R. v. Snelgrove Date:, 2012 BCPC 235

Citation: R. v. Snelgrove Date: 20120703 2012 BCPC 0235 File No: 233503-1-V Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. ROBERT MITCHELL SNELGROVE REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE G. RIDEOUT Counsel for the Crown: R. Flannigan Counsel for the Defendant: C. Corriveau Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: July 3, 2012 Date of Judgment: July 3, 2012

Introduction [ 1 ] THE COURT: On June 15th of 2011, mayhem erupted on the streets in the core of Vancouver as a result of a riot which broke out following Game 7 of the Stanley Cup playoffs. [ 2 ] The accused has entered a guilty plea to a charge of participating in that riot. He must now be sentenced for his transgression.

Issue [ 3 ] The sole issue to be determined is what is a fit and proper sentence, having regard to the circumstances of the offender and the circumstances of the offence. [ 4 ] By operation of s. 718 through s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code , those sections define the principles which I must address in fashioning and crafting a fit and proper sentence. Background [ 5 ] My colleagues, Judges Harris and MacLean, in R. v. Alviar , 223515-1-V and R. v. Dickinson , 223507-1-V, respectively, have reviewed the context and circumstances surrounding the Stanley Cup riot in June of 2011.

I also had the benefit of Admissions filed by Counsel which are appended to this Ruling which fully address the riot overall and the particular participation by Mr. Snelgrove. [ 6 ] Mr. Snelgrove had been drinking at his apartment in the West End during the evening of June 15th of 2011. It appears he drank to the point that he became intoxicated. [ 7 ] Mr. Snelgrove, through Facebook, learned that there was a riot taking place in the core of the city. The riot developed in the entertainment district, along towards Georgia Street and down to Queen Elizabeth Theatre.

The riot also expanded to the Robson area of the retail district. (See Appended Admissions) [ 8 ] It is clear that the scene was chaotic when Mr. Snelgrove arrived at the riot scene. A video was presented to the court in which Mr. Snelgrove is seen in the crowd. He is wearing black clothing with a white jacket under his right arm. At that point, his behaviour was appropriate. [ 9 ] A further video was played for the court depicting riot activity at the Hudson Bay Company and Sears. Some individuals are seen with masks or partial masking of their faces, tools in hand, breaking windows.

There is no indication that Mr. Snelgrove was instigating the riot in the fashion displayed by those individuals. [ 10 ] Those who were instigating the riot demonstrated shocking behaviour in an otherwise civil city. The cowardly act of covering their faces or partially covering their faces to avoid detection clearly establishes that they had a goal in mind, and that goal was to damage property thus encouraging others to loot. [ 11 ] For whatever reason, Mr. Snelgrove got drawn into the maelstrom taking place.

Probably fuelled by alcohol and the fervour of the crowd around him, he is depicted going into Sears through one of the damaged front doors to an area where face products were located. He is seen taking those products and leaves through a broken door where he is captured on video by a media outlet. [ 12 ] He returned to his residence in the West End at some point thereafter. When he awoke in the morning, he realized that what he had done had attracted media attention, and he did do the right thing in going to the Vancouver Police Department.

He returned the goods and confessed. [ 13 ] Since the riot he also made himself available to other media outlets and has admitted his involvement in the participation in the riot and has apologized for his misconduct. [ 14 ] He was 24 years of age at the time and had no criminal record. Position of the Parties [ 15 ] Mr. Flannigan for the Crown takes the position that general deterrence and denunciation require an actual prison sentence of 30 to 90 days. He also has submitted to the court that the sentence may be served intermittently with Mr.

Snelgrove attending at North Fraser at 5:00 p.m., to be released on Sunday. [ 16 ] It has also been submitted by Mr. Flannigan that probation apply with community work service, counselling, area restriction and an abstain from alcohol provision. [ 17 ] Mr. Flannigan carefully took the court through cases that deal with riots, in particular the Penticton riot and the Canucks' riot of 1994. Reference was also made to other approaches courts across Canada have taken in riot cases. [ 18 ] It was noted by Mr.

Flannigan that it was not just mere presence, but presence and participation that aggravate this case; that it is through the type of conduct by Mr. Snelgrove that ramps up the fervour of others around him, and by ramping up that energy, others become engaged in riotous behaviour, including looting. [ 19 ] Mr. Flannigan notes that Mr. Snelgrove made a choice to leave his apartment and come into the downtown core. Admittedly a bad choice, but one made by Mr.

Snelgrove, and once in the downtown core, as the riot grew, he did not leave; rather, remained for a period of time and entered the Sears store, taking the face products.

[20] As noted further by Mr. Flannigan, Mr. Snelgrove in his confession to the police also indicated that he had gone into theChapters store which had been looted by many. He did not take anything from Chapters. [21] Mr. Flannigan as well emphasized that the post-offence conduct of Mr. Snelgrove is such that the court should have seriousconcerns of Mr. Snelgrove receiving anything but an institutional prison sentence. I will deal with the post-offence conduct in thecircumstances of the offender and my analysis. [22] Ms. Corriveau for the accused notes that her client has entered a guilty plea to this charge.

It was never set for trial. At thetime that he participated in the riot, he had no criminal record. He has a supportive family, who are here in court today. She notes thather client has been vilified by many on the World Wide Web. There was mention of the lifestyle of her client, of which I will simply saythat that lifestyle has no impact upon my approach to sentence other than Mr. Snelgrove received many unfortunate criticisms frompeople that caused him personal alarm. [23] Ms.

Corriveau also notes that her client's actions in this case were not as aggravated as those in Dickinson and Alviar, that theywould come in at the low end of the scale when taken in context with all of the actions happening in the downtown core. Ms. Corriveaureminds the court that there are alternatives to an institutional jail sentence, which includes a Conditional Sentence Order. [24] She has submitted to this court that in this case a Conditional Sentence would be an appropriate sentence, being both fit andproper, and that the more prohibitive the order, the more akin to an actual jail sentence it becomes.

Circumstances of the Offender [25] Mr. Snelgrove is now 25 years of age. His father and stepmother are here, along with a friend who supported him on bail. Ihave had the benefit of a Pre-Sentence Report which details the personal background of Mr. Snelgrove. [26] Within that Pre-Sentence Report, under "Court History", there is a registration of a record for assault with a weapon onFebruary 10, 2012, with the offence date being September 11, 2011, for which Mr. Snelgrove received a conditional discharge alongwith a probation order.

On that same date, there was a guilty plea to a charge of breach of a recognizance, for which he received anabsolute discharge. [27] Also contained in the Pre-Sentence Report is information with respect to the substance use and misuse by Mr. Snelgrove. It isclear from a review of that report that substance abuse is a problem for Mr. Snelgrove and was a trigger influencing his criminalbehaviour during the riot. [28] To his credit, with respect to proposed interventions in the Pre-Sentence Report, the Probation Officer advises thatMr.

Snelgrove has been cooperating with Burnaby Community Corrections and that Corrections have no concerns with respect toMr. Snelgrove's response to supervision. [29] The Pre-Sentence Report also confirms that Mr. Snelgrove is in receipt or was in receipt of social assistance benefits. That nowhas changed as he has secured gainful full-time employment over the last two weeks, earning approximately $2,000 per month. Analysis [30] R. v. Loewen (1992), (BC CA), 75 CCC (3d) 184(BCCA) is perhaps the most instructive case dealing withthe approach a court should take towards sentencing in relation to a riot conviction.

Mr. Justice Hinds spoke for the majority and notedthat general deterrence is to be paramount and notes, in part, at paragraph 10 the reason for the focus on general deterrence in thefollowing language: A riot is, by its very nature, a serious threat to orderly society. If riots become prevalent, they will undermine many of the values of a freeand democratic society. [31] In relation to the Loewen decision, the trial-level court had imposed a sentence of 10 months for participation in a riot, alongwith a period of probation.

In relation to the participation in a riot, the Court of Appeal reduced the sentence, maintaining the probationand community work service components. The importance in the Loewen decision is that it was an actual jail sentence imposed and notone under supervision through a suspension of sentence. [32] Following Loewen, the Penticton riots took place, followed by, in 1994, the Canucks riot.

At the time of both of these riots theConditional Sentence provisions were not an available sanction. [33] The case law establishes from those riots that general deterrence and denunciation are paramount factors to be considered, andthat rehabilitation is to be given a reduced value. By operation of law, I cannot ignore rehabilitation, but denunciation and deterrenceremain paramount. [34] The sentencing regime is set out in s. 718 through s. 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

It requires a balancing of numerous factors toensure that sentences are fit and just, having regard to the circumstances of the offence and the circumstances of the offender. [35]

Section 718.2 reads, in part: A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: . . .

(

d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and (

e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, withparticular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders. Mr. Snelgrove is not aboriginal, so that aspect of that subsection would not apply. [36]

Section 742.1 of the Criminal Code deals with factors to be considered in relation to the imposition of a conditional sentence. That

section reads as follows: If a person is convicted of an offence, other than a serious personal injury offence as defined in

section 752, a terrorism offence or acriminal organization offence prosecuted by way of indictment for which the maximum term of imprisonment is ten years or more or anoffence punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment, and the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years and issatisfied that the service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent withthe fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2, the court may, for the purpose of supervising theoffender's behaviour in the community, order that the offender serve the sentence in the community, subject to the offender's compliancewith the conditions imposed under

section 742.3. [37] In R. v. Wust, [2000] SCR 18, the Court was called upon to rule on an issue in relation to a parliamentary-imposed mandatoryminimum sentence. Speaking for the court, Madam Justice Arbour also addressed the approach to sentencing generally at paragraph 23in the following language: . . . In deciding on the appropriate sentence, the court is directed by

Part XXIII of the Code to consider various purposes and principles ofsentencing, such as denunciation, general and specific deterrence, public safety, rehabilitation, restoration, proportionality, disparity,totality and restraint, and to take into account both aggravating and mitigating factors. The case law provides additional guidelines, oftenin illustrating what an appropriate range of sentence might be in the circumstances of a particular case. [38] Here I adopt the positions taken by my brothers MacLean and Harris that denunciation and general deterrence are paramount,and to a lesser degree rehabilitation.

Ultimately, any sentence I impose must be proportionate by operation of s. 718.1. [39] R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5 , [2000] SCJ No. 6, is the leading case dealing with the imposition of conditional sentenceorders. Mr. Flannigan has candidly indicated that such an analysis is triggered in light of the position taken by the Crown in thecircumstances of this case. [40] The Supreme Court of Canada deals with the rationale for conditional sentence orders at paragraphs 98 through 100.

Shortlyput, the rationale of Parliament was to try to avoid actual incarceration in cases where community supervision would also address generaldeterrence and denunciation. [41] The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the approach to be taken to the imposition of a conditional sentence order. There is nostarting point requirement; rather, deference is granted to the sentencing court to review the applicable factors to determine if aConditional Sentence is a fit and proper sentence. [42] Aggravating circumstances may still justify the imposition of a conditional sentence order.

The Court discusses the rationale atparagraph 115 as follows: Finally, it bears pointing out that a conditional sentence may be imposed even in circumstances where there are aggravatingcircumstances relating to the offence or the offender. Aggravating circumstances will obviously increase the need for denunciation anddeterrence. However, it would be a mistake to rule out the possibility of a conditional sentence ab initio simply because aggravatingfactors are present. I repeat that each case must be considered individually.

Disposition [43] There are aggravating and mitigating circumstances identified by both lawyers. It is aggravating in this particular case thatMr. Snelgrove voluntarily chose to participate in what became an enormous riot. His conduct may be at the lower end, but thatparticipation had the potential to influence others to engage in criminal behaviour. [44] Unlike Mr. Dickinson and Mr. Alviar, whose involvement was much more serious, it remains aggravating nonetheless thatproperty that was not Mr. Snelgrove's was removed from Sears.

It is also aggravating that victims are left in the wake, both storesecurity people, as noted in the victim impact letters, the community at large, and the reputation of that community that Vancouver is notto civil society which is one of our hallmarks. It is further aggravated by the fact that Mr. Snelgrove spent a period of time in thedowntown core before returning back to his apartment. [45] His post-offence conduct is also of concern. That conduct involved a domestic relationship in which Mr. Snelgrove, under theinfluence of alcohol, got into a fight with his former partner.

He threw a beer bottle at the complainant, intending to strike him in thechest, but hitting him in the nose, causing a bloody nose. Ultimately he was sentenced to a conditional discharge with probation. At thesame time he pled guilty to a charge of breaching a recognizance by consuming alcohol and received an absolute discharge.

[ 46 ] It is those aggravating reasons, in large measure, which support Mr. Flannigan's position that a Conditional Sentence would not meet the fundamental purpose and principles as set out in the Criminal Code , and, further, that there is a risk of reoffending by his conduct through not addressing his alcohol problem. [ 47 ] In mitigation, Mr. Snelgrove's participation is at the lower end. Unlike Mr. Alviar, who had three riotous actions, there is one by Mr. Snelgrove. That certainly had an influence on the Crown's position of a 30- to 90-day sentence, as the Crown had been seeking a much higher sentence on Mr.

Alviar, in which my brother Judge Harris imposed a one-month sentence. [ 48 ] Mr. Snelgrove I find to be a naïve young man. One is not punished for naïveté, but it may explain some of his conduct. The guilty plea is a critical factor, especially in this busy courthouse. [ 49 ] Mr. Snelgrove confessed. That is an important consideration in this case. There was no effort to run and hide or to disguise himself. One could say he was clearly caught from the video, but he did not need to go to the police and confess.

I note he returned the product that he stole from Sears. [ 50 ] He has also confessed through media outlets on three occasions. He now carries with him the stigma of a criminal record. [ 51 ] In crafting a fit and proper sentence, I have taken into account the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. I have determined that a fit and proper sentence in this case is a five-month conditional sentence order. I am satisfied a Conditional Sentence would not endanger the public and also meets the fundamental purposes and principles of sentence. [ 52 ] The victim fine surcharge will apply in the sum of $500.

Should that pose a hardship, you may apply under s. 737(5) of the Criminal Code to seek relief. I am granting to you time to pay the victim fine surcharge to the 31st of October, 2012. [ 53 ] I will review the conditions of a conditional sentence order and then tell you a little bit about my approach to them. [ 54 ] You shall keep the peace, be of good behaviour, appear before the court when required to do so by the court.

You must report in person within two working days, or in any event by 4:00 p.m. on July 5, 2012, to a Conditional Sentence supervisor at 275 East Cordova Street, City of Vancouver, Province of British Columbia, thereafter as, when, and where directed. Subparagraph (

d) and (

e) also to apply, Madam Registrar, with respect to that. [ 55 ] THE CLERK: Thank you. [ 56 ] THE COURT: In relation to the additional conditions, you shall abstain from the consumption of alcohol or other intoxicating substances, including drugs, except in accordance with a medical prescription. [ 57 ] You shall reside with your parents at 1302 Hollybrook Street, City of Coquitlam, Province of British Columbia, and not change that address without the prior approval of the Court. [ 58 ] For the first three months of this order you shall be in your residence or on the lot on which it is situated seven days per week, except for genuine medical emergency pertaining to yourself or for travelling directly to, being at, and returning directly from your employment as confirmed with your Conditional Sentence Supervisor, or as may be otherwise allowed in writing by your Conditional Sentence Supervisor, which permission you shall carry on your person and present same upon demand of any peace officer. [ 59 ] Mr.

Flannigan, I want the Coquitlam RCMP to be made aware of this order. [ 60 ] If required to do so, you shall present yourself at the door of your residence to confirm curfew compliance by a Peace Officer.

When outside of your residence, you shall carry a copy of this recognizance upon your person and present same upon demand of any Peace Officer. [ 61 ] For the remaining two months of this Order, you shall be in your residence or on the lot on which it is situated between the hours of 7:00 p.m. of one day and 6:00 a.m. of the following day, seven days per week, except for a genuine medical emergency pertaining to yourself or for travelling directly to, being at and returning directly from employment as confirmed with your conditional sentence supervisor, or as may be otherwise allowed in writing by your conditional sentence supervisor, which permission you shall present upon demand of any peace officer. [ 62 ] Under subparagraph (e), Ms.

Corriveau having consented, at the direction of your probation officer, take such treatment and counselling as may be directed and approved by the Province of British Columbia, including but not limited to substance abuse treatment and counselling. [ 63 ] You shall not be found in the City of Vancouver, Province of British Columbia, except for prearranged visits to your conditional sentence supervisor or for genuine medical emergency that requires your attendance at a trauma hospital. [ 64 ] Within the first 30 days of this order, you shall write a letter of apology in a form approved by your probation officer directed to the residents of Vancouver and the people of British Columbia apologizing for your conduct.

I direct that the letter may be released by probation authorities to the media, so that it is out there. [ 65 ] Probation to follow for sixteen months. You are to keep the peace, be of good behaviour. [ 66 ] Forthwith upon completion of your Conditional Sentence Order, or in any event by 4:00 p.m. of the next business day following completion of your conditional sentence, you shall report in person to a probation officer at 275 East Cordova Street, City of Vancouver, Province of British Columbia, thereafter as, when, and where directed.

Provide your address to and reside where directed by your probation officer, not change that address without the prior written permission of your probation officer. [ 67 ] Within the first 12 months of this order and at the direction of your conditional sentence supervisor, you shall participate in and

successfully complete 150 hours of community work service. [ 68 ] Having consented, at the direction of your probation officer, you shall take such counselling and treatment as may be directed, including but not limited to substance abuse. [ 69 ] Now look, I mean this. I want to make something crystal clear to you: it is my practice to terminate a conditional sentence order if you breach that order.

Do you understand? [ 70 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes, sir. [ 71 ] THE COURT: Is there anything you do not understand about the order I have just pronounced? [ 72 ] THE ACCUSED: No, sir. (REASONS CONCLUDED) APPENDIX Court File No. 223503-1-V Vancouver Registry IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN AGAINST Robert SNELGROVE ADMISSIONS OF FACT Pursuant to

Section 655 of the Criminal Code , the following facts are hereby admitted for the purpose of dispensing with proof thereof at the sentencing hearing herein: THE RIOT GENERALLY 1. On June 15, 2011, the Vancouver Canucks hockey team played game seven of the Stanley Cup Finals against the Boston Bruins (the "Game") in the City of Vancouver, Province of British Columbia ("Vancouver"). A riot occurred in the downtown core of Vancouver between approximately 7:30 p.m. on June 15, 2011 and 12:30 am on June 16, 2011 (the "Riot").

A copy of a Map of the downtown core of Vancouver depicting the area where Riot related incidents occurred is attached under Tab 1 of the Crown Book of Documents which is marked as Exhibit 1 in these proceedings. 2. Robert Snelgrove ("Snelgrove") participated in the Riot. 3. On June 15, 2011, there were approximately 155,000 people in the downtown core of Vancouver during the Game at various venues including Roger's Arena, public viewing locations, private residences, restaurants and bars. 4.

The main public viewing site was situated around the Vancouver Public Library bounded by Georgia Street to the North, Robson Street to the South, Hamilton Street to the East and Homer Street to the West (the "Live Site"). Approximately 55,000 people watched the game at the Live Site. 5. Television coverage of the Game commenced at 5 p.m. The Boston Bruins won the Game at approximately 7:42 p.m. with a final score of 4-0. 6. At approximately 7:43 p.m. a passenger vehicle was flipped over and eventually set on fire at the Live Site.

The Riot started at this location and spread throughout the downtown core of Vancouver. 7. 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 off 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, including the 700 block of Robson Street, which was approximately 6 blocks southwest of the Live Site. RIOTING AT SEARS DEPARTMENT STORE 8. Sears department store ("Sears") is located at 701 Granville Street in the downtown core. It is a six floor building with one floor located underground.

The store spans one street block that is bounded by the 700 block of West Georgia Street to the north, the 700 block of Granville Street to the east, the 700 block of Robson Street to the,south, and the 700 block of Howe Street to the west. Sears has six entrances at street level, including the entrance on the northeast corner of the intersection of Robson Street and Howe Street (the "Entrance"). A diagram of the main floor of Sears and the entrances is attached under Tab 3 of the Crown Book of Documents. 9.

Sears is a major department store that retails clothing, jewellery, electronics, beauty products, home appliances and outdoor equipment. Sears employs a variety of different glass showcases, displays and racks to display their products. 10. On the night of June 15, 2011, Sears closed before the scheduled closing time of 9:00 p.m. due to intoxicated people inside the store, and the events that were occurring outside the store and in the area. Sears started shutting down the store and getting employees out of the store at 8:00 p.m.

There were eventually 5 Loss Prevention Officers ("LPOs") and one Manager left in the store for the remainder of the evening.

11. At approximately 9:19 p.m. a window was broken at the West Georgia and Granville Street area of Sears, near the Starbucks coffee shop. And at approximately 9:25 p.m., rioters began hitting and throwing things at the windows of Sears. 12. At approximately 10:26 p.m., a 911 call from an LPO at Sears indicated that a window was smashed on the Granville Street side of the store. As the night progressed, the windows of Sears began to be smashed by large groups of people. Specifically, the bank of glass doors at the Entrance was smashed. 13.

Initially, the LPOs attempted to hold the crowds at bay by deploying fire extinguishers; but eventually, they and the store manager retreated to the LPO office in the basement of Sears for their safety. 14. People began entering Sears at both the Entrance and other entrances located along Granville Street in order to loot the store. The looting at Sears occurred from approximately 10:40 p.m. on June 15, 2011 until 1:00 a.m. on June 16, 2011. 15. During the looting, individuals caused considerable property damage within Sears and stole large amounts of merchandise.

Some people were masked as they committed these acts. 911 was contacted a number of times throughout the evening regarding the destruction and looting at Sears. 16. Joshua Pollard was-one of the LPOs who remained within Sears during the Riot. Under Tab 4 of the Crown Book of Documents is a copy of his Victim Impact Statement. 17. Sears suffered extensive damages as a result of the Riot. Many of the exterior ground floor windows of Sears were broken; display cases and other furniture were destroyed within the store; and there was significant merchandise loss and construction repair.

The financial loss to Sears was approximately $399,537.56, being made up of the following: a. $41,960.00 in stolen property from people who looted the store during the Riot. The majority of the property stolen from Sears was from the Fragrance department; b. $88,390.79 in damage to the exterior of Sears; c. $258,912.77 in damage to the interior of Sears; d. $10,274.00 in employee wages for the cleanup and dealing with the aftermath of the Riot. SNELGROVE'S PARTICIPATION IN THE RIOT 18. During the Game, Snelgrove was at a friend's apartment in Coal Harbour in Vancouver. 19.

When the Game ended, Snelgrove learned through the media and Facebook that rioting was occurring in the downtown core. He left the apartment and walked downtown to see some of the destruction. Snelgrove walked around Granville, Robson and Seymour Streets in the downtown. In his written statement to the police dated June 16, 2011, Snelgrove wrote that he was "shocked by what I saw. It was exciting to see this crazyness, in a sick and sad way though." 20. Snelgrove saw people starting to break into Future Shop at Granville Street and Robson Street.

He walked west along Robson Street where he witnessed people trying to break into Sears. He was in the crowd outside of Sears at the intersection of Robson Street and Howe Street between approximately 10:30 p.m. and 11:15 p.m. Members of that crowd were yelling and screaming. Snelgrove witnessed the windows being broken at the Entrance and people looting Sears. 21. At approximately 11:10 p.m., Snelgrove entered Sears through a broken glass door at the Entrance, selected some cosmetic products from the shelves, and then fled the store. This incident was captured on video by the media.

The video contained in the DVD marked Exhibit 2 in these proceedings depict Snelgrove's participation in entering Sears and taking the products. 22. Snelgrove , in his video statement to the police on June 16, 2011, said that during the Riot he also witnessed the glass being broken at Chapters Book store ("Chapters"), and that he entered Chapters briefly, but he did not take anything from that store. 23. Chapters is located at 788 Robson Street and is across the street from the Sears Entrance . Kelsey Stranberg was the manager on duty at Chapters on the night of the Riot.

Under Tab 5 of the Crown Book of Documents is a copy of her Victim Impact Statement. Under Tab 6 of the Crown Book of Documents are photographs of damage to Chapters as a result of the Riot. 24. After taking the items from Sears, Snelgrove went over to the Art Gallery until the police came and then he went onto Robson Street again, and then went home. 25. The video contained in the DVD marked Exhibit 2 in these proceedings depict the atmosphere in the specific locations at the times that Snelgrove was present. 26.

On June 16, 2011, the day after the Riot, Snelgrove observed media footage of himself exiting Sears with the stolen items. Later that day he turned himself into the police and returned the items which he had taken. He provided two statements to the police, one which was videotaped and the other which was written. In his written statement to the police dated June 16, 2011, he stated, "In my drunken state, and in the excitement and crazy environment that was that night, I decided I should give it a shot and see if I could go grab some free product for myself." 27.

Snelgrove also provided three public apologies in this matter: first, to MacLeans.ca on June 23, 2011; second, to the Vancouver Sun on June 23, 2011; and third, to the Sun News Network on June 23, 2011. Under Tabs 7 and 8, respectively, of the Crown Book of Documents are copies of the apology to Macleans.ca and the Vancouver Sun. The video of the Sun News Network story is contained in the DVD marked Exhibit 2 in these proceedings.

IMPACT OF THE RIOT 28. Set out below is a

summary of the overall context and impact of the Riot on the City of Vancouver, its citizens and businesses. 29. On the nigh t of the Riot, 1035 Emergency Personnel were deployed to the downtown core of Vancouver divided as follows: a. 928 police officers of which 606 were members of the Vancouver Police Department and 322 were members from other lower mainland municipalities and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police ("Police"); b. 63 members of the Vancouver Fire and Rescue Services ("Fire Services") and; c. 44 members of the British Columbia Ambulance Service ("Ambulance Services"). 30.

On June 15 , 2011 there were more calls to 911 in the 4 hour period after the Game then there had historically been in any 24 hour period. For example, at one point during the Riot there were 92 calls to 911 for Ambulance Services placed on hold. 31. On June 15, 2011 at approximately 8:17 p.m. Ambulance Services Command determined that the area East of Burrard Street was not safe and relocated all, except six of their members, to St. Paul's Hospital. Six specially trained Ambulance Services members of the Integrated Tactical Support Unit ("ITSU") remained with the Police in the area of the Riot.

ITSU members responded to calls within the area of the Riot and coordinated casualty removal to safe areas for treatment. The six ITSU members were the only medical resource available in the area of the Riot. ITSU dealt with over 100 patients during the Riot. 32. Between 6 p.m. on June 15, 2011 and 6 a.m. on June 16, 2011 St. Paul's Hospital dealt with 150 emergency room visits. In comparison, Vancouver General Hospital dealt with 15 emergency room visits for the same time frame. St.

Paul's Hospital also set up a patient decontamination area outside of the emergency room to deal with patients suffering from exposure to tear gas or pepper spray. An additional 100 people were treated at the decontamination area. 33. The Integrated Riot Investigation Team of the Vancouver Police Department has identified 297 Riot Events. A Riot Event is an incident relating to either a certain location, such as London Drugs, a piece of property, such as a motor vehicle, or a person, such as a victim of an assault.

For example , the Break and Enter to London Drugs located at 710 Granville Street which involved looting of the store by approximately 300 individuals was recorded as a single event. The 297 events involved: a. 26 arsons; b. 193 mischiefs; c. 26 break and enters; and d. 52 assaults, of which 18 were civilians, 32 were police officers and 1 was a firefighter. 34. There were 116 arrests in the area of the Riot on June 15, 2011. 35.

During the Riot: a. 112 businesses were damaged; b. 122 vehicles were damaged or destroyed, divided into three main categories of: i. 93 civilian vehicles; ii. 5 business vehicles; iii. iii. 24 emergency vehicles (police and fire department); 36. The resulting monetary loss is: a. $2,715,591.59 to businesses; b. $537,869.00 to civilians; c. $524,730 to the City of Vancouver, Ambulance Services and St. Paul's Hospital. 37. As of February 2, 2012 the total estimated monetary loss as a result of the Riot is $3,778,190.59.

This figure is not a comprehensive representation of loss as 85 events have not provided estimates of loss and many additional costs such as lost wages, or labour costs for businesses have not been included. 38. The psychological impact of the Riot is difficult to quantify as personal experiences varied greatly. Some persons barricaded themselves inside businesses for safety, others guarded their businesses against rioters, a number of citizens defended property or other persons at risk to themselves. Some people have sought counselling.

DATED this 3 rd day of July 2012, at the City of Vancouver, Province of British Columbia.

____________________________________________ Chandra Corriveau, Counsel for the Accused Snelgrove _____________________________ Rod Flannigan, Crown Counsel