot, but he is still a young man.

He is before the court with no record. He was 29 at the time, I think he was, was he? [ 5 ] He was situated in the area around what we have called the live site which has been described as the area around the Vancouver Public Library where authorities had set up a viewing area on a giant screen so the crowd could watch the final game of the Stanley Cup series. He was in one of the establishments nearby, I believe in the Shark Club. [ 6 ] The television coverage began around 5:00 p.m.

At 7:45, the game was over, not a very satisfactory result for local fans, and then things got very ugly around the area of the live site near the Canada Post building. There was a large crowd in that area. Specifically in that area were thousands and thousands of people who had been drinking for some period of time and were now becoming an unruly crowd. [ 7 ] Around 7:42 p.m. there was a Nissan Versa that was overturned near the Canada Post building and that vehicle was damaged and ultimately set on fire, and that vehicle belonged to Mr. Hermanus, as well, but behind that vehicle, he had a GMC pickup truck.

Both of these vehicles were work-related vehicles and he was doing some work in the Canada Post building. [ 8 ] After the crowd had damaged and set on fire the Versa, they turned their attention to the GMC pickup truck and that is where Mr. Kwong's involvement starts. Mr. Kwong eventually after the incident told the police about his participation in the riot and that was the day after the incident. [ 9 ] I am told that Mr. Kwong was the very first person who turned himself in; is that right? [ 10 ] MR.

FLANNIGAN: That's correct, Your Honour. [ 11 ] THE COURT: Around noon the following day, June 16th, 2011, he attended the Vancouver Police Department and he told them this story. He said that he had been watching the game with friends at the Shark Club. They started to drink alcohol before the game started and he was quite intoxicated by the end of the game. He went outside of the Shark Club in order to smoke a cigarette as the game was ending and to make a telephone call. [ 12 ] When he went out there, he saw individuals and the crowd was involved in cheering and some kind of activity.

So he walked over there and he saw the crowd was engaged in this destructive activity. They were trying to overturn vehicles. By the time he arrived, people were trying to set the GMC pickup truck on fire.

There was this stuffed bear that was wet and he grabbed the bear and he tossed it at the vehicle and he used his lighter to light that bear on fire and, because the overturned GMC was spilling out gasoline at the time, the entire vehicle was fairly quickly engulfed in flames. [ 13 ] He returned shortly after that to the Shark Club and then he started receiving telephone calls from people that they had seen him on television and that he knew at that point that he was in trouble.

He received a number of telephone calls and posted an apology on Facebook and attended the police station. [ 14 ] His involvement is really isolated. He went over, saw these people trying to light a bear and, ultimately, the vehicle on fire and he, inexplicably, decided to assist in that endeavour and I am sure, you know, as he sits here now and every day since, he has regretted that decision, a momentary decision, that is going to have a long-lasting impact on his life. [ 15 ] So here he is, he is charged with participating in the riot and arson charged.

The Crown says -- and I am not going to repeat because we have got probably a few hundred more of these to deal with, I am not going to spend hours, you know, going over the context and the damage that was caused that evening because it has been very well set out in some previous decisions prior to this one and I will not refer specifically to all of that except to say the context of this matter is obviously a very serious one.

It is a huge, huge civil disturbance, one of the worst of its kind in Canadian history and it deserves to be seen as a quite serious event. [ 16 ] So the Crown points to the impact of the riot in this particular case. The fact that 928 police officers were dispatched to this area, 63 members of Vancouver Fire and Rescue Services, 44 members of the B.C. Ambulance Services; over 1,000 emergency personnel were deployed to that area.

By all accounts, it looked like a warzone down there and there was over -- as of the date -- as of about a year ago when all the damage estimates had not come in, but about $4 million damage and that estimate was about a year old already. So the context is serious. [ 17 ] The Crown says that Mr. Kwong's participation is aggravated by the fact he eventually lights this bear on fire and puts it under the truck and he is the direct cause of the vehicle to be lit on fire. Other people were attempting to do what he did, but he was the one who was successful in doing it.

So they say that is significantly aggravating. [ 18 ] They point to the cases that we have been all directed to, Loewen , Breault , Post , Fuller , Blackshaw , all of the cases I have considered. They are all part of the Crown's book. I have looked at over 50 cases that were provided for this case as precedents on this case.

