R. v. Cook, 2021 BCPC 56

Citation: R. v. Cook 2021 BCPC 56 Date: 20210319 File No: 247456-1 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Criminal Court) REGINA v. CADE COOK REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE R. HARRIS Counsel for the Crown: C. Choi Counsel for the Defendant: B. Movassaghi Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: January 27, 2021 Date of Judgment: March 19, 2021 INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Mr. Cook pled guilty to two counts of unlawfully attempting to export illicit drugs and one count of possessing methamphetamine and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. The Crown urges the Court to impose a global sentence of six years less

the time that Mr. Cook has served. In contrast, counsel for Mr. Cook argues his client’s circumstances are exceptional and urges the Court to impose a sentence of one day plus the time served for the exporting offences and a suspended sentence for the offence of processioning cocaine and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCES Attempting to export cocaine and methamphetamine – Counts 1 and 3 [ 2 ] Between April 2018 and July 2018, Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) intercepted and examined multiple packages submitted to individual postal outlets mailing to international destinations. Examination of the packages resulted on the discovery of cocaine and methamphetamine concealed within items in the packages. Further investigation identified Mr. Cook as being responsible for mailing the packages. The information was relayed to the RCMP, who arrested Mr. Cook and executed a search warrant at his apartment.

Inside Mr. Cook’s apartment, the police located cocaine, methamphetamine, packaging materials, and cash. The details of the offences are as follows. Exportation [ 3 ] On April 19, 2018, investigators intercepted two packages that had been delivered to separate postal outlets for mailing to Australia. Inside the first package, the investigators located three books with 32 grams of cocaine concealed in the bindings. Mr. Cook was recorded on CCTV submitting the package and his fingerprints were located on the inside.

In the second package, the investigators located a book with 15 grams of methamphetamine concealed in the binding. Mr. Cook was recorded on CCTV delivering the package. [ 4 ] On August 14, 2018, investigators intercepted a package that had been delivered to a postal outlet for mailing to India. Inside the package, investigators located a deck of playing cards with16 grams of methamphetamine concealed within. [ 5 ] On August 16, 2018, investigators intercepted and inspected four packages that Mr. Cook had submitted to postal outlets for mailing to international destinations.

The details of the packages are as follows. [ 6 ] A package destined for Australia and containing three books was intercepted. Concealed in the bindings was 8 grams of cocaine and 31 grams of methamphetamine. Mr. Cook was recorded on CCTV submitting the package. [ 7 ] A package containing three books was intercepted. Concealed inside the bindings was 31 grams of cocaine. Mr. Cook was recorded on CCTV submitting the package for mailing. [ 8 ] A package containing two books was intercepted. Inside the spines of the books was 17 grams of cocaine. Mr.

Cook was recorded on CCTV submitting the package. [ 9 ] A package destined for Australia and containing two books was intercepted. Concealed inside the spines of the books was 30 grams of methamphetamine. Mr. Cook’s fingerprints were located on the packaging and he was recorded on CCTV submitting the package for mailing. [ 10 ] On August 20, 2018, a package destined for Australia containing four batteries was intercepted. Inside, investigators found four hollowed out batteries containing 31 grams of cocaine. Mr. Cook was recorded on CCTV delivering the package for posting.

Summary [ 11 ] In all, eight packages destined for India and Australia were intercepted and in total, they contained 92 grams of methamphetamine and 119 grams of cocaine. The packaging and concealment was sophisticated. Possession for the purpose of trafficking – count 5 Mr. Cook’s arrest [ 12 ] On August 30, 2018, Mr. Cook was arrested and at the time, he was in possession of a gym bag that contained two packages that were ready for mailing. The first package was addressed to Costa Rica and it contained a bubble wrapped can.

Inside the can were two decks of playing cards with 5.36 grams of cocaine concealed inside. As for the second package, it was addressed to an individual in Ottawa and it contained 32.2 grams of methamphetamine. Search of Mr. Cook’s apartment [ 13 ] After Mr. Cook’s arrest the police searched his apartment. Inside, they located packaging materials, mailing materials, hollowed out batteries, a hollowed out lip stick tube, empty CD cases, scales, bubble wrap, latex gloves, glue gun, and $42,750.00 in cash. [ 14 ] Various drugs were located during the search.

The drugs were stored in varying amounts and in multiple locations. Ultimately, the police seized 958.35 grams of methamphetamine and 221.42 grams of cocaine. The estimated value of the methamphetamine is $28,790 - $47,900. As for the cocaine, the estimated value is $17,713. [ 15 ] From the items seized and the circumstances, I conclude that Mr. Cook held an upper level trusted position whereby he would weigh, conceal, and package cocaine and methamphetamine. Thereafter, he would submit the packages for mailing to national and international destinations. The evidence satisfies me that Mr.

Cook’s methodology was careful, considered and sophisticated. MR. COOK’S PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES [ 16 ] Mr. Cook is 31 years old. He was born in Saskatchewan. He spent much of his childhood with his maternal grandparents, who provided a caring, loving environment. When Mr. Cook was approximately 8 years old, his family moved, thus, separating him from his

grandparents. Around this time, Mr. Cook’s father began to engage in verbal, physical and emotional abuse. Ultimately, Mr. Cook’sparents divorced and the family moved to a “rough” part of town. [17] While living in the “rough” part of town, Mr. Cook fell into a negative peer group, ultimately leading to his involvement withdrugs and illegal activity. School officials did not tolerate Mr. Cook’s behaviour and when he was in the tenth grade he was expelled.Once expelled, Mr. Cook was asked to leave the family home, then, and in order to pay rent, Mr.

Cook started selling marijuana. [18] The selling of marijuana led to Mr. Cook selling cocaine. Drugs eventually formed Mr. Cook’s lifestyle wherein he was partying,trafficking and using drugs. Ultimately, at 21 years old, Mr. Cook received his first federal sentence. [19] The prison sentence failed to deter Mr. Cook and on his release, he continued to using and trafficking drugs. There were a fewmonths when Mr. Cook managed a pro-social lifestyle, but he would ultimately re-align with the criminally orientated. This re-alignmentbrought him back to drug use and trafficking. Although Mr.

Cook stopped using methamphetamine for a period, he re-started in 2017and continued until his arrest on August 30, 2018. [20] In terms of criminal record, Mr. Cook’s criminal record has three periods where he was convicted of drug offences; 2007, 2009,and 2012. It is noteworthy, in 2009, Mr. Cook received a 3-year sentence, and in 2012, he received a 6-year sentence. In fact, at the timeof his current offences, Mr. Cook was wanted on a Canada Wide Warrant for violating his parole.

Finally, I observe the remainder of Mr.Cook’s criminal record is not consistent with what is typically noted for those who are heavily drug addicted. Specifically, his recorddoes not contain multiple thefts or property offences. [21] In January 2020, Mr. Cook was released on bail and he went to live in transitional housing. In this environment, Mr. Cook hasfollowed all of the rules and he has demonstrated a responsible attitude. Evidence of Mr. Cook’s success is his appointment as a housemonitor and the report that he excels in this position. [22] In addition to being a house monitor, Mr.

Cook volunteers at a local food bank and there is an expectation that he will be offeredpart-time employment. Mr. Cook is also working part-time for Health Canada where he helps clean the community and he deliversNaloxone training to persons living in recovery houses. There is a strong possibility that Mr. Cook’s role will expand. [23] As for education and work experience, Mr. Cook completed his high school equivalency while in custody. He has limited workexperience and he holds tickets for fork lift operation, working in confined spaces and level two first aid. [24] Several letters were filed on Mr.

Cook’s behalf. These letters confirm Mr. Cook’s volunteer work, his attendance at counsellingand they speak to his character. All of the letters have a similar theme in that Mr. Cook is a good worker, conscientious, soft spoken andintelligent. One of the letters filed was from Pastor F. McMiller (retired) wherein he writes about Mr. Cook’s character. Of note are thefollowing comments: From what I see, Cade is a gentle-natured, soft spoken person, always genuinely respectful and thoroughly focused on making rightchoices in life now. He is aware he cannot undo his past.

He is acutely aware of the high risks and damage his past behaviour has caused,wishing he could change that, knowing he cannot. But, in his about face, he is now envisioning a contrasting positive life experiencewhere he can be a credit to society going forward. He speaks much of his wholesome ambitions for the future and the steps he is talkingto make good on his plans. [25] As for counselling, Mr.

Cook has been involved with counselling since February 28, 2020, and he has demonstrated a dedicationto maintaining his sobriety by attending meetings, using reading materials and participating in therapy sessions. [26] In terms of plans for the future, Mr. Cook has taken steps toward being accepted at Vancouver Career College with the objectiveof obtaining a diploma in Social Services. [27] In sum, I accept Mr. Cook’s drug use contributed to his offences, however, there is little information regarding the depth of hisdrug use and the impact it had on his choices. It is clear that Mr.

Cook’s drug use did not interfere with his ability to function at a highlevel. In this regard, he operated with a high degree of sophistication and attention to detail, and he displayed self-control that extendedbeyond that of a heavily addicted person, who is living on the street and surviving from drug purchase to drug purchase. In fact, anddespite his drug use, Mr, Cook had the self-control to maintain a significant supply of drugs and cash while keeping focussed andattending to packaging and mailing. [28] Based on the above, I accept that Mr.

Cook is no longer using or distributing drugs and that his attitudes have changed. I alsoaccept that since his release from custody, Mr. Cook has supported others, he has volunteered, he has embraced counselling and he hastaken steps to work in an area where he can help the community. POSITION OF THE PARTIES The Crown [29] The Crown argues the principles of denunciation and deterrence justify a six-year sentence. In support, the Crown highlights thetype of drugs, the quantity of drugs, the circumstances and Mr. Cook’s criminal record. The Crown relies on: R. v. Chibani, 2014 ONSC7572, R. v.

Pinch, 2012 ONSC 7549 and R. v. Chatri, (20 October 2009) Vancouver - 201409 (BCPC). The defence [30] Counsel for Mr. Cook argues, Mr. Cook’s circumstances are exceptional and therefore the protection of the community will beenhanced by imposing a sentence that supports Mr. Cook’s continued rehabilitation. As such, counsel proposes a sentence of time servedfor the exporting offences and a suspended sentence for the possession offence. R. v. Faraj, 2019 BCSC 612, R. v. Kim, 2014 BCPC 1, 2014 BCPC 001, R. v. Nguyen, 2012 BCSC 1762, R. v. Hainsworth, 2015 BCSC 2075.

PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING [ 31 ] The purpose and principles of sentencing are set out in sections 718 - 718.2 of the Criminal Code . I also of relevance is section. 10 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Purpose and Principles of Sentencing 718. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (

a) to denounce unlawful conduct; (

b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (

c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (

d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (

e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (

f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community. … 718.1 A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. 718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: (

a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender…; (

b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances; (

c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh; (

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, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders. … Punishment Generally 718.3

(1) Where an enactment prescribes different degrees or kinds of punishment in respect of an offence, the punishment to be imposed is, subject to the limitations prescribed in the enactment, in the discretion of the court that convicts a person who commits the offence. … Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Sentencing 10.

(1) Without restricting the generality of the Criminal Code , the fundamental purpose of any sentence for an offence under this

Part is to contribute to the respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society while encouraging rehabilitation, and treatment in appropriate circumstances, of offenders and acknowledging the harm done to victims and to the community.

(2) If a person is convicted of a designated substance offence for which the court is not required to impose a minimum punishment, the court imposing sentence on the person shall consider any relevant aggravating factors including that the person … (

b) was previously convicted of a designated substance offence; …

(3) If, under subsection (1), the court is satisfied of the existence of one or more of the aggravating factors enumerated in paragraphs (2) (

a) to ( c ), but decides not to sentence the person to imprisonment, the court shall give reasons for that decision. ANALYSIS Sentencing objectives [ 32 ] Denunciation and deterrence are the primary sentencing objectives when sentencing an individual for offences related to drug trafficking: R. v. Voong, 2015 BCCA 285 at para. 18 . Despite this, it is acknowledged that no one principle trumps the other and there

may be circumstances where one objective becomes more pressing than another. [33] Denunciation serves to communicate society's condemnation of an offender's conduct: R. v. M (CA), (SCC),[1996] 1 SCR 500 at 81. As for deterrence, it is through the sentence imposed, this Court hopes to reduce drug offences by sending amessage to those inclined to engage in drug trafficking that the Courts will impose significant penalties. This principle has addedimportance for Mr. Cook, who has several previous trafficking related convictions. In other words, the sentence imposed must besignificant enough to ensure that Mr.

Cook restrains himself from engaging in further drug related offences. [34] Despite the need for denunciation and deterrence, I accept that Mr. Cook has made significant rehabilitative progress and that hisprogress, if sustained, benefits Mr. Cook and society. Accordingly, the challenge is to impose a fit sentence that denounces and deterswhile also supporting Mr. Cook’s continued rehabilitation. Proportionality [35] A fundamental principle of sentencing is proportionality. The principle of proportionality was the subject of comment by WagnerJ., in R. v.

Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, at para 12: [12] In such cases, proportionality is the cardinal principle that must guide appellate courts in considering the fitness of a sentenceimposed on an offender. The more serious the crime and its consequences, or the greater the offender’s degree of responsibility, theheavier the sentence will be. In other words, the severity of a sentence depends not only on the seriousness of the crime’s consequences,but also on the moral blameworthiness of the offender. Determining a proportionate sentence is a delicate task. … [36] Applying the above, I conclude that Mr.

Cook’s offences were serious. The maximum available penalty for each of his offencesis life imprisonment. The seriousness of Mr. Cook’s offences is further highlighted when one appreciates that drug trafficking causesimmeasurable harm to persons, families, communities and societies. In this regard, the following comments from Justice Cory,dissenting in Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, serve toreinforce my observations: 89. The costs to society of drug abuse and trafficking in illicit drugs are at least significant if not staggering.

They include direct costssuch as health care and law enforcement, and indirect costs of lost productivity. 90. In Canada, the total cost to society of substance abuse has been estimated to be $18.45 billion annually … Of this amount, the costflowing from illicit drugs is $1.4 billion … In 1992 there were 732 deaths, 7,095 hospitalizations and 58,571 hospital days in Canadaattributable to illicit drugs … Mortality from illicit drugs is less than for alcohol and tobacco, but tends to involve younger victims … 91.

These significant and often tragic consequences serve to emphasize that the harm caused by trafficking in illicit drugs is veryproperly a matter of grave concern in Canada, as it is throughout the world. [37] Turning to culpability, I find Mr. Cook’s moral culpability to be high. I accept that he was using drugs around the time that hecommitted his offences, nevertheless, I observe that Mr. Cook’s drug use was not so extreme that his functioning was impaired. In fact,and as already noted, he operated with sophistication, planning and control. Examples include, Mr.

Cook diligently and carefullyconcealing the drugs, attending to shipping addresses, submitting packages for mailing, concealing his activity by using “thanks forshopping at eBay” labels, and stock piling in excess of $40,000 in cash. Aggravating and mitigating factors [38] The substances and quantities involved are aggravating. Specifically, cocaine and methamphetamine are addictive and theprolonged use of these substances can cause significant physical harm. [39] Mr. Cook’s criminal history and the fact that he committed his offences in violation of his parole is aggravating. In fact, theoffence for which Mr.

Cook was on parole involved the possession of 471.4 grams of methamphetamine, 3148 tablets of ecstasy, 480.97grams of cocaine and 559.99 grams of marihuana. [40] It is aggravating that Mr. Cook’s offences exploited the Canadian Postal system. Specifically, persons are trusted to use thepostal system for legitimate purposes. The trust and openness of the postal system creates an environment where it is easy for personsand businesses to engage in legitimate transactions. Without this trust and openness, business would be challenging, expensive andinefficient. Mr.

Cook’s offences placed the trust and openness in jeopardy. [41] In mitigation, Mr. Cook entered guilty pleas and he has expressed genuine remorse. Also mitigating is the support of Mr. Cook’smother and persons in the community. The significant rehabilitative steps that Mr. Cook has taken is mitigating. In this regard, he attendscounselling, he has remained drug free, he volunteers, he is employed and he helps others in the transition home.

Previous sentencing decisions [42] In considering the authorities, I recognize that sentencing is an individual exercise and that a sentencing judge must consider theindividual circumstances of the offender and the circumstances of their offence. [43] In Chibani, the offender was convicted of conspiracy to export 50 pounds of ecstasy and he was sentenced to imprisonment forsix years.

The offender was not a youthful first time offender, his pre-sentence report was not overly positive and he appeared to blameothers. [44] In Pinch, the offender was convicted of conspiracy to export ecstasy and possession of ecstasy for the purpose of exportation.The offender was 35, he had no criminal record, he was employed, he had two children and it was held that he was unlikely to re-offend.After noting that the offender was a principal, that his moral blameworthiness was high, and that his offences were serious, Justice Hill

imposed a six-year sentence. [ 45 ] In Chatri, the offender pled guilty to possessing methamphetamine and cocaine for the purpose of exportation from Canada and he was sentenced to concurrent sentences of three years, four years, and five years. The offences involved three instances of the offender using postal outlets to ship cocaine and methamphetamine. The amounts involved were, one kilogram of methamphetamine, two kilograms of methamphetamine and one kilogram of cocaine.

The offender was 38, he had no criminal record and he was married. [ 46 ] In Faraj , the offender pled guilty to possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and the passing of his sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation. The police searched the offender’s apartment and located 15 grams of cocaine, 20 grams of heroin, and 9 grams of methamphetamine. Also located were packaging materials, scales, and cutting agents. The offender was 42, he had a long history of drug addiction and criminal activity. He had 10 convictions for drug trafficking for which he had received short jail sentences.

At the time of his offence, the offender was using a couple grams a day and selling to support his habit. The offender suffered from depression and anxiety. At the time of sentencing, the offender was no longer using drugs, he was employed and he had the support of his employer and a friend. [ 47 ] In Nguyen , the offender pled guilty to possessing cocaine for the purpose of export and he received a four-year sentence. The offence involved the offender swallowing 42 condom-wrapped pellets of liquid cocaine weighting 1.275 kilograms.

The offender was 31, he had some post-secondary education, and a previous conviction for trafficking. The offender’s motive in committing the offence was to help his mother and to pay down his debts. [ 48 ] In Kim , the offender was convicted of possessing methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of exporting. The offender was stopped waiting to board an international flight and the authorities found 3.3 kilograms of methamphetamine concealed in a suitcase compartment.

The offender was 29, he had no criminal record, he cooperated with the authorities and he expressed remorse. The offender received a three-year sentence. [ 49 ] In Hainsworth , the offender pled guilty to importing cocaine and possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. The offender was stopped at the border with two kilograms of cocaine. The offender was 43, as a young child she suffered physical and mental abuse and as a teenager, she was sexually assaulted. At 18, the offender gave birth to a son and daughter. The daughter passed away at a young age and the son had cerebral palsy.

The offender had a long-standing drug addiction and she has struggled with sobriety. Despite her addiction, the offender had been sober for nine months prior to sentencing. The offender also suffered from depression, anxiety and post- traumatic stress syndrome. The offender received a three-year sentence. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES [ 50 ] Counsel for Mr.

Cook argues his client’s circumstances are exceptional and he has truly turned his life around such that the protection of the public is best served by a non-custodial sentence. [ 51 ] In considering the issue, I note in Voong , that Madam Justice Bennett commented on circumstances that may lead to the conclusion of exceptional circumstances and at para. 59 stated: [59] Exceptional circumstances may include a combination of no criminal record, significant and objectively identifiable steps towards rehabilitation for the drug addict, gainful employment, remorse and acknowledgement of the harm done to society as a result of the offences, as opposed to 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. There must be something that would lead a sentencing judge to conclude that the offender had truly turned his or her life around, and that the protection of the public was subsequently better served by a non-custodial sentence. However, Parliament, while not removing a non-custodial sentence for this type of offence, has concluded that CSO sentences are not available.

Thus, it will be the rare case where the standard of exceptional circumstances is met. [ 52 ] I recognize that the above list is not exhaustive and that it is the rare case where the standard of exceptional circumstances are met. I also recognize that a finding of exceptional circumstances typically results in a sentence that falls below the sentencing range, however, I do not take this to mean that exceptional circumstances will always result in a non-custodial sentence. In fact, a custodial sentence that is well below the custodial range combined with probation may serve to protect the public.

This is because such a sentence would achieve a degree of denunciation and deterrence while using probation as a vehicle for continued rehabilitation. [ 53 ] I also note that although exceptional circumstances can justify a sentence below the range, the resultant sentence must be proportional to the seriousness of the offence and the offender’s degree of responsibility. In support, I reference Justice Fitch’s comments in R. v. L.S.N. 2020 BCCA 109 at para. 54 : [54] Exceptional circumstances do not, however, oust the proportionality principle.

They simply permit the taking into account of case-specific considerations that could conceivably justify departure from a conventional sentencing range in order to craft a proportionate sentence. As this Court noted in R. v. Padda , 2019 BCCA 351 at para. 36 , characterizing an offender’s circumstances as exceptional “is simply a shorthand means of identifying the kind of personal circumstances which justify going outside a conventional range in order to craft an appropriate individualised proportionate sentence. [ 54 ] Turning to the instant matter, there is no evidence regarding the breadth and depth of Mr.

Cook’s drug use around the time of his offences. This is unlike Faraj, where the court had information regarding the amount of use and regularity of use. Without this information, it becomes challenging to determine how much of a turnaround Mr. Cook has made with respect to his drug use. [ 55 ] Despite the above, I acknowledge the sustained and commendable changes in behaviour and attitudes that Mr. Cook has made. In this regard, Mr.

Cook is no longer using drugs, he is associating with pro-social individuals, he has part-time employment, he is volunteering in the community, he is attending counselling, he is planning for his future and the letters filed support a finding that his attitude has changed. Accordingly, I find Mr. Cook’s circumstances to be exceptional.

CONCLUSION [ 56 ] Mr. Cook is a repeat offender, who while wanted for parole violations, used care and sophistication to distribute addictive and life destroying drugs. Accordingly, a high degree of denunciation and deterrence is required. [ 57 ] Mr. Cook’s offences are serious and his moral culpability is high. The statutory range for his offences is a suspended sentence to life imprisonment. From the cases provided, I observe that those offences involving quantities beyond a kilogram have attracted sentences in the three to six year range. [ 58 ] Applying the above, and despite Mr.

Cook’s exceptional circumstances, I am of the view that the sentence suggested by defence counsel would not be proportional to the seriousness of Mr. Cook’s offences or to his level of culpability. [ 59 ] As for the sentence suggested by the Crown, were it not for Mr. Cook’s exceptional circumstances, I would be inclined to accede to their suggestion of six years. However, I am of the view that to impose a sentence of this duration without continued rehabilitative support would be detrimental to Mr.

Cook’s progress and potentially put the community at risk. [ 60 ] With the above in mind, and with the objective of balancing the need for denunciation and deterrence, while still assisting Mr. Cook with his continued rehabilitation, I impose the following sentences. For attempting to export methamphetamine and cocaine (counts 1 and 3), I impose a sentence of two years, two months and 1 day. Mr.

Cook’s per-sentence custodial credit is to be deducted with the result that he receives a 1-day sentence, thus, the credit he is being awarded is two years and two months. [ 61 ] As for count 5, possession of cocaine and heroin for the purpose of trafficking, I impose a consecutive sentence of two years less a day followed by probation for three years. [ 62 ] The net effect of the sentences imposed is four years custody and probation for three years.

PROBATION ORDER [ 63 ] The term of the order is three years with the following conditions: • You must keep the peace and be of good behavior; • You must appear before the Court when required to do so by the Court; • You must 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; • You must report by telephone to a probation officer at 604-660-3777 and, thereafter, you must report where and when and in the manner directed by your probation officer this may include reporting in person or by telephone; • While outside your place of residence, you must carry a copy of this order on your person at all times; • You will be bound by the following curfew: For the first 6 months of this order, you must not be outside your residence between 7:30 p.m. and 6:00 am, except, you may be outside during the stated times provided you have written permission from your probation officer.

After the expiration of the first 6 months, you must not be outside of your residence between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., except, you may be outside during the stated times provided you have written permission from your probation officer. • You must present yourself at the doorway of your residence to any police officer, correctional officer or probation officer who attends to ensure your compliance with your curfew; • You must attend, participate in, and successfully complete any counselling that may be directed by your probation officer; and • At the direction of and to the satisfaction of your probation officer, you must complete 80 hours of community work service.

Such community work service is to be completed within 18 months of your release from custody. ANCILLARY ORDERS Weapons prohibition [ 64 ] Pursuant to s. 109 (1) and (3) of the Code, Mr. Cook is prohibited from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance for life. DNA [ 65 ] After balancing the best interests of the administration of justice against Mr. Cook’s privacy and security of his person, Mr.

Cook’s background, his previous offences, and the circumstances of the instant matter, satisfies me that the best interests of the administration of justice justify ordering that a sample of Mr. Cook’s DNA be taken. Accordingly, and pursuant to s. 487.051 (3) of the Code, I order that a sample of Mr. Cook’s DNA be taken.

______________________________ The Honourable Judge R. Harris Provincial Court of British Columbia