R. v. Coetze Date:, 2013 BCPC 208

Citation: R. v. Coetze Date: 20130702 2013 BCPC 0208 File No: 223619-1-V Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. HENDRIK ALBERTUS COETZE EXCERPTS FROM PROCEEDINGS REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE F. HOWARD Counsel for the Crown: L. Sarbit Counsel for the Defendant: J. Heller Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: July 2, 2013

Date of Judgment: July 2, 2013 [1] THE COURT: The accused has pled guilty to one count of participating in a riot on or about the 15th day of June, 2011,contrary to s. 65 of the Criminal Code. He is now before the court for sentencing. The Riot [2] The charges arise out of the accused's actions during the five-hour Stanley Cup riot that occurred in the downtown core ofVancouver on June 15th, 2011. The riot began at approximately 7:30 p.m. following Game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals between theVancouver Canucks and the Boston Bruins. The Canucks lost.

The riot started with the destruction of two vehicles that were parkedinside the Live Site in front of the Canada Post building. Both vehicles were vandalized, then overturned and set on fire. [3] Thereafter, the rioting crowd spread throughout the downtown core, occupying West Georgia Street and surrounding areas. Multiple commercial premise windows were broken and the contents of the premises looted. Vehicles were vandalized, broken into andset on fire. [4] Crowds of people faced off against the police and projectiles were thrown at the police. Numerous police officers and civilianswere assaulted.

As noted in R. v. Dorosh, 2012 BCPC 370 , 2012 BCPC 0370: "An atmosphere of lawlessness, violence anddestruction quickly consumed the downtown core of Vancouver." [5] There is no doubt that this riot was a particularly terrifying and tumultuous event. The financial and psychological impact ofthe riot on the community was immense. As at February 12th, 2013, the estimated monetary loss of the riot is set at $3.7 million. [6] For fuller descriptions of the chaos that descended upon the city during the evening of June 15th, 2011, see R. v. Dickinson2012 BCPC 40, paras. 1-5, 16-20, R. v.

Yates 2012 BCPC 250 , 2012 BCPC 0250, paras. 11-12, R. v. Patillo 2012 BCPC 299, 2012 BCPC 0299, paras. 11-17, 25-30, 37-38 and R. v. Chou 2013 BCPC 23 , 2013 BCPC 0023, paras. 13-15; seealso, "The Context of the Riot" sections of the Admissions of Fact at paragraphs 79 to 88 and the various DVD images of the riot thathave been filed herein. Coetze's Participation in the Riot 1. The Hudson's Bay Store [7] At 8:30 p.m., the police began receiving 911 calls regarding damage being done to the Bay by rioters who were amassed in the600 block of West Georgia and around the corner in the 600 block of Seymour Street.

By 9:00 p.m., the windows and doors of the Bayhad been breached and rioters began entering the store and stealing goods from the shelves. [8] At the same time, cars on Seymour Street were being vandalized and some set afire. The smoke entered the Bay, setting offthe fire alarms and the sprinklers. At the time of these events there were 70 to 80 employees hiding together up on the sixth floor of thestore.

Understandably, when the smoke began to waft in and the fire alarms went off, these employees began to fear that the store wason fire and that they might be trapped. [9] One of the Bay's loss prevention officers, Mr. MacLellan, attempted to confront the rioters as they entered the store. He andtwo other staff members spent some two hours trying to fight off the looters. His victim impact letter (Tab 13) provides a good snapshotof the ferocious and chaotic events both inside and outside of the Hudson's Bay Store. The damages at the Bay were extensive and muchmerchandise was lost.

The total financial loss was approximately $1.3 million. [10] Mr. Coetze was first captured on video outside the Bay on Seymour Street. His face was partially concealed by a yellow,orange, and white t-shirt worn as a facemask covering his mouth and nose. Shortly after 10:00 p.m. he entered the staff entrance to theBay located on Seymour Street. He exited the Bay some 20 seconds later carrying a purse. Loss prevention officers were behind himusing fire extinguishers to create smoke in the hallway to deter the members of the crowd from entering the store. Mr. Coetze sold thepurse a few days later to a co-worker. 2.

The London Drugs Store [11] The London Drugs Store is located at 710 Granville Street across from the Hudson's Bay Company and some three blocks westof the Live Site. The main floor of the store is accessible from the main entrance on Granville Street. The lower floor sells smallappliances, electronics, computers, et cetera. When the store is closed, the main entrance is secured by a steel gate, in addition to thickglass doors. [12] On June 15th, 2011, Mr.

Cheema, the store supervisor, decided to close the store early after observing an increasingly hostilecrowd in the downtown core and after receiving reports of a fire at the live site. At approximately 8:00 p.m., the employees closed thedoors at the main entrance by locking both the steel gate and the exterior glass doors. There were 27 store employees working in thestore. [13] At this time, rioters were smashing the windows and looting numerous businesses within the immediate vicinity of LondonDrugs. The Bay and Sears had numerous windows smashed and several thousands of dollars of merchandise stolen by looters.

Anumber of parked cars had also been damaged and set on fire near the London Drugs. The store employees remained in the store fortheir personal safety. They watched the riot occurring around them from live news broadcasts displayed on televisions in the electronicsdepartment located on the lower level of the store. [14] Shortly after 9:50 p.m., the rioters began to attack the glass doors and windows of the store with increased intensity. Out of

concern for safety, the store supervisor directed all store employees to hide in a small windowless security room located in the basement level of the store. [ 15 ] By 10:14 p.m., the rioters completely breached the entrance to the store. A large group of individuals immediately broke into the store, overturned display cases and stole merchandise. The entire break-in and looting of London Drugs lasted approximately 25 minutes with an estimated 300 people breaking in and looting at the store. [ 16 ] Mr. Dhaliwal is a loss prevention officer who was working in the London Drugs Store on the night of the riot.

He made at least three calls to 911 seeking help. The 911 dispatcher was not able to offer Mr. Dhaliwal much in the way of comfort. By the end of the last call, one can hear this dispatcher terminating the call with the words, "Good luck." [ 17 ] None of the store employees were physically injured. However, many were traumatized to the point of tears.

Victim impact statements from store employees and loss prevention officers working at London Drugs during the riot were filed in these proceedings. [ 18 ] Photographs of the interior of the London Drugs Store after the looters had gone are at Tab 12 of the Crown's book of documents and they are shocking. It is hard to imagine how so much damage could have been done in such a short time. The financial loss to London Drugs was $895,782 which includes $139,000 to repair damage and $756,000 in stolen and/or damaged merchandise. [ 19 ] After leaving the Bay, Mr. Coetze made his way to London Drugs.

At approximately 10:20 p.m., he entered this store through the broken glass doors. He was wearing a yellow, orange, and white facemask over his mouth and nose. He walked towards the back of the main floor, selected merchandise, and exited the store approximately 40 seconds later. [ 20 ] At 10:22 p.m. Coetze entered London Drugs a second time. When he entered, his face was uncovered. He took the escalator down to the lower floor and entered the electronics department. He selected an item in a red box from the electronics department and merchandise from a DVD display case. He returned to the main floor.

At this point, he placed the facemask back over his mouth and nose. He exited the store at approximately 10:24 p.m. with stolen merchandise concealed under his sweatshirt. 3. Swimwear [ 21 ] Swimwear is a small retail store located on the main floor of the high-rise residential and commercial tower known as the Hudson Building. This building is located at 610 Granville Street. Mr. Casey was the concierge for the Hudson Building. He was on duty. Some hundred people eventually congregated in the lobby of the Hudson Building during the riot.

They included residents of the building and other people who had come in seeking refuge from the events occurring on the street. [ 22 ] At approximately 10:00 p.m., people began breaking the windows of various stores on the ground floor of the Hudson. A general fire alarm went off in the Hudson. In his victim impact statement, Mr. Casey has provided an excellent and harrowing

summary of the activities of the rioters in the immediate vicinity of the Hudson Building. He notes: The crowds at the front were like wild dogs, screaming at police when they confronted them and threatening people who were trying to maintain order. [ 23 ] With respect to the damage done to the Hudson Building itself, restoration costs totalled $27,000. During the course of these events the windows of the ground-floor stores, including the Swimwear store, were smashed. Looters, some with their faces masked, began to enter the stores and steal at will. [ 24 ] Swimwear was closed for the evening.

The staff had gone home. At approximately 10:00 p.m., rioters began to smash their way into the Swimwear store. Again, they looted the store and damaged store fixtures and displays. More than 1,000 separate items were stolen from the store. The cost of the lost merchandise was in the range of $5,400. [ 25 ] Swimwear was the third store that Mr. Coetze broke into. He was captured on video exiting the Swimwear with his face masked. He was carrying a stolen item believed to be a telephone which he raised in the air towards the crowds. [ 26 ] Finally, Mr.

Coetze was last captured on video walking by Tip Top Tailors located in the 500 block of Granville Street at approximately 10:43 p.m. He began running as mounted police entered the block and moved in his direction. [ 27 ] Throughout the night, the video shows Mr. Coetze with two friends who also had their faces masked. Coetze's Dealings With the Police [ 28 ] On February 1st, 2012, Mr. Coetze was arrested in Victoria. He told the arresting detective that he was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs on the night of the riot. Personal Circumstances of Mr.

Coetze [ 29 ] This accused is a young man, 20 years of age. At the time of riot, he was just 18 years old. He is the eldest of three children. He was raised in Victoria, B.C. He had a good home life and upbringing. [ 30 ] He had his rebellious moments when in high school, especially in his last year and shortly thereafter. He and his friends apparently spent a lot of time drinking and partying.

He was expelled from one high school, but did graduate from a second school, Mount Douglas Secondary. [ 31 ] In September 2011, the accused enrolled in his first year of university at the University of Victoria for a year and a half. He resided on campus in residence prior to moving back with his parents. This was an effort to avoid the party atmosphere in the residences

so that he could focus more closely on his studies. [ 32 ] He is currently enrolled in an undergraduate program with a major in biochemistry. He will be entering his third year this September. He is doing well academically and plans to complete his degree in 2015. He hopes to eventually become a medical doctor like his father, but appreciates that this criminal conviction may undermine his chances of being accepted to a medical school. [ 33 ] As a child, the accused was diagnosed with mild ADHD after seeing a psychologist. He was reluctant to take medication until his Grade 12 year.

He continues to take Adderall, primarily during the school year, to assist him in focusing on his studies. He admits that his diagnosis is such that medication is not required, though it is beneficial. [ 34 ] Currently, the accused associates with his long-time girlfriend, Olivia Champagne, and a few other close friends whom he describes as supportive and positive people. Ms.

Champagne and the accused's parents have all advised the probation officer who prepared the presentence report that, in their view, the accused has matured considerably since the time of the offence and appears now to be focusing on his future. [ 35 ] The accused has held part-time employment to cover his leisure expenses. However, his parents cover the majority of his daily expenses, including tuition. [ 36 ] According to the accused, the last time he used marihuana was in Grade 11. He also admits to consuming alcohol on occasion prior to arrest, but does not identify it as problematic.

His parents and girlfriend confirm that they have no current concerns about the frequency or the quantity of alcohol that the accused now consumes. [ 37 ] The accused has no prior criminal record. However, with respect to his "character, conduct, and attitude", Crown counsel has referred to one prior interaction between the police and the accused; see R. v. Ross , 2010 BCCA 314 , paragraphs 12 to 13 . This interaction occurred on June 29th, 2011, just two-and-a-half weeks after the accused's participation in the riot.

He and his two friends, who had been with him during the riot, were checked by the police in a park in Nelson, B.C. The accused was arrested for being intoxicated in public. He provided a false name to the police at this time. He spent the night in the police cells and was released the next morning after the police were finally able to establish his identity. [ 38 ] With respect to the offence of participating in the riot, the accused acknowledges that he had consumed alcohol over a three- hour period prior to the riot, but asserts that he was not heavily intoxicated.

He had come to Vancouver from Victoria with his friends so that he could be in the city at the time of Game 7 of the Stanley Cup. [ 39 ] Before coming, he and his parents had a discussion about what he would do if a riot broke out. Apparently, there were rumours floating about in Victoria about the possibility of a riot, which is why this subject became the topic of a brief discussion, during which the accused told his parents that he would not participate.

He would stand aside and just be an impartial bystander. [ 40 ] Still, he did tell the probation officer that, "I wanted to be there if a riot broke out," believing it to be a "once-in-a-lifetime thing". The accused has advised the probation officer that at this point in his life, "he would like to believe that he would now be one of the individuals who attempted to protect some of the businesses or simply stand aside." [ 41 ] The accused has spoken in court about the shame and regret that he has been living with over the last two years. To use his words: I don't know who I was two years ago.

I have come to despise my 18-year-old self. He appears to be well aware of how his actions have affected not only his family, but the City of Vancouver and its inhabitants. [ 42 ] As an added consequence, the accused was personally sued by London Drugs for his

part in the rioting at that store. A settlement has been reached, but it is subject to a confidentiality agreement. To the extent that he cannot manage this debt in a timely fashion, the accused's parents will assist, but they fully expect their son to reimburse them to the extent that it is necessary. [ 43 ] Finally, I have received a letter from the accused's father who candidly acknowledges that his son was never an angel. However, he does confirm that there have been significant changes in his son's behaviour, all for the good, since his arrest.

I also have a letter from long-term neighbours of the accused who have known him since he was in elementary school. They speak very highly of this young man. Sentencing Positions [ 44 ] The Crown is seeking a short, but traditional jail sentence plus probation and community work service. The Crown is not opposed to having the accused serve his sentence on an intermittent basis.

However, the Crown is opposed to a conditional sentence order, having taken the position that the sentencing objectives of general deterrence and denunciation would not be properly addressed by an order that permitted the accused to serve his jail sentence in the community. [ 45 ] The defence position is that the same objectives can be met with the imposition of a conditional sentence order. Sentencing Principles in Riot Cases [ 46 ] The general principles of sentencing are set out in s. 718. 718.1, and 718.2 of the Criminal Code .

The requirements of the conditional sentence regime are set out in s. 742.1 of the Code . [ 47 ] Various judges of this court have now handed down several dozen decisions wherein sentences have been imposed upon rioters involved in the same 2011 Stanley Cup riot that is before me. In these decisions, the sentencing judges have considered at length the

above principles and their applicability to the offence of participating in a riot. [48] A review of these decisions yields several guiding principles that are relevant to the case before me: 1. The offence of participating in a riot is considered to be a very serious offence. See R. v. Peepre 2013 BCCA 115, para. 17; R. v. Fuller, 1995 CarswellQue. 2513, J.E. 95-118, paras 50-51, R. v. Patillo supra; see alsoR. v. Chou, supra paras. 28-29. [28] ... The mob mentality is incendiary and destroys the fabric of civil society.

It undermines the rule of law, and gives licence tothose who seek to perpetrate chaos and mayhem. ... [30] For these reasons, participating in a riot is a very serious offence. As noted in so many decisions of this and superior courts ...the individual component of personal offending may be small, but the collective acts of violence and destruction rob a democratic societyof the value of safety, stability and serenity that comes [with] a collective adherence to the rule of law. 2.

When assessing the moral culpability of the accused, his actions must be considered in context with the riot as a whole, not inisolation; see Peepre supra at para. 27; see also Fuller, supra, at para. 46, (also cited with approval in Patillo, supra): Those acts must be analyzed in the context of the riot. The gravity of the act does not lie in the destruction of the sign itself. The relativeminor offence of damaging and removing a "One Way" sign installed on a pole, at the St-Marc and Ste-Catherine intersection, becomesmuch more serious when it is committed during a full blown riot.

His actions have a direct impact on the multitude. His acts encourageothers to take

part in the riot. It contributes to the excitement, fervour, intimidation and dangerousness of the unlawful assembly. 3. Given the gravity of the offence, general deterrence and denunciation tend to be the driving sentencing principles. In the result,the offence of participating in a riot generally attracts a jail sentence even for a first-time offender. Specific deterrence and rehabilitationof the offender are often given less weight. See Peepre, supra, at para. 27; R. v. Patillo, supra, at para. 43; R. v. Kennedy Williams, Vancouver Reg., Unreported, #223050-2-VC,Sept. 21, 2012, upheld at 2013 [BCCA] 116; R. v.

Dickinson 2012 BCPC 40 , [2012] B.C.J No. 314 at paras. 21, 35; and R. v.Burkett 2012 BCPC 31 , 2012 BCPC 031 at para. 18. [49] With respect to the availability of a conditional sentence order, it is clear that there is no bar, statutory or otherwise, to theimposition of a conditional sentence even when the primary sentencing objectives are deterrence and denunciation.

In fact, there arenow numerous decisions wherein Stanley Cup rioters have received conditional sentences for participating in the riot by looting. [50] My review of the authorities suggests that the more common sentence for the looting rioter is a CSO in the range of two to fivemonths. This is so even where the offender enters into or loots from more than one store; see R. v. Snelgrove 2012 BCPC 235 (5 mo.CSO); R. v. Pateman 2012 BCPC 455 (60 days CSO); R. v. Ledesma, Unreported, 29 November 2012 Vanc. Reg. #223529-1-V, Walker,J. (4 mos. CSO); R. v. Foster 2013 BCPC (60 days); R. v. Cottrell 2013 BCPC (4 mos.

CSO); R. v. Chong, 2013 BCPC (2 mos. CSO); R.v. Eiers 2013 BCPC (2 mos. CSO); R. v. Ahmed 2013 BCPC (5 mos. CSO); R. v. Chou supra (90 days CSO). See also R. v. Cacnio 2012BCPC 314, a case wherein the offender received a suspended sentence. [51] There are a much smaller number of decisions wherein looters have been given traditional jail sentences; see Patillo, supra (45days); and R. v. Renderos 2012 BCPC 23 (45 days' jail). Analysis and Sentence [52] The offence of participating in a riot is inherently a very serious one. The scope and nature of Mr.

Coetze's participation in the2011 Stanley Cup riot, that is the breaking into and the theft of property from three different commercial premises, Hudson's Bay,London Drugs (twice), and Swimwear, places this crime in the midrange of seriousness. This is especially so given the degree to whichthese three premises were virtually under siege and at the mercy of the lawless crowds that the accused chose to be part of. [53] Mr. Coetze is fully culpable for the individual criminal activities that he engaged in and for his decision to join with otherrioters who were engaged in similar activities.

There are no mitigating circumstances present that might otherwise reduce his level ofculpability. [54] Given the gravity of the accused's offence and his moral culpability for the same, I am satisfied that a jail sentence is required inthis case. A review of the sentencing authorities dictates such a conclusion. The only issue is whether this should be a traditional jailsentence or a conditional sentence order.

Here, the focus is on whether a conditional sentence order would be consistent with thefundamental purpose and principles of sentencing. [55] In addition to the multiplicity of specific criminal actions by this accused, there are additional aggravating factors in this case towhich the Crown has referred. The most serious one is the use of a mask. The act of wearing a mask demonstrates a very deliberatedecision to engage in criminal conduct. Mr.

Coetze's decision to profit from his theft from the Bay by selling the purse that he stole fromthat store is also a disturbing and aggravating circumstance. [56] There are mitigating factors in this case, including Mr. Coetze's guilty plea, his acceptance of responsibility for his actions andhis remorse which I accept as genuine. Defence counsel has fairly noted that Mr. Coetze did not participate in the smashing of windowsor the destruction or burning of vehicles or other property. There is no evidence that he engaged in violent behaviour. There was noaggressive posturing or posing for the camera.

[ 57 ] It is obvious that Mr. Coetze has matured considerably over the last two years. He has acquired a good appreciation of the harm done to the community by his participation in the riot. He is now properly focused upon his education and he is doing well in this regard. He appears to have put his rebellious and immature teenage lifestyle behind him. His relationship with his parents has improved immensely and they are supportive of him. These factors suggest to me that Mr.

Coetze is at no risk of reoffending and that he is a good candidate for a conditional sentence order that allows him to serve his jail sentence in the community. [ 58 ] In the end, after reviewing the principles of sentencing, the legal authorities and the range of sentences imposed upon similar offenders for similar offences, I have concluded that the appropriate disposition in this particular case is a four-month jail sentence to be served in the community under the terms of a conditional sentence order. [ 59 ] In my view, such a sentence would not be inconsistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

A conditional sentence order that restricts his liberty to an appropriate degree will, in my view, be consistent with the sentencing objectives of general deterrence and denunciation which is the primary concern in cases of this kind. [ 60 ] The fact that the accused will now have a criminal record clearly adds to the denunciatory message that accompanies a jail sentence, even a conditional sentence, and this criminal record will likely impair the accused's travel opportunities as well as his future employment opportunities.

These consequences should themselves act as a deterrent to others who might be prone to participating in a riot in the future. [ 61 ] The terms of this four-month conditional sentence order will be as follows. You are: (

a) to keep the peace and be of good behaviour; (

b) appear before the court when required to do so; (

c) report to a supervisor in person by no later than 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 3, 2013, at 275 East Cordova Street, Vancouver, B.C., and thereafter, you are to continue to report to a supervisor at the probation office located at 836 Courtney Street, Victoria, B.C., as and when directed by the supervisor. (

d) You are to remain within the jurisdiction of the court unless written permission to go outside the jurisdiction is obtained from the court or the supervisor. (

e) You are to notify the court or supervisor in advance of any change of name, address, employment or occupation. (

f) You are to reside at an address approved of by the supervisor and you are not to change that address without the prior written approval of the supervisor. (

g) You are to advise the supervisor of your phone number and you are not to change that phone number without the prior written permission of the supervisor. (

h) For the first two months of this order, beginning on July 3rd, 2013, you are not to be outside of your residence at all except: 1. while travelling directly to or from or while attending at scheduled meetings with your supervisor; 2. while travelling directly to or from or while at your place of schooling or employment or volunteer service, but only if such absences have been approved of in writing and in advance by your sentence supervisor; or 3. in the case of a genuine medical emergency pertaining to yourself or a member of your immediate family. (

i) For the last two months of this order, you are not to be outside of your residence between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. daily except: 1. while travelling directly to or from or while at your place of schooling or employment or volunteer service, but only if such absences have been approved of in writing and in advance by your sentence supervisor; or 2. in the case of a genuine medical emergency pertaining to yourself or a member of your immediate family. (

j) You are to present yourself at the door of your residence when requested to do so by a peace officer or a sentence supervisor who is attending to confirm your compliance with the above curfews. (

k) You are not to possess or consume any alcohol, nor are you to enter any liquor store, beer and wine store, bar, pub, lounge, or other business premise where the primary commodity sold is liquor. [ 62 ] Mr. Coetze, I must remind you that this is a jail sentence. It is to be served in the community.

Should you breach any of the terms of this conditional sentence order, including the alcohol term or the curfew term, you may end up being ordered to serve the remainder of the sentence in jail. [ 63 ] The conditional sentence will be followed by a one-year probation order, the terms of which are as follows. [ 64 ] You are to report within 72 hours of the expiration of your conditional sentence to a probation officer at 836 Courtney Street, Victoria, B.C., and thereafter as and when directed. [ 65 ] You are to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. [ 66 ] You are to advise your probation officer of your residential address and you are not to change that address without the prior

written approval of the probation officer. [ 67 ] You are to perform 50 hours of community work service at the direction of the probation officer and those hours are to be completed within the first six months of the probation order. [ 68 ] Upon obtaining written confirmation from your probation officer that you have completed the community work service hours to the satisfaction of the probation officer, you need no longer report to the probation officer. [ 69 ] There will be a victim surcharge. It is $100 to be paid by no later than July 31st, 2013. [REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED]