R. v. Dickinson Date:, 2012 BCPC 40

Citation: R. v. Dickinson Date: 20120216 2012 BCPC 0040 File No: 223507-1-V Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. RYAN WILLIAM DICKINSON REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE M.O. MACLEAN Counsel for Crown Counsel: P. Tomasson Counsel for the Accused: E. Warren Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: February 14, 2012 Date of Judgment: February 16, 2012 INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Mr. Dickinson has pled guilty to taking

part in a riot contrary to s. 65 of the Criminal Code . He has also pled guilty to the offence of failing to comply with a condition of a recognizance contrary to s. 145(3) of the Criminal Code . The Crown directed a stay of proceedings with respect to two counts of mischief. [ 2 ] The offences took place in Vancouver on June 15, 2011. The Canucks were playing in the seventh game of the Stanley Cup finals, a game they ultimately lost. During that game and during other playoff games tens of thousands of people had congregated in the downtown area of the City.

Large television monitors had been erected which allowed citizens to come together to watch the games. On the night of June 15, 2011, approximately 155,000 people were in the downtown core. [ 3 ] During the course of the June 15 game, some people within the otherwise peaceful crowd, began engaging in unruly behaviour. That soon escalated into a full scale and violent riot in the core of downtown Vancouver. Rioting took place in various areas of the downtown core. The video images of the rioting demonstrate the uncontrolled and frightening nature of the crowd during a riot.

A riot is a serious threat to civil order and the rule of law. [ 4 ] The riot on June 15, 2011, had a serious negative impact on the City, its citizens and businesses. Costly resources had to be deployed to deal with the riot. Moreover emergency personnel were put at risk. On the night of the riot there were 928 police officers, from both the Vancouver Police Department and the RCMP, in the downtown core attempting to suppress the rioting. There were 63 members of the Vancouver Fire Department and 44 members of the B.C.

Ambulance Service called on to respond to the fires which had been set and to treat those injured in the mayhem. There were 150 visits to St. Paul’s Hospital between 6 p.m. June 15, 2011 and 6 a.m. June 16, 2011. In total there were 26 incidents of arson, 26 break and enters, 52 assaults including assaults on 32 police officers and 1 fire-fighter. There were 192 incidents of mischief which involved the damage or destruction of both public and private property. [ 5 ] The total monetary loss to businesses was approximately $2,715,591.

The loss to individual civilians was approximately $537,870 and the financial loss to the City of Vancouver, the B.C. Ambulance Service, and St. Paul’s Hospital was approximately $524,730. The estimated total monetary loss as a result of the riot was approximately $3,778,000.

CROWN POSITION ON SENTENCE [ 6 ] The Crown submits that considering all the aggravating and mitigating factors, a fit sentence for Mr. Dickinson for the offence of taking

part in the riot is between 15 and 18 months imprisonment. The Crown submits a sentence of between 1 month and 3 months imprisonment is a fit sentence for the offence of failing to comply with the curfew provision of the recognizance. The Crown submits those sentences should be consecutive. The Crown submits in all of the circumstances Mr. Dickinson should receive 3½ months credit for the time he has already served. Finally, the Crown submits Mr. Dickinson should be placed on probation for a period of two years. The probation order should include an abstention clause and a term that Mr.

Dickinson receive counselling. DEFENCE POSITION ON SENTENCE [ 7 ] Mr. Warren, on behalf of Mr. Dickinson, acknowledges a term of imprisonment is appropriate in this case. He submits a sentence of one year imprisonment for the riot related offence would be fit. He submits a sentence of 14 days imprisonment for failing to comply with the recognizance, to be served consecutively, would be fit. Mr. Warren submits if a longer sentence is imposed for that offence it should be served concurrently with the riot related sentence. Mr. Warren agrees that a two year probation order would be of assistance to Mr. Dickinson.

Mr. Dickinson agrees to the terms proposed by the Crown including counselling and abstention from drugs and alcohol. Mr. Dickinson’s Actions on June 15, 2011 [ 8 ] Mr. Dickinson was on bail for a serious criminal offence on June 15. He has subsequently pled guilty and has been sentenced with respect to that offence. His bail terms included a curfew. Mr.

