R. v. Reedman, 2018 BCPC 243

Citation: R. v. Reedman 2018 BCPC 243 Date: 20180807 File No: 247052-1; 247052-2-A Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal REGINA v. TROY DOMINIC HERBERT REEDMAN EXCERPTS FROM PROCEEDINGS REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE P. MEYERS Counsel for the Crown: H. Pineo Counsel for the Defendant: D. Walsoff Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: August 7, 2018 Date of Judgment: August 7, 2018 [ 1 ] THE COURT: Mr.

Reedman is to be sentenced because he pled guilty to PPT -- possession for the purpose of trafficking -- in cocaine, on March 29, 2017, and then also a failing to report pursuant to his bail order, and that was on March 20, 2018. [ 2 ] Defence counsel has asked for a six-month CSO on the failing to report, and effectively 112 days or 114 days plus probation on

the PPT. [ 3 ] I have to say that the counsel's strategy on this is to circumvent the fact that CSOs are no longer available on PPT, so that what he asks for is a conditional sentence order to be put on the failing to report, as opposed to the drug trafficking charge. [ 4 ] Realistically, rarely will a conditional sentence order be attached to a failing to report, and that is why I termed it -- not to criticize counsel, but termed it as a strategy as opposed to dealing with, head on, the requirements that R. v. Lloyd from our Court of Appeal set down, saying that the range of sentence for PPT on a

Schedule 1 drug is between 12 months and 18 months if that involves a low-level trafficking, prior convictions, and he or she is selling to support their own habit. [ 5 ] So those are the conditions, or the ranges for people with those conditions.

To go below the 12-month baseline, as it were, there have to be exceptional circumstances. [ 6 ] So I have to look to see whether he does fall below that range. the Crown are content in saying that a 12-month jail term is appropriate -- in other words the bottom line for drug traffickers, low level, with prior convictions, selling to support their own addictions. [ 7 ] So I have to look at Mr. Reedman to see whether there is anything by way of exceptional circumstances to take him below the 12-month range. [ 8 ] I look at his background, and I see that I do not have, other than Mr.

Walsoff alluding to it, any evidence of mental health issues. I do not have any issues or any evidence of any serious abusive background. I have one case of when he was a teenager, the father took him out for a fistfight, but I do not have a presentence report, for example, that might document a whole history of serious abuse, physically or emotionally, by his dad, although I think Mr. Walsoff has indicated there was such a background. [ 9 ] But I do not have anything showing any kind of disabilities that he might have, like FAS, learning disabilities, socio- behavioural problems.

I have not heard that he was bullied as a young kid.

I have not heard anything of the serious background that we often have with people who are involved in drug trafficking - mothers and fathers who were alcoholics, mothers and fathers who were absent, mothers and fathers who were addicted, parents who were in residential treatment centres, being moved from foster home to foster home to foster home, physically and psychologically mistreated, no love -- all of this -- no support. [ 10 ] But in his case, I do not have any of that horrendous background, or bad background, or unfortunate background that I think do put people in an exceptional situation by way of their background, to cause the court to say, all right, he does not deserve 12 to 18 months, as the Court of Appeal have set the guideline. [ 11 ] I also look at the fact that, since 2009, when the first PPT occurred, all the way to 2017, there have been, with the exception of a good stretch from 2009 to 2016 with nothing happening, he has never, to my knowledge, gone into a drug treatment centre, a rehab centre, nor has he had psychological counselling or social workers or anybody, to deal with the anger and the addiction problems, and whatever is behind the addictions.

And that is something that, in exceptional circumstances, we also see, where somebody has battled voluntarily with going in and out of drug treatment, but just the beast that is too big to conquer.

I do not have any evidence that he seriously encountered or tried to get help for himself through all those years. [ 12 ] I do know that his mother in particular has been behind him, available and willing to help him out with whatever treatment mode he wants, but we have not heard of a man who has availed himself either of his mother or of his brothers or grandmother or society or the probation office to get some help. [ 13 ] So it is hard to see where he falls as a person who has such important exceptions to the average person -- if we can call it average -- of a low-level trafficker with prior convictions and supporting his own habit.

He falls smack dab in that range and I do not see where he has exceptional background factors that would lead him -- or lead the court to have to drop below, in fairness, the range -- baseline of 12 months. [ 14 ] As much as I accept when he says that he has been in custody now for 73 days, has gone on suboxone, has started to change his life and his thinking, and is ready to go to VisionQuest, the fact is that the court does have to have a certain amount of consistency. Not that every individual is exactly the same -- they are not. And that is why, in Lloyd , they say, guideline of 12 to 18 months.

But judges, if there are exceptional circumstances, give them lower than 12 months. [ 15 ] I just do not have it here for Mr. Reedman, based on his past record and his past, a willingness to go for some help along the way. He did have two PPTs in 2012, he did have two possessions in 2016.

He has had five breaches of UTAs and three breaches of probation orders, and I cannot see where he can fall below the 12-month mark that the Court of Appeal has said he should get. [ 16 ] So it is 12 months on the PPT, cocaine. [ 17 ] And then, in terms of the failing to report, that is certainly a charge that leads to some time but not a great amount of time, so he is going to get three weeks consecutive on the failing to report charge. [ 18 ] On the major charge, 12 months, he has spent 73 days in custody already.

He gets credit for 110 days, so you take off 110 days from the 12 months, and you add on the three weeks for the FTA, failing to report, and that is what he gets. [ 19 ] Victim surcharge -- he is going to jail. He is going to be unable to pay even two months out, I would expect, so I am finding him in default now and giving him two days concurrent to what he is serving now. [ 20 ] There will be a s. 109 firearms, which is mandatory, for -- did you say ten years? [ 21 ] MS. PINEO: Lifetime.

[ 22 ] MR. WALSOFF: Five. [ 23 ] THE COURT: Five years. Thank you. [ 24 ] MS. PINEO: Sorry, Lifetime. Lifetime. [ 25 ] THE COURT: Lifetime. Oh. Who said five? Did you just say that? [ 26 ] MR.

WALSOFF: Yes. [ 27 ] THE COURT: Lifetime under s. 109 of all firearms. [ 28 ] A forfeiture order for the cell phone and the cash and drugs that were seized from him. [ 29 ] A DNA -- it is secondary and discretionary, but I will order it under 487.053, to be taken at the penal institution. [ 30 ] He is going to be on probation for two years, and the probation conditions, will be, within 72 hours of his release, report to a probation officer at 275 East Cordova in person, and thereafter as when and where directed. [ 31 ] Take whatever drug counselling, assessment and treatment as directed by the probation officer and to the probation officer's satisfaction.

Take whatever assessment, treatment and counselling for any behavioural issues, as directed by the probation officer and complete them to their satisfaction. [ 32 ] Not to be in the City of Vancouver except with the written permission of his probation officer or for the purposes of scheduled visits to his grandmother or his brother in Vancouver. [ 33 ] No drugs or alcohol to be on his possession during the two-year probation period, except for prescriptions that are prescribed by a medical doctor, and in his name only. [ 34 ] Is there anything else that I have missed on that, other than keep the peace and be of good behaviour, come to court if required?

Ms. Pineo? [ 35 ] MS. PINEO: No. [ 36 ] THE COURT: And Mr. Walsoff? [ 37 ] MR. WALSOFF: No, Your Honour. [ 38 ] THE COURT: Mother, you had something to say? [ 39 ] ACCUSED'S MOTHER: I just do not hear anywhere in there where you are saying that he can go to his program. [ 40 ] THE ACCUSED: Well, it is not happening, obviously. [ 41 ] THE COURT: Your son has answered that.

He is going to go to jail first and then hopefully to Visions afterwards. [ 42 ] ACCUSED'S MOTHER: Are you saying that you would like him to complete a few more months or something and then he could -- [ 43 ] THE ACCUSED: Two hundred and something days. [ 44 ] THE COURT: Your son has it exactly right. He has got -- well, I think it is a little less than that -- no, it was a little more than that because he got the three weeks. [ 45 ] MS. PINEO: It is about 276. [ 46 ] THE COURT: What's that? [ 47 ] MS. PINEO: 276 days. [ 48 ] THE COURT: 276 days. [ 49 ] ACCUSED'S MOTHER: Okay.

The reason I ask is because if he just spends time in jail, he is not going to have any tools for him to get out and function properly in society. If he goes through the program, he will be better able to have a normal life. [ 50 ] THE COURT: You know, I think you have to go over it with Mr. Walsoff, who is a lawyer and knows probably -- you did not hear that part, but our Court of Appeal have said that the range that he falls within is 12 months to 18 months custody, and the Crown have agreed that 12 months should be the baseline. He should not get more than that. And I have given him the baseline.

I cannot give him less because as I have said, his background does not merit what the Court of Appeal, who governs all our courts, says has to exist before you let anybody off with less than 12 months. [ 51 ] So Mr. Walsoff can explain all that to you. It is hard for you to hear all that. It is also hard, I am sure, for Mr. Reedman, who has his hopes up to get into VisionQuest, but he is just not going there yet, and it is quite a long time. [ 52 ] THE ACCUSED: I understand what he said.

[ 53 ] THE COURT: I think you do. [ 54 ] THE ACCUSED: Yeah. [ 55 ] THE COURT: You know what. You may not believe this, but I do wish you luck, and I hope that you will survive in there somehow and still have the -- [ 56 ] THE ACCUSED: I'll be just fine. I'll survive just fine, thank you. [ 57 ] THE COURT: Okay. [ 58 ] ACCUSED'S MOTHER: So you are not going to build anything into this sentence where he can still go to the program at some point? [ 59 ] THE ACCUSED: No, that's off the table, mum. [ 60 ] MS. PINEO: And, Your Honour, I do have a copy of the forfeiture order, Your Honour. [ 61 ] THE COURT: Okay.

I will sign it. [ 62 ] Your son is very -- I think he is very smart, and he understood exactly what happened. He is disappointed, as you are. I think he understands where the law requires him to be, although Mr. Walsoff has said everything he could on his behalf. It is just not going to happen because that is what the law is. [REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED]