R. v. Dragani et al Date:, 2018 BCPC 9

Citation: R. v. Dragani et al Date: 20180109 2018 BCPC 9 File No: 240949-2-C Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal REGINA v. STEVEN JOHN DRAGANI NAEIM BAKHTYARI EXCERPTS FROM PROCEEDINGS REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE D. ST. PIERRE Counsel for the Crown: G. Ng Counsel for Accused Dragani : J. Thorhaug Counsel for Accused Bakhtyari : J. Desbarats Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: January 9, 2018

Date of Judgment: January 9, 2018 [ 1 ] THE COURT: The two accused here, Mr. Dragani and Mr. Bakhtyari, are here for sentencing today. Probably the most difficult job a judge has in criminal matters is the task of determining an appropriate sentence because of the multitude and variety of factors that have to be taken into account and the number of interests that have to be balanced. It is a very difficult and individualized task. [ 2 ] These charges arise on an indictment, 240494. We had a trial, after which the accused were found guilty of several counts on that indictment.

Count 1 is colloquially known as a break and enter charge. They were found guilty of that charge, the two of them. Count 2, originally charged under s. 344(1)(a); I found both gentlemen guilty under s. 344(1)(b), evidence establishing that using an imitation firearm they did commit the robbery of Reggie Sambire, Norcelita Sambire and Rency Sambire. Count 3, they were found guilty of unlawfully confining those same three individuals. Count 5 on the indictment I found the accused guilty under Count 5, s. 267 (

b) of the Criminal Code . Those are the charges for which the accused are being sentenced. [ 3 ] The background essentially is this: The offence date is September 7th, 2015. The information was sworn on November 13th, 2015. I was first involved, I think, in this case in September of 2016 doing a pre-trial conference. The trial, then, over the next period of time took some 13 days to complete. We commenced that in May of 2017. Judgment was eventually delivered on the merits on August 15th, 2017. Submissions on sentencing took place on November 21st, 2017.

I received a number of materials during that hearing, some of which I am going to refer to but all of which I have considered. [ 4 ] The case essentially involves a 9-1-1 call that was received by the police at approximately 2153 hours on September 7th, 2015. The call came in from a young man, Irvin Sambire, who was essentially hiding inside a residence and had related to the dispatcher that there was a home invasion, essentially, in progress. That is what his call was about. The recording of this call to the police makes for compelling listening.

He clearly indicates in that recording the level of fear the young man was feeling as a result of seeing what he felt were two armed men in his residence, the sense of dread that he was experiencing as a result. He heard the cries of his mother. It is dramatic and difficult to listen to. [ 5 ] Apparently the situation was the two accused had agreed to go to the house to talk to and/or collect a debt or retrieve some property from Mr. Rency Sambire on behalf of some other nefarious individual. [ 6 ] Mr. Dragani provided a statement that I found admissible in these proceedings.

In a previous ruling I had already excluded the statement made by Mr. Bakhtyari. Mr. Dragani told investigators that he should not have been there that night. He said that their attendance at Rency's house was made to sound so simple. He noted that the people inside that residence were clearly not deserving of what happened to them. He relayed that the plan was not to interfere with the family. He said the house was reportedly a front for drug trafficking and not a family residence.

He later thought that if that was his mom who had been at a house and something like that had happened to her he would be devastated. He said he feels horrible for what the family had to go through in hindsight. Mr. Bakhtyari, again, provided a statement that was excluded. [ 7 ] I am satisfied, however, that both individuals highly regret their decisions after hearing all of the submissions on sentencing and all the evidence at the trial. Mr. Rency, who testified -- Rency Sambire was clearly a reluctant witness, and his evidence and the way he delivered it was consistent with the version of events that Mr.

Bakhtyari relayed to the police. Rency Sambire was taken inside the house after the two accused had approached him outside of the house and had essentially covered his head and wanted to take him inside. Once they were inside the house Rency Sambire received some kicks and punches.

He suffered a nasty cut on his head that required some stitches, and the injuries are noted in photographs that form Exhibit 16 in these proceedings. [ 8 ] I am also satisfied that the accused were surprised to find out there were other people in that residence, notably Rency Sambire's parents, and instead of retreating, however, they tied up the parents with plastic straps. The elder Mr.

Sambire had suffered from some health problems, and the shock and anxiety of the whole event caused him to appear as if he was in some difficulty and this caused Norcelita Sambire, his wife, great stress, an understatement, as she was worried for the health of her husband. It was all in all a terrifying experience. [ 9 ] At least one of the accused was brandishing what appeared to be a firearm.

Other than the cut that Rency Sambire suffered, the physical injuries suffered by the other victims in this case were fairly minor; however, the psychological and emotional injuries suffered will be no doubt felt for some time. There is a victim impact statement that attests as much, which I will get to in a minute. [ 10 ] The accused were not in the house very long, some 10 to 15 minutes when the police arrived, and that was pursuant to that 9-1-1 call that Irvin Sambire had made. He was, again, hiding under his desk in the bedroom and the accused clearly did not know that he was there.

The accused then left the residence and they started to walk away when the police, who had arrived on scene, interdicted them. Mr. Bakhtyari was arrested with the assistance of a police service dog. He received some large lacerations on his leg that required stitches and a hospital visit. Mr. Dragani tried to climb over a fence but fell on his head, injured himself. Again, he required a hospital visit as well.

So those essentially are the circumstances. [ 11 ] The Crown in this case seeks a four- to five-year jail sentence in a federal penitentiary for these accused, although they concede that a sentence on the lower end of that range is appropriate, given the lack of antecedents for these two men. They maintain that while it is found that there was no premeditation as to whether the home was occupied or not, it is equally clear that the accused did not cease to continue the offences once the situation changed.

Neither man abandoned the plan when they found out about the presence of others. [ 12 ] The Crown refers to s. 348.1 of the Code, which was in question. That is a

section that if the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew or were reckless as to whether the house was occupied, that is to be considered an aggravated circumstance. The defence says the Crown has failed to establish that aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt. The defence on behalf of Mr. Bakhtyari seeks the -- now, I wanted to confirm, Mr. Desbarats, because I do not know if my notes were exactly fair. Suspended sentence, and then there was -- what was your position with respect to -- there was an alternative you had suggested.

[ 13 ] MR. DESBARATS: I believe the alternative was a jail sentence of two years less a day. [ 14 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 15 ] MR. DESBARATS: Yes. [ 16 ] THE COURT: That is what I thought. [ 17 ] He submits that that is the range and that in this case, although it is conceded by counsel that a usual range is higher but is malleable depending on the circumstances of the case. And in this case there is the youth of the accused, lack of antecedents and other factors, of course, too numerous to mention that lead to a submission that Mr. Bakhtyari is entitled to leniency in this case. [ 18 ] Mr.

Dragani's counsel seeks a suspended sentence with three years' probation, noting that he was in custody for two and a half weeks before seeking bail and has been now on bail since that time without any problems. I should note Mr. Bakhtyari spent -- was it two months? [ 19 ] MR. THORHAUG: Yes, two months. [ 20 ] THE COURT: Two months in jail before receiving bail, and that is to be taken into account as well. [ 21 ] Mr.

Bakhtyari's personal circumstances are set out in a sentencing report that I received from counsel, and this is part of the sentencing materials that were filed and form part of Exhibit 3 and at Tab 2 is the sentencing report. At Tab 4 is the recognizance of bail that he was on once he was released, and it indicates that it is an exceptionally strict bail, essentially 24-hour house arrest with some exceptions. As I understand it there is no reported problems on that bail. Is that still the case, Mr. Desbarats? [ 22 ] MR.

DESBARATS: Yes. [ 23 ] THE COURT: Now, that bail document is now about two years old. [ 24 ] I am not going to refer to all of the information provided in that sentencing report, except I will highlight a few areas. Mr. Bakhtyari immigrated to Canada from Iran in 2000. He is now 25. He was 23, I believe, at the time of the incident. He has strong family support. His parents, his sister were all present throughout the trial. He indicated that he had suffered from an addiction to OxyContin. He has a five-year-old daughter.

He is separated from the mom, but he is involved in the raising of that child and the three of them often spend time together. He at the time of this report was studying for his GED certificate. Is there any change in that? Still. [ 25 ] After arriving in Canada the report indicates that Mr. Bakhtyari found it difficult to fit in. He did not speak English at the time. He was a target for bullying. He fell in with a bad crowd eventually, and made the now regrettable decision to get involved in what sounded like an easy venture, was to go and either talk to or pick up some money or property from Mr. Rency Sambire.

He says that approximately one month prior to the date of the offence he sought counselling for this addiction to OxyContin, was prescribed methadone and at the time of the offence his judgment was clouded by his dependency on these opiates and his efforts to extricate himself from that dependency. I am told that as a part of a program he attends the Anne Vogel Clinic in Richmond for treatment where he has access to a nurse. He is now on a daily program of methadone, and his monthly urine sample testing has been negative for drugs other than the substitute methadone.

He has been working since his time of release at an automotive company. [ 26 ] The report goes on to detail his attitude towards the offence and the shame and the regret he has for being involved in this. He is aware of the sacrifices his parents have made for him over the years and he has realized that he has embarrassed and ashamed his family. He is determined, he says, to turn a corner and his behaviour in the last several years while he has been on bail is consistent with that. He has no criminal record. [ 27 ] Mr. Dragani has a presentence report that was prepared on behalf of him by Ms.

Bui [phonetic], a probation officer. She indicates -- and again, I am not going to refer to this document in detail because it is part of the record, but she indicates that he is 26 years old at this time and he was described as experiencing a rough childhood. He had reported that his father was an alcoholic and his father was both verbally and physically abusive towards him, his mother and his sisters. He says he witnessed his mother being sexually assaulted by his father but has minimal recollection of the incident.

He states that when he was about 10 years old his father attempted to kill him and his mother by beating and restraining them in the basement and then turning on the gas fireplace. He states his mother ended her relationship with him after the incident and that then his mother entered a relationship with John Orr [phonetic] when he was about 15 years old, and he described that relationship positively. [ 28 ] He attended Killarney high school. He was participating in sports activities at that school in a significant way. He attended Langara College for a couple of years. He was enrolled in sports-related courses.

He has been employed on a full-time basis as a labourer at a supply company since 2015. He has obtained through that employment forklift tickets and is hoping to obtain further certifications and a Class 1 driver's licence. [ 29 ] He indicated that he has had several low points in the recent years. Leading up to this event, his childhood friend Daniel Reid died in a drowning accident two months before the commission of these current offences.

He has no current concerns regarding his mental health, but he did disclose to the probation writer two attempts at suicide, and he reports an attempt to overdose on Clenbuterol, a non-prescription drug, and then later he used an exacto knife to cut his wrists. And all of this -- I do not mean to reveal such personal challenges and burdens for Mr. Dragani, but it makes a difference; it reveals his level of remorse, his level of regret over his involvement in these offences. [ 30 ] He spends now more time with his family and friends.

He has broken off his connection with the bad influences that he had previously let into his life. And he has done well on a bail document, which, again, is extremely limiting as far as his liberty goes but encompasses a curfew and not quite the full 24-hour house arrest that Mr. Bakhtyari was subject to. He is very regretful about being involved in this matter, and I can see that -- I can see that from both gentlemen from their appearance and their demeanour in court over

the last period of time that they have been coming to court. It is clear; it is obvious. [31] Again, this is a very difficult matter to deal with. As far as sentencing goes and guidelines, essentially, and ranges, there is nodoubt that the range is wide in these types of cases. Recently in a case called Smith from our Court of Appeal, 2017 BCCA 112, JusticeNewbury says in dissent at paragraph 35: I certainly agree that ranges are "merely guidelines," not "straightjackets," ...

It is trite law that ranges are not hard and fast categories anddo not preclude lesser or greater sentences if the circumstances or applicable principles in a particular case warrant. ... Each case mustbe assessed on its own facts and as Lacasse [from the Supreme Court of Canada] reminds us, the "fundamental principle ofproportionality" must be the primary focus. [32] There is no dispute that the range of sentence for a robbery with some kind of weapon is usually two to nine years. However,achieving a proportionate sentence is a case-specific endeavour requiring a consideration of many, many factors.

Again, as I indicatedbefore, they are not always easily articulated. The sentence is tailored to the individual circumstances of the offence and the offender,and that comes from the Supreme Court of Canada in Nur, 2015 SCC 15 at paragraph 43.

All relevant factors must be considered,including the circumstances of the offence, the circumstances of the offender, the needs of the community in which the offence occurred,and that comes from Nasogaluak at paragraph 44 from our Supreme Court of Canada. [33] With respect to sentences that could be said to be outside the normal range -- and I say that because in this case the defence isseeking essentially anywhere from a non-custodial sentence to a suspended sentence, and the Crown is seeking a federal penitentiarysentence in the range of four to five years, that is a wide range. In a case called Voong our B.C.

Court of Appeal in the context of therehabilitation of a drug trafficking drug addict, Madam Justice Bennett defined exceptional circumstances that would take a case outsideof the normal range. She says exceptional circumstances may include a combination of no criminal record, significant and objectivelyidentifiable steps towards rehabilitation of the drug addict, gainful employment, remorse and acknowledgement of the harm done tosociety as a result of the offences as opposed to the harm done to the offender as a result of being caught.

This is a non-exhaustive list,but at the end of the day there must be circumstances that are above and beyond the norm to justify a non-custodial sentence. It must besomething that would lead a sentencing judge to conclude that the offender had truly turned his or her life around, and that the protectionof the public was subsequently better served by a non-custodial sentence. [34] The primary consideration as far as the principle to be applied in these kind of cases is denunciation and deterrence. There aremany ways that denunciation and deterrence can be met.

One is through a jail sentence -- a long jail sentence. There are other ways. Our court of appeal in a case called D.E.S.M., (BC CA), [1993] B.C.J. No. 702, were dealing with a historical sexassault case, and a sex assault is a very serious offence obviously. The Court of Appeal said there at paragraph 20: There is no suggestion that the accused is a danger to anyone so he need not be isolated in order to protect the public. By convictinghim, society has already stigmatized him as a person who has committed a serious offence, and has denounced his offence.

Quiterecently, the Supreme Court of Canada has expressed itself quite strongly on the importance of stigma as a consequence of criminalproceedings. The court has been saying what most lawyers and criminologists have known all along, that a public charge, trial andconviction for a serious offence brands a person for life, constitutes serious punishment, and is an important part of the way societybrings offenders to account for their misconduct. [35] These individuals before me are young men. They have no criminal record. They have been on bail now for a couple of years -- strict bail.

With respect to the treatment of strict bail, there were some submissions made with respect to that. R. v. Tse, T-s-e, 2010BCSC 1273 at paragraph 20, Justice Davies considered how to treat time spent on strict bail.

He concluded after reviewing the cases thathe was satisfied that when read in conjunction with Cuthbert, the Court of Appeal's conclusion in Nghiem that time spent on bail is not tobe considered by some application of a mathematical formula to reduce the length of sentence does not preclude the granting of somecredit for time spent on bail in determining the remainder of an otherwise appropriate sentence that must be served after granting suchcredit. When I say "credit" I do not mean, you know, again, some calculation of days; I mean it is an additional factor to consider.

Andit largely, in my mind, in this case goes to supporting the determination that these two gentlemen have gained some merit and haveshown some aptitude, staying out of trouble and rehabilitating themselves to a significant extent. [36] There are some significant aggravating factors in this case, though, and obviously the charges themselves indicate that. Theyviolated the integrity, the safety of a family residence, the one safe place that individuals can retreat to from the outside world. They didnot stop their activities when they found out that there were folks inside.

The victim impact statement indicates that the level of securitythat this family had is no longer felt. They say every time the door knocks they feel apprehension, anxiety, a feeling of dread. That isunfortunate. They are entitled to feel safe and secure in this country at their home. They no longer feel that way because of the actionsof Mr. Dragani and Mr. Bakhtyari. That is a tragedy in and of itself. [37] Now, the accused are here before me as relatively young men. They are first-time offenders. They have taken significantpositive steps towards rehabilitation, if that word is appropriate in the case.

Rehabilitation is often used in my mind sort of incorrectly. We talk about rehabilitating offenders sometimes when their history has indicated that there was not actually a good period of time to goback to. These two men are different before me. There is an indication that they were not members of any criminal subculture, theywere law-abiding individuals before deciding to take

part in this ill-conceived scheme, so they are properly characterized as individualswho would easily get back to that state. [38] The cases, again, at the very low end of sentences for similar offences -- and the cases that were provided, the books that wereprovided, I am going to file the indexes just to show the cases I did consider. At the very low end of sentences for similar offences iscases like the case of Luttman, L-u-t-t-m-a-n, 2005 BCSC 405. Both accused there were involved in breaking and entering a house,assaulting the victim when there was a baby and a young child in the house.

They were sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years. Neither co-accused had a criminal record and there were no weapons used in that case. The high end of the range is double-digit federalpenitentiary time, and there are many cases that deal with those type of sentences in very aggravated circumstances that include previousrecords and a high degree of a level of violence.

[ 39 ] In a case called Hockley , H-o-c-k-l-e-y, 2013 BCSC 113 , both co-accused entered a home, beat the resident of the home to which they were convicted of breaking and entering. The victim had been hired as a subcontractor on a renovation project and the two accused were supposedly collecting on a deposit that had not been paid back, with weapons in hand. Neither co-accused had criminal records. Both were sentenced to 90 days intermittent imprisonment. [ 40 ] There is an excerpt from a case called Robison , R-o-b-i-s-o-n. It is [2016] B.C.J. No. 1445 and this is Justice Voith.

He was dealing with a case where an accused broke back into a home after a party where he was invited to and was found, essentially, standing over a woman masturbating in the occupant's bedroom while she was sleeping. Justice Voith considered Hockley in that case, and this is how he described it. He says: The two offenders, Messrs. Hockley and Thomas, were convicted after trial of breaking and entering a dwelling and of assaulting one of the occupants of that residence. [ 41 ] This is from paragraph 34. The victim owed Mr. Thomas money. Messrs.

Hockley and Thomas went to the victim's home carrying the shaft of a hockey stick and part of a shovel handle. They wore gloves. They demanded the money that was owed to them, and when that demand was refused, they both struck the victim. The victim received some bruises and one or more cuts to his head. He was treated at hospital, but his injuries were not regarded as serious. The Crown sought a sentence of three-and-a-half years, while the defence suggested [a suspended sentence].

Both accused were in their mid-30s, neither had a criminal record, and both were described as productive. [ 42 ] Justice Voith goes on to say that Justice Bracken, who was the judge on Hockley , addressed the same tension that is present in all of these cases, and at paragraph 35 Justice Voith quotes Justice Bracken in Hockley : It is not uncommon for the courts to be faced with a sentencing dilemma such as this one.

The offence is a serious one that has been frequently recognized as an offence requiring the emphasis of the principles of denunciation and deterrence, yet the two accused are productive citizens who have had no prior involvement with the courts or the police. [ 43 ] Justice Voith in Robison says about that case that he has considered it and recognized that entering a home of an individual is a serious matter, recognized that the range is from no sentence to sentences that exceed 10 years, recognized that a jail sentence of any kind is significant and he concluded that the Hockley decision -- had much to commend it.

It recognized the gravity of what had taken place and it allowed both accused to continue working while serving their sentences. [ 44 ] Other cases I have considered are a case called Stoneman , 2008 BCCA 140 , Court of Appeal; a case called Mariash , M-a-r-i-a- s-h, and [2016] B.C.J. No 849 , B.C. Supreme Court, and there was a 90-day intermittent sentence. The offender had a record but was not directly involved in the planning or the infliction of harm on a home invasion case. [ 45 ] Justice DeWitt-Van Oosten in a case called Chen , C-h-e-n, [2017] B.C.J.

No. 2120 , considered that case in a very serious aggravated assault case. A wife had been upset with her husband and had cut him very seriously with a knife, inflicted several wounds on him with a knife, one that went to the bone and cut tendons and permanently disabled the victim. Spousal violence in that case was aggravated, but the accused had no record and was granted a 90-day intermittent sentence in that case. [ 46 ] I have considered, obviously, the cases, again, that have been provided by both the Crown and the defence in these cases. [ 47 ] Jail for anybody who has not been to jail is significant.

After careful consideration -- and again, these are not easy matters to deal with -- I have come to the conclusion that these two gentlemen have been on bail now for a couple of years, have shown extraordinary attempts to get back on a -- what they were on is a life that involves no criminal activity. This is their first foray into offending, and it was a big one. Can an intermittent sentence be considered a lenient sentence? Well, obviously. Is it warranted in this case? Based on the authorities that I have looked at, it is. [ 48 ] These men should go to jail for a short period of time.

They should taste what jail feels like, but in my determination, a 90-day intermittent sentence followed by a lengthy period of probation is the appropriate sentence.

It is the appropriate balancing, recognizing that deterrence and denunciation is the primary factor to consider, but also recognizing that there are two young men without previous history in the criminal courts who need to be protected from any further stigmatization that may come from serving a lengthy period of time in jail and the negative impact of that, which clearly outweighs the laudatory impacts and clearly outweighs any principle of sentencing. This is the least restrictive sentencing that meets all of the principles of sentence in my mind. [ 49 ] A suspended sentence is not appropriate. Mr.

Bakhtyari and Mr. Dragani should go to jail on the weekends; they should experience it, see what it is like and hopefully come to the very easy conclusion that that is not a place where they ever want to be. [ 50 ] This is the sentence for both individuals. It is a 90-day intermittent sentence followed by a period of probation of two years. [ 51 ] Both gentlemen, you are going to serve 90 days of imprisonment. You can serve that term intermittently by rendering yourself at 6:00 p.m. on Fridays to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays on consecutive weekends, and that starts this weekend.

They will be taken into custody today to process you, but you will be released to come back to turn yourself in at the place where you are directed to turn yourself in at six o'clock on Friday. [ 52 ] At the times when you are not in custody until your sentence has been served in full you are on probation with the conditions that follow. You are going to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. You are both to appear before the court when required to do so.

You are to notify the court or your probation officer in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the court or your probation officer of any change of employment or occupation. [ 53 ] On each occasion when the part of the intermittent jail sentence is to be served you shall arrive at the place where the sentence is to be served on time and in an entirely sober condition, not under the influence of any controlled drug unless you have been prescribed

that drug. [ 54 ] You shall report to a probation office no later than four o'clock tomorrow and thereafter as directed. [ 55 ] You will provide your residential address to that person and do not change it without the written consent of your probation officer. [ 56 ] You are not to have any contact direct or indirect with anyone in the Sambire family. That is Reggie Sambire, Norcelita Sambire, Rency Sambire or Irvin Sambire.

You are not to attend any place of employment, any residence or any place of education that should become known to you for any of those individuals. [ 57 ] You are to participate, attend and successfully complete any counselling or other programs as directed by your probation officer. [ 58 ] I think both of you gentlemen could use some assistance in some of the challenges that you have had to face and some of the precipitating factors that led you to make such a stupid decision.

Hopefully that will assist you. [ 59 ] You will make reasonable efforts to seek and maintain employment approved of by the probation officer. [ 60 ] Following the expiry of your intermittent sentence, the completion of that, you will be on a two-year probation order with the same terms but I am going to ask that both of you write a letter of apology to the Sambire family, explain how you got to that situation and why you will never be back in that situation again. [ 61 ] You will both perform 75 community work service hours in the first 18 months of the probation order, and that is to give back to the community what you have taken, and you have taken quite a bit.

You have taken some security which money cannot buy, and you have taken it away from a family that did not deserve to have it taken away. [ 62 ] Is there anything else missing? [ 63 ] MR. THORHAUG: Your Honour, just for clarification, the letter of apology and explanation, that should be delivered to the probation officers? [ 64 ] THE COURT: Yes, that can be delivered to the probation officer. [ 65 ] MR. THORHAUG: Thank you. [ 66 ] THE COURT: Yeah. Anything else, Ms. Ng? [ 67 ] MS. NG: I just didn't know if Your Honour wanted to consider no possession of weapons except for -- [ 68 ] THE COURT: Yes.

Right. [ 69 ] MS. NG: -- work and consumption and preparation of food. [ 70 ] THE COURT: For both periods of time you are not to possess any weapons as defined in the Criminal Code . You are not to possess any knives except for the immediate preparation or consumption of food or during your course of lawful employment. [ 71 ] Now, both of you are getting a chance to redeem yourselves. You can take that chance or you can screw it up, but if you decide to mess it up the response is not going to be a good one. You are getting a chance. You only get one chance. Do not blow it. [ 72 ] MS.

NG: Your Honour, just the ancillary orders. [ 73 ] THE COURT: Yes. Let me go through the ancillary orders now. [ 74 ] The DNA will be taken from both individuals under s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code . Count 1, I believe, is the primary designated offence. [ 75 ] MS. NG: Yes. The robbery. [ 76 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 77 ] There are mandatory firearms prohibitions pursuant to s. 109 of the Code, and I think that is also under

section -- I mean, Count 1 and Count -- sorry, Count 2 is the robbery. And that is for life, is it not? [ 78 ] MS. NG: On a first offence it's 10 years. [ 79 ] THE COURT: Ten years. Ten years, sorry. For 10 years. [ 80 ] There are surcharges, counsel. The surcharges amount to $200 per offence, and there are four of them by my count. That is $800. How much time do your clients need to pay, then? [ 81 ] MR. THORHAUG: Mr. Dragani's still working, so whatever time the court will allow him. I know two months is supposed to be deemed appropriate nowadays. [ 82 ] STEVEN DRAGANI: That's fine. [ 83 ] THE COURT: Can you do that? Sixty days to pay the victim surcharges.

(REASONS CONCLUDED)