Dickinson was in breach of his curfew condition by coming to and staying in downtown Vancouver. [ 9 ] On the night of the riot at approximately 8:30 p.m. police started to receive 911 calls reporting two unmarked police vehicles were being damaged by a group of people in the area of the 700 block Nelson Street. There were two police cars parked on the street. [ 10 ] Mr. Dickinson was in the area of the police cars. Mr. Dickinson did not initially know these were police cars but at some point in his participation in their destruction he was aware they were police vehicles.

The images recorded by a camera in the area were extraordinarily clear. The video showed people in the crowd descending on the police cars and damaging them. Mr. Dickinson was not alone in damaging the police cars. He was, however, one of the most prominent among the crowd destroying the vehicles. His behaviour would no doubt have had the effect of encouraging and emboldening others to participate in the riot and, for some, participating in the destruction of the vehicles. [ 11 ] Mr. Dickinson used the leg of a police barricade to hit and break the back window of one of the vehicles.

He is seen lifting a newspaper box over his head a number of times and throwing it onto the front windshield of one of the vehicles and smashing its window. After damaging that vehicle, he worked with the crowd in an effort to overturn the vehicle. His behaviour was that of a person actively participating in a riot and encouraging others to participate by his destructive behaviour. Although there were many people involved in damaging the vehicles, Mr. Dickinson actively participated in the destruction of those vehicles. Both of the vehicles were total losses, however, some of their equipment was salvaged.

The total financial loss to the City of Vancouver as a result of the damage to the two vehicles was approximately $20,359. [ 12 ] Mr. Dickinson stayed in the area of the 700 block Nelson Street until the police deployed tear gas. He was seen in the 600 block Richards Street in front of Black and Lee Formal Wear at approximately 9:00 p.m. He was seen on video throwing a mannequin at the window of Black and Lee. He is then seen picking up a newspaper box from the sidewalk and throwing it at the window of Black and Lee. [ 13 ] Mr. Dickinson remained in the downtown core of Vancouver for the duration of the riot.

ANALYSIS [ 14 ] The Crown set out an analytical framework relating to how the sentencing of individuals taking

part in a riot should proceed. The framework is very helpful and is consistent with the principles set out in the case law provided by Crown on this hearing. [ 15 ] The Crown submits the court consider the following; 1. the context of the riot generally; 2. the need for general deterrence; 3. Mr. Dickinson’s degree of participation in the riot; and 4. Mr. Dickinson’s personal circumstances. The Context of the Riot Generally [ 16 ] One must consider the offender’s actions as part of a riot to determine his degree of moral culpability. The offender is inextricably linked to others who participated in the riot.

He must be sentenced as a participant in the riot and his particular acts should not be considered in isolation. Mr. Dickson’s participation in the destruction of the police vehicles, being acts of a riot, must be considered in the context of the riot as a whole. R. v. Breault ,

(1991) J.Q. No. 1204 ; R. v. Blackshaw ,

(2011) EWCA Crim 2312. [ 17 ] The riot of June 15 took place in the downtown core of Vancouver which is made up of residential buildings, businesses, social amenities, and tourist services including hotels. The Queen Elizabeth Theatre is located close to the area where the crowds gathered.

There was a performance taking place at the time of the riot. Out of concern for their safety, patrons could not leave the theatre. Twolarge sport facilities are also located there. One was the arena in which Canucks played that night. Thousands of fans who had nointention of participating in the riot had to make their way out of the City. [18] The riot resulted in a number of businesses closing and having to take steps to safeguard customers and employees. An examplewas the Blenz Coffee shop in the 400 block West Georgia Street where people were trapped. They felt terrorized. Some required counselling.

Every window in the business had been broken. At The Bay patrons and staff had to be moved to the 7th floor to ensuretheir safety. The windows on the ground floor were smashed and the store was looted. The sprinkler system and fire alarms wereactivated. In total The Bay sustained approximately $900,000 in damage. [19] As stated earlier there were many assaults, including assaults against police officers and an assault against at least one firefighter. [20] The Crown does not allege that Mr.