[ 19 ] It is recognized and accepted that the primary principle of sentencing in this case is denunciation and deterrence. The Crown says a 12-month sentence in jail is the appropriate sentence. They assert that Mr. Kwong is the instigator of the start of the riot. [ 20 ] Now, I have to point out that the Versa had already been destroyed by that point and there was, really, in my mind, the riot, the beginnings of it, the formulations of it were in full swing by the time Mr.

Kwong got involved, but he is involved at the start or near the start of the full-scale riot, in any event, and they say a 12-month sentence of real jail is the appropriate sentence. They do not accept that a conditional sentence order can meet the principles of sentencing in this case. [ 21 ] There was a number of submissions made with respect to the issue of the conditional sentence order, and one of the prerequisites is that it has to be consistent with principles of sentencing and the Crown says simply that it might be that the first conditions, the prerequisites, are met in this case as Mr.

Kwong is a young man with no record and good prospects, but that it is the last prerequisite that it be consistent with the principles of sentence that just cannot be met in this kind of a case. His actions must be denounced and that is accepted. [ 22 ] Now, the defence says Mr. Kwong comes before the court with no record and he was 29 at the time of the offence and has suffered great extrajudicial consequences as a result of his participation and activities that day.

He is eligible for a conditional sentence order and they suggest that a conditional sentence order in the range of 18 months is appropriate. [ 23 ] I have the benefit of a presentence report. I have a number of materials that were filed by the defence with respect to Mr. Kwong's activities and his reaction and response to his behaviour subsequent to June 15th, 2011. He, at the time, and still does work at an electronic store.

He was a manager there, had a front job dealing with people. [ 24 ] Immediately upon this event being so highly publicized and everybody knowing about it, he lost his job and was out of work for four months and managed to get himself rehired because apparently they thought enough of Mr. Kwong to rehire him, but to stick him back in the warehouse where he could not have any dealings with the general public and that resulted in Mr. Kwong taking a significant pay cut in order to maintain his employment. [ 25 ] That day, he says that he was immediately remorseful.

I accept that because he was the very first person who was forthcoming and open to the authorities about his participation. His participation is isolated, but serious. He was one of the individuals, and there are a few of them, who had their apologies posted on the front page in the newspaper. [ 26 ] There are dozens of so-called name-and-shame websites that Mr. Kwong's name is attached to and his participation in the riot is part of those sites for as long as those sites remain on the Internet for anybody to see and there is a list of them that has been provided to me, at least a partial list.

There are dozens of them. [ 27 ] He has also taken upon himself to try to redeem or to try to rehabilitate his reputation in the community by participating in dozens of hours of volunteer work service in the community and he has done that through the Union Gospel Mission. At the time of the sentencing, anyways, as of April 2012, he has performed 26 hours there. I am assuming it might be more now, but he has also done work with West End Cleanup.

He has done work with Keep Vancouver Spectacular, the organization that goes around the city and, essentially, cleans up the city, makes it the shining example that we all hope it would be.

The reputation of that characterization was sullied and diminished by this terrible event that took place in June of 2011. [ 28 ] He has also taken it upon himself to attend -- he was, by all accounts, quite remorseful and upset about his activities that day and he has attended Burnaby Counselling Group for multiple sessions of counselling with that organization. [ 29 ] There is a number of reference letters and character letters from various people that are familiar with Mr. Kwong's normal good character, and I say that there is no dispute that he is of a previous good character.

He has no record, no issues with the police and, by all accounts, no issues with abusing alcohol, even though he was abusing alcohol on that particular occasion. [ 30 ] So his bosses at the electronics store write good things about him. An indication of the personal consequences to Mr. Kwong was set out in some of these letters from people who were friends with him, and are friends with him, but were completely shocked and disturbed by the actions that he engaged in. [ 31 ] One of them writes that she was angry with him and knows that he loves the City of Vancouver and so when she found out that he had took

part in something like this and showed such disrespect to the city that he professed to cherish, she was very confused and extremely disappointed, and she says that was the same about the rest of the members of his friends, family members, and co-workers. So he suffered a hit in his general reputation, his good reputation in the community, and that is a difficult thing to gain back, but it is something that he has acknowledged and taken responsibility for. [ 32 ] She says that during the weeks and months that followed, Mr. Kwong, she interpreted, was in a very low place.

He was ashamed of himself and embarrassed and he did not think he was deserving of the support that people around him were giving, but they all stuck by him, they said, and realized that he had made a terrible mistake and that he was trying to redeem himself. He was taking steps to try to redeem himself. [ 33 ] That is the general tenor of the letters that were provided, that people were surprised about his behaviour and they accept his public apology and they accept that he is normally an honest and upstanding citizen and that is his essential character, while damaged significantly, at least the reputation.

They know him well enough to know what his real character will be, notwithstanding this particular incident. [ 34 ] There are a number of cases, again, that I referred to. I am not going to mention them all, but I should at least refer to the individuals that were on this information because they were all involved in the same part of the riot or the similar incidents involving Mr. Hermanus' vehicles, the Versa and the GMC truck. [ 35 ] So there is Kennedy Williams who is on the Information. He was sentenced already. He was 22 years old. He had no record.

He wanted to be a firefighter, apparently, but that is going to be quite difficult because he was involved in trying to attempt to set thisGMC on fire. He joined in trying to overturn this pickup truck that Mr. Kwong was involved with, as well. [36] Mr. Kennedy Williams took a metal pole out of the pickup truck and starting smashing the vehicle up. He removed the gas capand that resulted in the gasoline starting to pour out of the overturned vehicle, and he was the one who was trying to light the stuffed bearon fire and he was unsuccessful, but Mr. Kwong came along and was successful.

When Kennedy Williams eventually dispersed fromthe area, he went to the post office and kicked in one of the glass doors there. [37] So his involvement was quite a bit more prolonged than the involvement of Mr. Kwong. The Crown there in that case soughtsix months of jail time for Mr. Kennedy Williams. The sentencing judge imposed a 90-day intermittent jail sentence for him. [38] Mr. Long, the young man that I sentenced, was 19 years old at the time. He had no record. The Crown was seeking a four tofive-month jail sentence for Mr. Long.

He was the fellow that took a fire extinguisher from the overturned Versa and he was kicking atthe Versa and then he discharged the fire extinguisher into the air and had the effect of sort of adding fervour to the already inflamedcrowd situation that was going on around him, but he also went down the road and looted from the Sterling Shoe store. [39] The Crown sought a sentence of, again, four to five months jail, and I imposed a six-month conditional sentence order for himwith house arrest for three months, he being a very young man with no record. [40] Mr. Sawicki was also on this Information.

He was sentenced by this court, as well, 18 years old at the time, no record, veryremorseful, and a counsellor testified that he had shown great insight and remorse over the damage that he had caused and what he didwas he was engaged in kicking at the Versa and then he went over to the GMC pickup truck, attempted to overturn it, tried to light it onfire by throwing some lit garbage into the cab.

He was not successful. [41] Crown sought a six to nine-month jail sentence in that case and I imposed a conditional sentence order for nine months, fivemonths house arrest and four months in a curfew, although with a 15-month probation period. [42] Mr. Peepre was sentenced, as well, and he is on this Information. His involvement lasted about 45 minutes. He madenumerous attempts to overturn the GMC. [43] He walked down the road. He was mocking the police. He was involved in throwing a plastic water bottle at the police orsome piece of debris at the police.

No contact was made, but he also came across a fellow that was characterized as a Good Samaritan,Mr. Brown, who had been putting out fires. It is not accepted by the trial judge that Mr. Peepre knew that, but in any event, Mr. Peeprepunched Mr. Brown once in the head. So he was involved in violence towards another individual who was just sort of an innocentbystander. He was sentenced to a 60-day jail sentence to be served intermittently followed by a period of probation for 18 months. [44] There is also a few cases involving arson that I had to look at, as well, and it is The Queen v.

Engler that was provided to me,B.C. Court of Appeal, a 20-year-old accused there who was convicted of two arsons, sort of one arson and then walked or went down theway and committed another arson. The damage that he was responsible for was about $1.4 million and he was sentenced to a three-yearjail sentence upheld by the Court of Appeal. [45] Deen, a 1997 Court of Appeal case, there was a fire that Mr. Deen started in his ex-employer's furniture store.

He seemed to becharacterized as sort of a disgruntled employee, but the fire could not be deemed as intentional, per se, but the value of the loss there was$3 million. He was involved in vandalism and then creating a fire that ruined this business. There was a two-year jail sentencesubstituted in that case, and he had a record, as well. [46] Cootes was a 2011 B.C. Court of Appeal case who received an 18-month jail sentence for three arsons by the sentencing judgeand that was reduced on appeal to 12 months in jail, effectively. He was 24 years old.

There was about $75,000 in damage. [47] The defence had provided The Queen v. MacKendrick which is a 2007 BCPC 35 , 2007 BCPC 0035 Provincial Courtcase where Mr. MacKendrick got an 18-month conditional sentence order for arson and theft, 21 years old at the time and had burned abarn that had belonged to the Langley Community Services Society. There was a conditional sentence order ordered there by Judge Ball. [48] There was also the Weibe decision, 2009 BCPC 41 , 2009 BCPC 0041, a case of arson, $9,500 in damage. Theaccused was 19 at the time.

The sentence there by the sentencing judge was a three-month conditional sentence order. [49] So the arson sentences, there is a wide range depending on the circumstances, it can be said. [50] I have commented in other cases about the availability of a conditional sentence as opposed to real jail. It is not disputed in thiscase, and it cannot be, that jail is an appropriate sentence. [51] It is going to have lasting and long consequences to Mr.

Kwong and it does these days because of not only the stigma that isattached to his actions in this case which were widely known and well-publicized, more so than probably any other crime in recenthistory, but also because a criminal record these days with the penchant of employers increasingly to conduct criminal records checksbefore they hire people, must be seen to have a significant impact on young men that attract a criminal record. [52] I am talking about the cases of Long and Sawicki and other ones, about the stigmatization and how a public charge brands aperson for life and constitutes serious punishment and it is an important part of the way society brings offenders to account for theirmisconduct.

Those are not my words, those are the Court of Appeal in the D.E.S.M. case in 1993, and that is true of this case. As muchas can be said of any case, that is true in this case. [53] Society has found a way to denounce and to bring these offenders to account for their misconduct by, literally, the shaming thathas been taking place and, quite properly, as far as I am concerned, for the conduct that took place. It is something that these young menhave had to endure and it is a fact that they will have to endure probably for a long time. This is a very public charge. Mr. Kwong was

one of the more public ones because he took it upon himself to come clean immediately and that he has to have some credit for, as well. [ 54 ] I have already indicated denunciation and deterrence are the primary considerations. Jail is an appropriate sentence. The issue is whether a conditional sentence order can meet the principles of sentencing. I have already talked about some of the individuals in this case who have received short intermittent sentences. There is a quote in The Queen v. Gan from our Court of Appeal in 2007.

In that case, they were asked to essentially resentence a person who was convicted of conducting a grow operation because the sentencing had not provided enough reasons for the Court of Appeal to assess the appropriateness of the sentence, and they said there, because of the lack of reasons, that it cannot be said that the judge took into account the following direction from Proulx from the Supreme Court of Canada where at paragraph 90, they said in Proulx : ... a consideration of ss. 718.2(

d) and 718.2(

e) leads me to the conclusion that serious consideration [and that is underlined] should be given to the imposition of a conditional sentence in all cases where the first three statutory prerequisites are satisfied." I find they are satisfied, again, in this case. [ 55 ] It is the fourth one that the Crown says does not meet all the principles of sentencing.

They also go on to say that: I would also note ... in Proulx [that] it was said that both denunciation and deterrence can be satisfied with a conditional sentence. [ 56 ] In the Court of Appeal's opinion in Gan , they said this: In my opinion a sentence of 90 days incarceration served on week-ends cannot be said to send a message of any greater effect on those issues than a conditional sentence of one year. [ 57 ] So they impose a conditional sentence order, but this case is different.

This would not warrant, in my mind, a sentence of such short duration, but the issue still remains whether the principles of sentence can be met in a conditional sentence order and, if I look at all of the aggravating factors in this case, and there are many, but limited in time to his isolated involvement, and you look at also the great number of mitigating factors to consider, and you look at those two and there is still a consideration that denunciation and deterrence is the most important factor, but that does not mean simply considering only aggravating factors.

That is not what that means. [ 58 ] He is 29 years old, he has got no criminal record of any kind, extremely positive reputation in the community. He is genuinely remorseful, he took immediate steps to make amends and to engage the restorative justice process and, in fact, to give back to the community and to make amends. The punishment has to fit the crime. Part of punishment is what he has already suffered. [ 59 ] Part of punishment is the sentence that is about to be imposed and I find having regard to all the principles set out in the Code and the circumstances of Mr.

Kwong himself that he is entitled to a conditional sentence order and I would give him a conditional sentence order on a global basis of 18 months and I would break that down into a 18-month conditional order for the Count Number 4 which is the arson charge, 434, and a concurrent sentence of 12 months conditionally served on Count 1. [ 60 ] Mr. Kwong, you will hopefully appreciate that this is not easy. These sentences are requested many times by young men.

They are breached many times by young men and there is a good reason for it, because you are asked to, in the community, serve your sentence with other law-abiding people and, if you screw it up somehow, you can end up coming back and having to serve the balance of your conditional sentence order in a real jail, but all of the temptations to breach are right there in front of you and you have to have the power, the fortitude, to resist those temptations because if you do not, you are going to be a sorry man. [ 61 ] The mandatory conditions are -- and I have got these written out, Madam Registrar, I can pass them down to you after I read them so that it would be easier.

In fact, I could email them. I do not know why we give them to you in writing.

All you have to do is type them all over again, do you not, but maybe if I email it to you, it might prevent you from having to deal with it. [ 62 ] Keep the peace and be of good behaviour, a mandatory condition. [ 63 ] Appear before the court when required to do so. [ 64 ] Report to a conditional sentence supervisor no later than four o'clock on Friday, January 4th, 2013, at the probation office and, thereafter, as directed. [ 65 ] Remain within the jurisdiction of the court unless you have got permission to go outside of the jurisdiction. [ 66 ] Notify the court or the supervisor in advance of any change of name, address, or notify the supervisor of any change of employment or occupation. [ 67 ] For the first six months of this order, and there is going to be exceptions to this, but the first six months of the order, you will remain within your residence 24 hours a day.

The next six months you are on a curfew from 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. There is no curfew for the remaining of the order which is another six months. [ 68 ] You will be allowed outside your residence during those hours for the following reasons: (

a) with the written consent of your supervisor; (

b) travelling directly to or returning directly from your place of employment or while in the course of employment and you shall provide the supervisor with written proof of the employment;

(

c) when travelling directly to or directly from an educational institution for which you are enrolled or while in the course of classes or extracurricular activities approved of by the supervisor at such educational institution, and you will provide the supervisor with written proof of your enrollment and your involvement in extracurricular activities if that is the case; (

d) for any other reason approved of by your supervisor including but not limited to volunteer work or participating in restorative justice programs; (

e) in the event of a medical emergency; and also (

f) for four hours a week to be approved of by your supervisor in order to take care of personal matters like shopping and other appointments. [ 69 ] You will present yourself to the door of your residence when any peace officer or supervisor attends there for the purposes of determining compliance. [ 70 ] You will respond personally and immediately to the telephone if any peace officer or supervisor makes a telephone call to your residence for the purposes of determining compliance with the order. [ 71 ] During the 18-month conditional sentence order, you are not to possess or consume any alcohol or controlled substances defined under s. 2 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act except as prescribed by a physician.

During that time, you are not to be found in any establishment that holds a licence excluding individuals under the age of 19 years. So that just means no bars. [ 72 ] Do not possess any weapon as defined in s. 2 of the Criminal Code . [ 73 ] This one, it sounds to me like you are willing to do that, if necessary, and I am going to order that subject to the -- because I have ordered that Mr. Sawicki, who wanted to participate in this -- do this, and you are entitled to participate in it, as well. Subject to the wishes of Mr.

Hermanus, you will participate in a victim-offender reconciliation program under the supervision and direction of your supervisor. Do you understand that? That means if Mr. Hermanus wants to meet with you and to talk to you about how your actions have affected him directly, you agree to do that, because it is only by doing that, you will understand the personal impact that your actions had on some other folks. [ 74 ] In addition to that, there will be a period of probation for 18 months.

The only conditions are to report as directed, provide your residential address, do not change it without permission of the probation officer, not to possess any weapons, participate in that reconciliation program if Mr. Hermanus wants it, and this in addition to the measures that I have imposed and as part of the punishment and should be seen as such. The Court of Appeal has said it is part of punishment and should be seen as such, Justice Wood said so in the case -- I am forgetting the name of, but it will come to me in a minute. Pursuant to s. 738 of the Criminal Code , Mr.

Kwong, I am ordering that you pay $2,000 to the benefit of Mr. Roy Hermanus. [ 75 ] He lost a lot of money that is not recoverable by insurance and you are directly responsible for some of that. This is not going to cover all of it. It is only a part of it, but I find it is appropriate in the circumstances and it is a standalone restitution order for that amount under s. 738. [ 76 ] In light of that, Mr.

Kwong, and in light of the volunteer work that you have already engaged in, hours and hours of quite a bit of volunteer work, I am not going to order that you perform any further community work service because you have engaged that process to quite a significant extent, I find already, but this restitution order is, you know, about, if you were to look at it, as far as a minimum wage, about 200 hours' worth and that is a significant amount. So that is going to be part of the punishment that is against you, Mr. Kwong. [ 77 ] Is there anything else, Mr.

Flannigan, as far as conditions that may be sought by the Crown? [ 78 ] MR. FLANNIGAN: Your Honour, I just missed the curfew. [ 79 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 80 ] MR. FLANNIGAN: It was from what time? [ 81 ] THE COURT: For the first six months, it is 24 hours with the exceptions. [ 82 ] MR. FLANNIGAN: Mm-hmm. [ 83 ] THE COURT: The next six months it is 9:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., seven days a week, with the exceptions. [ 84 ] MR. FLANNIGAN: Right, and will that be on both orders, then -- [ 85 ] THE COURT: That is on -- [ 86 ] MR. FLANNIGAN: -- the first six months and the second six months? [ 87 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 88 ] MR.

FLANNIGAN: And I believe Your Honour mentioned about the 18 months would also include the abstain, the not-in- any-establishment, no weapons. [ 89 ] THE COURT: That is right. That is exactly right.

[SUBMISSIONS RE DNA SAMPLE PROVISION] [ 90 ] THE COURT: Well, you know what, from the findings that I have made in this case regarding the impulsivity and the completely-out-of-character behaviour engaged in momentarily by Mr. Kwong in this case, I just cannot see that it would be appropriate to order that in this case and I am not going do it. [ 91 ] MR. MICKELSON: Your Honour, one final point is the restitution. I do not know if a time was given for the payment of that $2,000. [ 92 ] THE COURT: Pardon me? [ 93 ] MR.

MICKELSON: I do not know if there was a time -- [ 94 ] THE COURT: Well, it is a standalone order. I guess technically there is no limit, but, you know, I could specify a time, but, you know, I think that it is probably preferable for Mr. Kwong just to step up and be a man. It is a judgment. He knows where you work. He can file that judgment and garnishee if you do not pay the thing, so I would imagine it is in your best interests to make some kind of arrangement to pay that. [ 95 ] MR. MICKELSON: And I know my friend asked for clarification.

Is Your Honour saying that for the 18-month probation that he is not to enter any licensed establishment? [ 96 ] THE COURT: No, the probation -- I have considered that, but on the probation period, there is no restrictions on drinking or entering licensed establishments because the evidence that was before me and the presentence report and all the individuals that were contacted for the preparation of that report, none of them indicate that this has ever been or ever was a problem for Mr. Kwong and -- [ 97 ] MR. MICKELSON: Thank you. [ 98 ] THE COURT: -- I just cannot see the utility of ordering that. [ 99 ] MR.

FLANNIGAN: Sorry, just on that point -- [ 100 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 101 ] MR. FLANNIGAN: -- when you are dealing with a case you are not as familiar with, so then on the 18-month probation, it would just keep the peace, be of good behaviour, the reporting condition -- [ 102 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 103 ] MR. FLANNIGAN: -- no weapons, and participate in the reconciliation -- victim-offender reconciliation if Mr. Hermanus wants it -- [ 104 ] THE COURT: Right. [ 105 ] MR. FLANNIGAN: -- and that is the probation order? [ 106 ] THE COURT: That is the probation order. [ 107 ] MR. FLANNIGAN: Thank you. [ 108 ] THE COURT: Yes.

Okay, and I have got a copy of that, Madam Registrar. I will hand it down and you can use it if necessary for preparing the order. I can also email it to you if it helps, if it assists at all. I have some exhibits and I should give those back to you. I should also -- I will give back everything, actually. [ 109 ] All right, Mr.

Kwong, do you have any questions? [ 110 ] THE ACCUSED: No, sir. [ 111 ] THE COURT: Okay, you will find shortly that it is -- again, like I said, it is not a walk in the park because you are -- it is almost -- a lot of people come in here and say, "Don't give me a conditional sentence order, I will just go to jail and do my time," because they know -- these are the hardened criminals that know how hard it is to do that, but you want to remain free, you want to be among the law-abiding citizens of this community to serve your sentence, you have got to make sure that in your mind you are prepared to do that, prepared to give back and prepared to accept the punishment because it is not -- this will not be easy for you over the next year or so.

Okay. [ 112 ] MR. MICKELSON: Thank you, Your Honour. [ 113 ] MR. FLANNIGAN: Thank you, Your Honour. [ 114 ] THE CLERK: Victim surcharge? [ 115 ] THE COURT: Yes, in light of the restitution order that I have ordered, I am going to waive the victim fine surcharge. [REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED]