R. v. Cooper Date:, 2013 BCPC 210

Citation: R. v. Cooper Date: 20130606 2013 BCPC 0210 File No: 223577-1-V Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. CHASE IRVING ALI COOPER EXCERPTS FROM PROCEEDINGS REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J. F. PALMER Counsel for the Crown: S. Smith Kerr Counsel for the Defendant: M. Nohra Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Judgment: June 6, 2013 A corrigendum was released by the Court on August 29, 2013. The corrections have been made to the text and the Corrigendum is

appended to this document. [ 1 ] THE COURT: On June 15th, 2011, Chase Cooper participated in the riot that followed the Canucks' loss in Game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals. Mr. Cooper was twice captured on video breaking into the London Drugs Store. After Mr. Cooper's picture was posted on the Vancouver Police Department riot website, the police received 13 tips about his identity. [ 2 ] Mr. Cooper subsequently turned himself into the police. He pled guilty to participating in a riot on December 13th, 2012. A Pre-Sentence Report was ordered.

The Crown will stay Count 2, a charge of break and enter upon the completion of sentencing. [ 3 ] The Crown and defence made very different submissions with respect to the appropriate sentence. The Crown's position was a custodial term in the range of 60 to 90 days followed by a term of probation for 12 months, during which Mr. Cooper would be required to perform 100 hours of community work service. [ 4 ] Defence counsel submitted that the accused should receive a suspended sentence.

In the alternative, if the court found a custodial term necessary, it was submitted a short conditional sentence would meet the principles of sentence. [ 5 ] This matter was adjourned to a third date to allow counsel to receive, review, and make submissions on the decisions of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in R. v. Peepre and R. v. Kennedy Williams . The decisions were handed down March 19th, 2013.

Counsel have since exchanged their submissions on these decisions and have provided them to the court. [ 6 ] By way of background, the riot was more than five hours of horrendous chaos previously described by the Crown as follows: As the rioting crowds occupied West Georgia Street and the surrounding areas, multiple commercial premise windows were broken and the contents of the premises looted. Vehicles were vandalized, broken into, and set on fire. Crowds of people faced against the police and projectiles were thrown at the police. Numerous police officers and civilians were assaulted.

An atmosphere of lawlessness, violence, and destruction quickly consumed the downtown core of Vancouver. [ 7 ] The following statistics provide a framework for the scope of the riot: 1,035 emergency personnel were deployed to the downtown core of Vancouver on the night of the riot; 928 police officers, two-thirds of whom were members of the Vancouver Police Department and the other one-third from other Lower Mainland municipalities and the RCMP; 63 members of the Vancouver Fire and Rescue Service; 44 members of the British Columbia Ambulance Service.

The number of calls to 911 in the hours of the riot exceeded the number of calls ever received in any 24-hour period. 297 riot events described as an incident related to a location, a piece of property, or a person were identified, many involving hundreds of perpetrators. [ 8 ] A breakdown of the riot events is as follows: 26 arsons; 193 acts of mischief; 26 break and enters; 52 assaults, 18 on civilians, 32 on police officers, one officer assaulted twice, and one firefighter. 116 arrests were made in the area and during the time of the riot. 112 businesses were damaged. 122 vehicles were damaged or destroyed, 24 of which were emergency service vehicles belonging to either the police or fire department.

No comprehensive assessment of the monetary losses sustained in the riot exists, but reported losses as of February 2012 were calculated at $3,778,190.59. [ 9 ] Not all of the effects are quantifiable. This is evident from the victim impact statements filed by people who were held hostage in their workplaces, afraid for their lives, and who consequently lost their sense of security and safety. The impact on the many who had personal property destroyed were those who were traumatized by exposure to the violence and rampant destruction is immeasurable.

It is an outrage that those who are dedicated to public safety and health, who serve as first responders, the police, the fire service, and emergency health personnel were subjected to the violence and wanton destruction. Impeding first responders creates serious risk for untold numbers of citizens. It is a further outrage that the citizens of Vancouver were further put at risk by the destruction of so many service vehicles. [ 10 ] Discussing Mr. Cooper's participation in the riot, paragraphs 47 through 51 of the Admissions of Fact, Exhibit 3 in this proceeding, set out Mr.

Cooper's actions as captured on various video clips. After the riot had commenced at the live site, Mr. Cooper was filmed in the crowd in the 600 block of West Georgia and in the 600 block of Seymour Street. He is present in these locations watching as rioters are breaking into and looting the Bay and others are vandalizing three vehicles parked on Seymour Street. Mr. Cooper's Background and Circumstances [ 11 ] Mr. Cooper was born in North Vancouver in 1987 and has lived his entire life in that community. He and his older sister continue to reside with their parents.

Their upbringing was reported as supportive and he experienced no traumatic events or abuse. Initially after graduation, Mr. Cooper aspired to a career in information technology, but was not successful in that field. [ 12 ] His experience as a part-time line cook while he was in high school and after high school developed into a passion and he has recently completed a six-month program at the Pacific Culinary Institute. He is being sponsored in his pursuit of Red Seal certification by that institute.

During his training and for some months after returning to the Rockford Grill where he was employed for two years, Mr. Cooper was involved in volunteer projects and programs. [ 13 ] On January 7th, 2011, Mr. Cooper was convicted in North Vancouver of having care and control of a motor vehicle when his blood alcohol content exceeded 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. His sentence was the mandatory minimum fine of $1,000 and a one-year driving prohibition. Five months later, Mr. Cooper participated in the riot. [ 14 ] In the Pre-Sentence Report, Mr.

Cooper expressed limited insight into his alcohol misuse characterizing himself as "a social drinker who imbibes on weekends". Although he does not consider himself as having any issues with alcohol abuse, Mr. Cooper

admitted to the probation officer, "If I wasn't drinking, I probably wouldn't have made the decision that I did," in reference to his participation in the riot. [ 15 ] The following are found to be aggravating factors: Mr. Cooper's prolonged presence at various riot events, Mr. Cooper's entry into London Drugs in the first group of rioters after the security gates and glass doors had been breached, Mr. Cooper's second entry into London Drugs and his theft of a cellphone and accessories. [ 16 ] The following are found to be mitigating factors: Mr.

Cooper turned himself in to the police as soon as his picture was published; Mr. Cooper has expressed remorse for his participation in the riot; Mr. Cooper has written letters of apology to London Drugs, the mayor of Vancouver, and the Chief of the Vancouver Police Department; Mr. Cooper has taken responsibility for his actions and saved the public considerable time and expense by entering a guilty plea to this offence; Mr.

Cooper has a strong and supportive community of family and friends. [ 17 ] Crown counsel, relying on a significant body of cases, submitted the principles of denunciation and deterrence were predominant in the sentencing of riot offenders. Crown also took the position that participating in a riot was such a serious offence that custody was the appropriate sentence in all but the most exceptional of circumstances. [ 18 ] The Crown's position on sentence was based on more aggravating factors than have been found by this court. Crown counsel argued that as Mr.

Cooper was some years older than many of the riot offenders previously sentenced and could not claim the mitigating factor of no prior criminal record, the appropriate sentence would be a custodial term in the range of 60 to 90 days followed by a 12- month probation order requiring Mr. Cooper to perform 100 hours of community work service. [ 19 ] The argument advanced by the defence against the Crown position on sentence was that the Crown's position was predicated on a presumptive custodial sentence.

The defence submitted this position is inconsistent with the purpose and principles of sentencing as set out in s. 718 through 718.2 of the Criminal Code and the body of case law which has been decided since Parliament made significant amendments to the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code in 1996. [ 20 ] Following the release of the Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Peepre and R. v.

Kennedy Williams on March 19, 2013, defence counsel prepared supplementary written submissions, provided them to Crown counsel, and subsequently wrote a response to the Crown's reply. [ 21 ] I have read all the material provided by counsel. I do not intend to review all of the case law submitted by counsel in support of their original or subsequent submissions. The recent decisions in R. v. Peepre and R. v. Kennedy Williams are binding authority and addressed the issues this court had to resolve in determining the appropriate sentence for Mr.

Cooper. [ 22 ] Denunciation and deterrence have been confirmed as primary sentencing principles given the nature of rioting. The corrigendum released April 2nd, 2013, to paragraph 31 of Madam Justice Garson's reasons is most instructive. It is as follows: The sentences imposed in the 1991 Penticton riot and the 1994 Vancouver Stanley Cup riot are significantly more punitive than the more recent sentences. Those decisions predate the 1996 Criminal Code amendment (An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other Acts in consequence thereof ... and were imposed when sentencing options were more limited.

Consequently it is my view that the pre-amendment riot-related sentencing decisions, while not irrelevant, must be considered with some caution. [ 23 ] Mr. Cooper, like all riot offenders, must be sentenced on the basis of the entire context of the riot, his specific actions in participating in the riot, and all of his personal circumstances. The destruction of the premises at London Drugs and the looting of that store was the major riot event. The estimate was 300 persons involved.

There was significant trauma caused to many staff members who were effectively held hostage in their place of employment by rampaging looters. [ 24 ] I am not persuaded by the defence submission that in isolated circumstances Mr. Cooper's conduct may invite a conditional discharge. That submission trivializes Mr. Cooper's participation in the riot and ignores the fact that he comes before this court with a prior conviction. [ 25 ] I did not understand the Crown's statement that Mr.

Cooper was in the group of rioters who first entered London Drugs after the security gates and doors were breached to be anything but a statement of fact based on the video evidence presented. The Crown did not call Mr. Cooper an instigator. He was in no way seen to be cheering anyone on, but was quite deliberate in his demeanour on his first entry and, as stated, it is agreed that Mr. Cooper spent less than a minute in London Drugs on his first entry. [ 26 ] It is also agreed that Mr. Cooper's second entry into the store was for a considerably longer duration. Mr.

Cooper proceeded to the escalator, went down to the lower floor and into the electronics department. He is captured going behind the service desk, going into a display case, and taking a cellphone, a charger, and batteries. His actions were very purposeful and conflict significantly with the submission that Mr. Cooper was there to dissuade his friend from similar conduct and made an impulsive decision to steal. [ 27 ] It does not go to Mr. Cooper's credit that he retained the looted property for a significant time after the riot.

Having the property and being fully aware that he was involved in the riot tarnishes the mitigation of turning himself into the police once his identity received media attention. [ 28 ] Defence counsel's submissions with respect to Mr. Cooper's participation in the riot in relation to paragraph 30 of the Court of Appeal's decision in Peepre did not address the point the court was making about the jeopardy first-time offenders face for certain behaviours. Again, Mr. Cooper is not before this court as a first-time offender. Counsel's submissions with respect to Mr. Cooper's prior conviction were not persuasive.

Drinking and driving offences are so serious that Parliament has excluded them from the discharge provisions of the Code by imposing a mandatory minimum sentence.

[ 29 ] It is important that all who were affected by the riot, those who had property destroyed, those who were placed in physical jeopardy, those who were working in businesses that were forced to shut down for a period of time, and generally the citizens of the City of Vancouver and surrounding municipalities are entitled to know that even when someone who has participated in the riot, as Mr. Cooper has, pleads guilty to the offence, the court is going to take that behaviour very seriously. [ 30 ] Having considered all of Mr.

Cooper's actions in his participation in the riot, all of his personal circumstances, and the body of applicable case law, it is this court's view that a custodial term is appropriate. In all of the circumstances, it is this court's view that allowing Mr. Cooper to serve that sentence by way of a conditional sentence order would not address the principles of denunciation and deterrence. [ 31 ] The custodial term is one of 45 days and Mr. Cooper may serve that sentence on an intermittent basis. There will be a probation order to follow the custodial term for a period of nine months, during which time Mr.

Cooper will perform 100 hours of community work service. [ 32 ] Now, the terms of the probation order may be something that counsel want to make submissions on. Mr. Nohra, is Mr. Cooper employed again? [ 33 ] MR. NOHRA: He is currently looking for some work and his work generally will keep him until midnight and perhaps beyond midnight at times.

So if there is a curfew or something of that nature, I ask that there might be an exception for him to go to his employment. [ 34 ] THE COURT: Well, I am thinking more in terms of if he has employment, certainly the comment from the manager at the Rockford Grill in the Pre-Sentence report was they need strong staff on busy weekend shifts, so if he was going to serve an intermittent sentence over weekends, he would have been demoted to a line cook.

Now, he is not currently employed there so what I am canvassing is whether or not if he is to serve this -- and you may want some time to talk to your client about whether or not he wants to serve it intermittently or just do it straight through. [ 35 ] MR. NOHRA: Okay, perhaps we could stand down for -- [ 36 ] THE COURT: All right, fine. [ 37 ] MR. NOHRA: -- a minute. Okay. [ 38 ] THE COURT: Thank you, I will just be in the back hallway. [ 39 ] THE SHERIFF: Order in court. All rise. (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED) (PROCEEDINGS RECONVENED) [ 40 ] MR. NOHRA: Weekends would work well for Mr.

Cooper. [ 41 ] THE COURT: All right, then. The probation order binding Mr. Cooper while he serves the custodial term, he will be taken into custody today and processed. He will report on subsequent Fridays at 5:00 p.m. to the North Fraser Pretrial Centre in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, and will remain in custody until 5:00 p.m. the following Sunday, and those weekends will continue until the sentence has been served. [ 42 ] Mr. Cooper will have to report to the probation office at 275 East Cordova Street here in the City of Vancouver, Province of British Columbia before 12:00 noon tomorrow.

He will thereafter report as and when directed by his probation officer while he is serving the custodial term. [ 43 ] He will on all Fridays report the North Fraser Pretrial Centre in a completely sober condition. [ 44 ] Following the completion of the custodial term, Mr. Cooper will then be on probation for a period of nine months.

So he must, within 48 hours of the completion of the custodial term, report again to the probation officer at 275 East Cordova Street here in the City of Vancouver, Province of British Columbia, in person and thereafter as and when directed by his probation officer. [ 45 ] He will, at the direction of and to the satisfaction of his probation officer, perform 100 hours of community work service and in that way make reparation to the community for his participation in this terrible event. [ 46 ] Additionally, there is a victim fine surcharge. It is $100. By statute, Mr.

Cooper has two months' time to pay. [ 47 ] Mr. Nohra, will he need longer than that? [ 48 ] MR. NOHRA: No. [ 49 ] THE COURT: Thank you. All right. [ 50 ] Mr. Cooper, you will have to go with the deputy sheriff. The paperwork will be processed. You will meet with a judicial justice of the peace later today who will go through the terms of both of the probation orders with you and explain to you the consequences if you are to breach those orders or if you fail to report to the correctional centre as directed. Thank you.

[ 51 ] MS.

SMITH KERR: The Crown will direct a stay of proceedings with respect to the remaining count. [ 52 ] THE COURT: Thank you. [REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED] CORRIGENDUM – Released August 29, 2013 [1] Paragraphs 6 through 10 should be formatted as outlined below to indicate the transition from a quotation from the Admissions of Fact to Judge Palmer's Reasons for Judgment, and the paragraph numbering in subsequent paragraphs adjusted accordingly. [6] By way of background, the riot was more than five hours of horrendous chaos previously described by the Crown as follows: As the rioting crowds occupied West Georgia Street and the surrounding areas, multiple commercial premise windows were broken and the contents of the premises looted.

Vehicles were vandalized, broken into, and set on fire. Crowds of people faced against the police and projectiles were thrown at the police. Numerous police officers and civilians were assaulted.

An atmosphere of lawlessness, violence, and destruction quickly consumed the downtown core of Vancouver. [7] The following statistics provide a framework for the scope of the riot: 1,035 emergency personnel were deployed to the downtown core of Vancouver on the night of the riot; 928 police officers, two-thirds of whom were members of the Vancouver Police Department and the other one-third from other Lower Mainland municipalities and the RCMP; 63 members of the Vancouver Fire and Rescue Service; 44 members of the British Columbia Ambulance Service.

The number of calls to 911 in the hours of the riot exceeded the number of calls ever received in any 24-hour period. 297 riot events described as an incident related to a location, a piece of property, or a person were identified, many involving hundreds of perpetrators. [8] A breakdown of the riot events is as follows: 26 arsons; 193 acts of mischief; 26 break and enters; 52 assaults, 18 on civilians, 32 on police officers, one officer assaulted twice, and one firefighter. 116 arrests were made in the area and during the time of the riot. 112 businesses were damaged. 122 vehicles were damaged or destroyed, 24 of which were emergency service vehicles belonging to either the police or fire department.

No comprehensive assessment of the monetary losses sustained in the riot exists, but reported losses as of February 2012 were calculated at $3,778,190.59. [9] Not all of the effects are quantifiable. This is evident from the victim impact statements filed by people who were held hostage in their workplaces, afraid for their lives, and who consequently lost their sense of security and safety. The impact on the many who had personal property destroyed were those who were traumatized by exposure to the violence and rampant destruction is immeasurable.

It is an outrage that those who are dedicated to public safety and health, who serve as first responders, the police, the fire service, and emergency health personnel were subjected to the violence and wanton destruction. Impeding first responders creates serious risk for untold numbers of citizens. It is a further outrage that the citizens of Vancouver were further put at risk by the destruction of so many service vehicles. [10] Discussing Mr. Cooper's participation in the riot, paragraphs 47 through 51 of the Admissions of Fact, Exhibit 3 in this proceeding, set out Mr.

Cooper's actions as captured on various video clips. After the riot had commenced at the live site, Mr. Cooper was filmed in the crowd in the 600 block of West Georgia and in the 600 block of Seymour Street. He is present in these locations watching as rioters are breaking into and looting the Bay and others are vandalizing three vehicles parked on Seymour Street.