Dickinson personally caused physical harm to any one or that he directly caused the damageto The Bay, or that he broke into any premise to steal property. The Crown says, however, his actions in taking

part in the riotencouraged others to take

part in it. In that sense, Mr. Dickinson’s acts must be considered in the context of the overall riot. The Need for General Deterrence [21] The Crown submits that a sentence in relation to rioting must adequately address the principle of general deterrence. This isconsistent with the case law. In R. v. Loewen, (1992) (BC CA), 75 C.C.C. (3d) 184, our Court of Appeal recognizedthe importance of deterrence in riot related cases. In Loewen, the court emphasized that a riot, by its very nature is a serious threat to anorderly society.

If riots became prevalent, it would undermine many of the values of a free and democratic society. This calls for a needto impose a sentence which provides a meaningful deterrent to others of like mind and circumstance. This is consistent with sentencingcases involving riot related offences. R. v. Post (26 September 1991) Penticton Registry No. 18726-2C2 (S.C.B.C.); R. v. Simpson,

(2004) ABCA 390. Mr. Dickinson’s Degree of Participation in the Riot [22] Mr. Dickinson’s degree of participation in the riot was discussed earlier. Mr. Warren submits Mr. Dickinson was not aninstigator and that there were many others more involved than him. He suggests Mr. Dickinson got caught up in the moment and madesome bad decisions. [23] The evidence does not support the submission that Mr. Dickinson simply got caught up in the moment. Mr.

Dickinson’sparticipation was serious and involved a number of conscious and deliberate decisions on his part starting with his decision to godowntown knowing that would result in a breach of his bail. [24] The video showing Mr. Dickinson’s involvement in the destruction of the vehicles shows more than someone with a momentarylapse in judgment. Mr. Dickinson chose to continue to participate in the destruction of the police vehicles. The video shows there weretimes Mr. Dickinson could have walked away but he did not. He returned to the vehicles to continue participating in their destruction. [25] Mr.

Dickinson moved to the 600 block Richards Street. The video shows him throwing the newspaper box at the window ofBlack and Lee. This demonstrates Mr. Dickinson’s involvement in the riot was persistent and deliberate. His behaviour did not reflectsomeone who simply got caught up in the moment. [26] Mr. Warren is correct when he says there were others involved in the riot who engaged in more serious conduct. There werepeople involved in this riot who inflicted personal harm and injury to others. Mr. Dickenson did not personally cause physical harm toanyone. Mr. Dickinson’s Personal Circumstances [27] Mr.

Dickinson’s background and, in particular, his criminal record likely distinguishes him from many involved in the riot. APresentence Report has been prepared. It sets out his criminal record. His most recent conviction was for assault causing bodily harm. He received a 10 day jail term and 12 months probation. The conviction post-dated the riot, but the offence predated it. It was thatoffence for which he was on bail on June 15. The circumstances of the assault conviction are unsettling as it involved serious personalviolence. [28] The facts set out in the Pre Sentence Report were not disputed.

The Report provides some insight into how it is that Mr.Dickinson is before the Court today. Mr. Dickinson is young being only 20 years old. He grew up in an unstable and dysfunctionalfamily environment. The probation officer reports he grew up without discipline. The probation officer also stated Mr. Dickinsondisplayed a disregard for his parents’ authority, the educational system and the justice system. Mr. Dickinson started drinking alcohol atthe age of twelve. He has lost employment in the past due to drinking. Mr.

Dickinson was not drinking on June 15 other than he wasseen on the video taking one drink from a bottle when he was on Nelson Street. [29] Mr. Dickinson told the probation officer as he was leaving the City after the riot he realized he should not have been involvedand he said he “felt like crap”. Mr. Warren read a statement from Mr. Dickinson in which he said he was ashamed of his actions and heapologized for his involvement in the riot. Mr. Dickinson now appears to be genuinely remorseful for his participation in the riot. Hehas offered to make some restitution to the City. [30] Mr.

Dickinson has expressed a desire to turn his life around. He knows he will be incarcerated and he is in agreement that heshould be bound by a probation order for two years after completing his sentence. He also has agreed to a provision that requires him toabstain from possessing or consuming drugs or alcohol. [31] Mr. Dickenson has the support of his mother and sister. Both have attended his court appearances and attended the sentencing

hearing. He will likely return to live with his mother when he is released from custody. [ 32 ] The Crown acknowledged Mr. Dickinson’s guilty plea as a mitigating factor but submits the aggravating factors, including Mr. Dickson’s role in the riot, his prior criminal record and the fact he was on bail for a serious offence at the time of this offence compels a sentence in the range it suggests. [ 33 ] Mr.

Warren submits in regards to the riot related charge all of the objectives of sentencing including denunciation and deterrence can adequately be addressed by the imposition of a 12 month term of imprisonment less the time he has served. This to be followed by a lengthy period of probation. He submits this would also best serve the rehabilitation of Mr. Dickinson. [ 34 ] Mr. Warren submits the court should be careful in imposing the sentence for the breach of recognizance.

He submits it would not be fair to impose a consecutive sentence for the breach and at the same time consider it as an aggravating factor for the riot related offence. There is some logic to what Mr. Warren says. That has been taken into consideration in determining the sentence for the breach of recognizance. CONCLUSION [ 35 ] The sentencing objectives which are paramount in this case are denunciation and deterrence. Any sentence must adequately address those objectives. In Loewen (supra), the Court of Appeal provided guidance in dealing with sentencing people for riot related offences.

The Court said “This is not the time for unwarranted leniency, nor by the same token for unwarranted severity. Care must be taken at the same time to preserve the message of general deterrence.” [ 36 ] In addition to the need to address denunciation and deterrence, Mr. Dickinson’s rehabilitation, particularly in view of his age, must also be considered. Mr. Dickinson has expressed a desire to change his life. That would certainly be in his best interest and in the best interest of society. There is of course no guarantee but hopefully Mr.

Dickinson will receive the help he needs to fulfil that commitment. [ 37 ] I have considered the range of sentences from previous riot related cases. At the highest end of the range are those cases in which offenders inflicted personal injury on others. The lower end of the range involves cases in which the offender committed relatively minor acts of vandalism while taking

part in a riot. These cases provide guidance but each case is different as the circumstances of each offence have differences and the circumstances of each offender are unique. [ 38 ] I have considered the mitigating factors including Mr. Dickinson’s early guilty plea, his expression of remorse and his offer to contribute to restitution for the City. Mr. Warren’s submission that a custodial sentence will be difficult for Mr. Dickinson as he is young and he is not a large person has also been considered. After balancing the mitigating factors with the aggravating factors identified by the Crown, a sentence of 16 months imprisonment is fit for the offence of taking

part in a riot set out in Count 1. For the offence set out in count 4, failing to comply with a recognizance, a sentence of one month is fit. The sentence for Count 4 will be consecutive to the sentence imposed on Count 1. The appropriate total effective sentence for both offences is 17 months imprisonment. This is a significant sentence but necessary to adequately address denunciation and deterrence without losing sight of the need to address Mr. Dickinson’s rehabilitation. [ 39 ] The Crown has agreed that in all of the circumstances Mr.

Dickinson is entitled to credit of 3½ months for the time he has spent in pre trial custody. As such, his sentence will be recorded as follows. In regard to Count 1, the sentence will be 12½ months with his record to reflect credit for 3 ½ months. This is the equivalent of a 16 month sentence. For count 4, the sentence will be recorded as one month imprisonment consecutive to the sentence on Count 1. [ 40 ] There will be a probation order for a duration of two years. In addition to the statutory terms the following terms will be included in the probation order: 1. Keep the peace and be of good behaviour; 2.

Report to a probation officer at 275 East Cordova Street, Vancouver, B.C. within 72 hours of your release from custody; 3. Report thereafter as and when directed; 4. You are to attend counselling or a training program as you are directed by your probation officer; 5. You are not to possess or consume alcohol or illicit drugs; and 6. You are to seek and maintain employment or attend a recognized educational facility. [ 41 ] In view of Mr. Dickinson’s custodial status the victim fine surcharge is waived. _________________________________ The Honourable Judge M.O. MacLean Provincial Court of British Columbia