2023 NBPC 18, 2023 NBPC 18

CANADA PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK PROVINCIAL COURT Sentencing Hearing Date: October 13 th , 2023 Sentencing Decision Date: November 27 th , 2023 Docket No.: 11836305, 11836705,11836805, 11836905 and 11838605 Neutral Citation: 2023 NBPC 18 HIS MAJESTY THE KING - and - DANIEL ANDREW MURPHY Decision of the Honourable Judge Scott A. Brittain Provincial Court of New Brunswick Note: Non-substantive editorial/grammatical changes were made to this decision following it being delivered orally on November 27 th , 2023 APPEARANCES Gwynne Hearn, on behalf of His Majesty The King L.A. Henry, on behalf of Mr.

Murphy THE CHARGES 1 . On August 15 th , 2023, Daniel Andrew Murphy (“Mr. Murphy”) entered guilty pleas on several charges involving two separate event dates: October 7 th , 2022 and November 2 nd , 2022. I confirmed and accepted Mr. Murphy’s guilty pleas at the sentencing hearing held before me on October 13 th , 2023. Instead of reproducing the charges below, I have summarized them in chronological sequence. 2 . Having regard to the event date of October 7 th , 2022, Mr. Murphy pleaded guilty to two

summary Criminal Code offences: theft under five thousand dollars from Petro-Canada located on Royal Road in Fredericton, New Brunswick, contrary to paragraph 334 (b)(ii) of the Criminal Code and an assault committed against Brandon Peterson, contrary to subsection 266 (

b) of the Criminal Code . 3 . Respecting the event date of November 2 nd , 2022, Mr. Murphy pleaded guilty to eight indictable Criminal Code offences and one Motor Vehicle Act offence which are set out in three separate Informations. The first of these Informations outlines a charge under subsection 344(1) of the Criminal Code that Mr. Murphy robbed Kevin Campbell while using threats of violence, as well as charges of assault with a weapon and obstruction against Corporal Chris Furlotte, a peace officer, contrary to paragraphs 270.01(2) (

a) and subsection 129 (

a) of the Criminal Code , respectively.

4 . A single count of robbery with the use of a weapon, contrary to paragraph 344(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code , is set out in the second Information. This event involved the theft of various items from Route 10 Gas and Convenience near Albrights Corner, New Brunswick with the use of a knife or screwdriver. 5 . The third Information identifies a charge of assault with an attempt to steal from Holly Girouard, contrary to paragraph 344(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code , a charge of operating a motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public, contrary to subsection 320.13(1) of the Criminal Code , a charge of failing to stop without reasonable excuse while being pursued by a peace officer, contrary to

section 320.17 of the Criminal Code , a charge of resisting Constable Ore Rodriquez, a peace officer, contrary to subsection 129 (

e) of the Criminal Code and, finally, a charge under subsection 345(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act of driving while his driving privileges were suspended. These events took place at or near Chipman and Richibucto Road, New Brunswick, respectively. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCE 6 . It is not my intention to revisit all of the facts underlying each of these offences. On October 13 th , 2023, Mr. Murphy accepted the facts presented by the Crown without qualification. Accordingly, I adopt and rely on those facts for the purposes of this decision.

That being said, it is appropriate in my view to provide an overview of the facts in order to ground the context for this sentencing decision. 7 . On the morning of October 7 th , 2022, Mr. Murphy stole a package of cigarettes with a value of $16.32 from the Petro-Canada on Royal Road in Fredericton, New Brunswick. He entered the premises and asked for a package of cigarettes, then grabbed them off the counter and walked out without paying for them. During this event, he became aggressive toward the clerk. Fewer than 10 minutes later, Mr.

Murphy was involved in a separate incident with Brandon Peterson on nearby Hawkins Street. Mr. Murphy was observed peering through the sliding glass door of Mr. Peterson’s residence at his one-year-old child. This understandably upset Mr. Peterson and he told Mr. Murphy to leave. He then called law enforcement and followed Mr. Murphy on foot to ensure he did not get away, at which time Mr. Murphy assaulted him. 8 . On November 2 nd , 2022, Mr. Murphy embarked on what can fairly be described as an aggressive, extended and highly aberrant series of criminal actions.

This string of serious, stand-alone events spanned several hours and occurred in various geographic areas between Fredericton and Salisbury, New Brunswick. Moreover, they engaged multiple unrelated victims across many different contexts. These events began at approximately 7:40am when Mr. Murphy ran out in front of a ServiceMaster work van (the “Van”) driven by Kevin Campbell on Brookside Drive in Fredericton, which forced Mr. Campbell to abruptly stop. Brandishing an unknown object in his right hand, Mr. Murphy entered the passenger side of the Van, pointed the object at Mr.

Campbell and demanded him to hand over his keys, wallet and cigarettes “or I’ll fucking kill you”. Mr. Campbell got out of the Van and Mr. Murphy took off in same. Owing to the dark early morning conditions, Mr. Campbell was unable to ascertain what weapon, specifically, Mr. Murphy had pointed at him. 9 . Unbeknownst to Mr. Murphy, the Van was equipped with GPS tracking capabilities. In rapid succession, five reports of erratic and dangerous driving were received by law enforcement from citizens in the Fredericton area in relation to the Van.

GPS data permitted law enforcement to keep up with the Van’s whereabouts, albeit in a seemingly piecemeal fashion, as Mr. Murphy made his way toward Minto, New Brunswick. 10 . Corporal Chris Furlotte eventually caught up with the Van, which was then parked on the side of Industrial Park Road in Minto. The doors of the Van were open and the lights were on, causing Corporal Furlotte to believe it was unoccupied and Mr. Murphy had abandoned same. A stationary silver car was observed in close proximity to the Van and its doors were also open. Corporal Furlotte surmised Mr. Murphy had tried to switch vehicles.

Corporal Furlotte drew his side arm when he observed Mr. Murphy coming toward him from the direction of the silver car while clutching a tire punch. He advised Mr. Murphy that he was under arrest and a brief altercation ensued. Mr. Murphy did not comply with the arrest. Instead, he told Corporal Furlotte to “fuck off” and again took off in the Van. 11 . Later that morning, law enforcement received a call regarding an armed robbery at Route 10 Gas and Convenience near Albrights Corner, New Brunswick. The suspect, who was identified as Mr.

Murphy, entered with a partially visible metal object tucked into his shorts which the clerk believed to be either a knife or screwdriver. Mr. Murphy twice aggressively demanded money from the clerk and then proceeded to steal several items before absconding again in the Van. 12 . It was on Richibucto Road where Mr. Murphy crossed paths with Holly Girouard. She reported to law enforcement that Mr. Murphy came barreling toward her from behind in the Van and forced her off the road by colliding with the rear end of her vehicle. Once Ms. Girouard’s vehicle came to a complete stop in the ditch, Mr.

Murphy jumped out of the Van and yelled at her to exit her vehicle. She refused and remained inside with the doors locked, which caused Mr. Murphy to attempt to gain entry by smashing Ms. Girouard’s windows out using a rock. Mr. Murphy eventually gave up, returned to the Van and carried on. 13 . Constable Ore Rodriquez finally caught up to Mr. Murphy in the vicinity of Chipman. The Van was pursued and eventually pulled into the Irving Gas Station in Young’s Cove, New Brunswick where a second high-risk arrest was attempted. This arrest was unsuccessful and Mr. Murphy again drove off in the Van.

Following a further protracted pursuit, a spike belt was successfully deployed. It punctured the Van’s tires; however, Mr. Murphy continued for another two miles with law enforcement in pursuit before the Van, which was then riding on the metal tire rims, could travel no further. A third high-risk arrest was attempted. Mr. Murphy was again non- compliant. He got out of the Van and started to walk away. This culminated in Constable Rodriguez drawing and deploying her taser on Mr. Murphy, arresting him and taking him into custody. After his arrest, it was confirmed that Mr.

Murphy’s driving privileges had been suspended since May 20 th , 2022. 14 . Regarding all three charges under

section 344 of the Criminal Code , it bears mentioning that Mr. Murphy did not physically harm the victims of those offences nor were any of those events carried out with his identity concealed. Later in this decision, however, I will

address the significant toll these crimes have had on at least two of Mr. Murphy’s victims. Finally, I take this opportunity to note there is no indication in the record before me that this or any of the other charges which form the subject matter of this sentencing decision involved the use of a firearm (prohibited, restricted, or otherwise). CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENDER 15 . I have the benefit of a Pre-Sentence Report prepared in relation to Mr. Murphy. He is 39-years-old and non-Indigenous.

He grew up in a healthy and supportive environment and enjoys a close relationship with his parents and older brother as well as his extended family. He has a six-year-old son. Though he parted ways with the mother of his child in a difficult divorce, he remains involved in his son’s life and reports having a civil relationship with his ex-wife. 16 . Growing up and into early adulthood, Mr. Murphy was an accomplished multi-sport athlete. In 2002, he graduated from Fredericton High School and, in 2005, he went on to complete training to become a firefighter.

For more than a decade, he worked as a firefighter for the City of Fredericton until his employment was terminated on September 15 th , 2022. Since that time, Mr. Murphy’s parents have been carrying him financially and maintaining his condominium. 17 . There are no reported issues respecting Mr. Murphy’s physical health. The same cannot be said for his mental health, as he has been diagnosed with PTSD, Anxiety Disorder, ADHD and has an extended history of related counselling and treatment. Mr. Murphy has also grappled with serious alcohol and drug addiction issues for more than a decade.

He has been diagnosed with Polysubstance Abuse Disorder and been enrolled in suboxone programming for more than six years. In 2019, he completed a 36-day residential treatment program. He reports experiencing a drug relapse in September 2022 which coincided with the termination of his employment. In late October 2022, Mr. Murphy started experiencing issues with his suboxone programming. 18 . While remanded in pre-trial detention, Mr. Murphy has availed himself of programming to address his addiction issues and engaged in various other productive pursuits.

As is noted in his Pre-Sentence Report, and as I observed at his sentencing hearing, he is sincerely remorseful for his actions. 19 . At his sentencing hearing, Mr. Murphy reflected on the paradox of having committed to a career in firefighting to help people only to have caused such trauma and pain to his many victims through his very serious criminal actions. In his words, Mr. Murphy notes “that wasn’t me” in relation to the version of himself that committed these offences and he is taking positive steps to address his mental health and addiction issues so the best version of himself can again prevail. 20 .

Exhibits D-1 through D-3 collectively provide a more nuanced glimpse regarding the circumstances that enveloped Mr. Murphy between the loss of his employment in September 2022 and the commission of the offences before me on sentencing. Dr. Ralph Holly, psychiatrist, explained in a July 13 th , 2023 opinion, which is marked as Exhibit D-2, that Mr. Murphy’s “behaviour on the days of the events is mostly related to a clinical picture of severe substances-driving behaviour changes”.

Suffice it to say I have considered this additional information in fashioning what I believe to be a fit and appropriate sentence for Mr. Murphy. 21 . Given the information before me, and notwithstanding the seriousness of these offences, I note Mr. Murphy is a younger man with many pro-social factors. He navigated the first 35 years of his life without any entanglements with the criminal justice system and was employed for more than a decade as a firefighter until a few weeks before this terrible string of events unfolded. It was in this profession where it is said he developed PTSD.

As earlier noted, he is educated, enjoys excellent family support and has taken positive steps while remanded in pre-trial detention to better himself and address some of the root causes of his criminality: namely, his deep-seated addiction issues. It is also clear to me that Mr. Murphy was in the throes of a mental health and/or addiction crisis when these events occurred. As serious as these offences are, all of these background factors give me reason for considerable optimism when it comes to Mr. Murphy’s rehabilitative potential. THE ISSUE 22 .

It is my responsibility to determine and impose a fit and appropriate sentence for Mr. Murphy, having regard to the facts, the applicable law, his aggravating and mitigating factors and his background as an offender. THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES The Recommendations: A Wide Delta 23 . A wide delta exists between the respective sentencing recommendations of the parties.

The Crown recommends a consecutive global sentence across all charges in the range of 152 to 164 months, which has been reduced to 120 months (or 10 years), less remand credit, to account for the application of the totality principle. 24 . Mr. Murphy’s solicitor began her submissions by initially recommending a global consecutive sentence of 24 months, less remand credit. Toward the end of her submissions; however, Ms. Henry made a last minute upward adjustment in her recommendation because, in her words, “24 months is too low”.

She argued that the presumption in favour of consecutive sentences is displaced in relation to the events of November 2 nd , 2022 because they occurred in close proximity having regard to both time and place and because they constituted a so-called continuous “crime spree”. This, she states, working in tandem with the subsequent application of the totality

principle, invites the imposition of concurrent sentences on all of the November 2nd, 2022 offences other than the first one whichinvolved Mr. Campbell. Given the evolution of Ms. Henry’s sentencing recommendation, I understand it to have finally come to rest at one month consecutive on the October 7th, 2022 offences and 36 months consecutive on the November 2nd, 2022 offences, less remandcredit. 25. While on the subject of remand credit, there is agreement between the parties that Mr. Murphy has served, inclusive of today, 391days in pre-trial detention.

When the enhanced credit multiplier is applied, this results in a 587-day remand credit. 26. A table prepared by Ms. Hearn offers a helpful breakdown of the Crown’s sentencing recommendation across all offences. This wasmarked as Exhibit C-3 at the sentencing hearing. No such table was provided by Ms. Henry; however, considerable time was spent at thesentencing hearing trying to parse out the breakdown of her recommendation as it evolved. I have reproduced the Crown’s table below,adding an extra column to encapsulate the sentencing recommendation put forward by Mr.

Murphy’s solicitor based on my notes fromthe sentencing hearing. This additional column identifies Ms. Henry’s final recommendation, which is premised on the presumption infavour of consecutive sentences having been displaced and also accounts for the application of the totality principle. CourtFile No. PoliceFile No.

OffenceDate Charge CrownRecommendationCrown TotalityAdjustment DefenceRecommendation(subject to noteabove)11836305FPF 22-23691 Oct. 7,2022 334(b)(ii)15 days None 15 days 11836705FPF 22-23958 Oct. 7,2022 266(b) 15 days,consecutive None 15 days,consecutive11836805FPF 22-26456 Nov. 2,2022 344(1) 5 years,consecutive 4 years,consecutive 3 years,consecutive 270.01(2)(a) 2 months,consecutive 2 months,concurrent 2 months,concurrent 129(a) 1 month,consecutive 1 month,concurrent 1 month,concurrent11838605RCMP22-1594995 Nov. 2,2022 344(1)(b)3 years,consecutive 22 months,consecutive 2 years,concurrent 11836905RCMP22-154739 Nov. 2,2022 344(1)(b)4-5 years,consecutive 4 years,consecutive 2 years,concurrent 320.13(1)3 months,concurrent None 3 months,concurrent 320.17 3 months,consecutive 3 months,concurrent 3 months,concurrent 129(e) 1 month,consecutive 1 month,concurrent 1 month,concurrent 345(1)MVA $500.00 fine None $500.00 fine The Crown’s Submissions 27.

The Crown submits that the protection of the public, denunciation and deterrence, both specific and general, are the sentencingprinciples which figure most prominently in this case. I agree; however, I would add that rehabilitative considerations are also centralhere. This position is anchored in the prevailing common law authority as well as

section 718.02 of the Criminal Code insofar as itpertains to the charge of assault with a weapon on Corporal Furlotte. Though not forming part of the Crown’s submissions, the sentenceimposed for the assault with a weapon on Corporal Furlotte must be served consecutively to any other sentence by operation of section270.03 of the Criminal Code. 28. Though little reference was made to Mr. Murphy’s criminal record, which is limited, the Crown did emphasize that in July of 2021he was sentenced to a four-month Conditional Sentence Order followed by six months' probation respecting 2019

summary charges ofassault, mischief and breach of an undertaking. The Crown submits this is aggravating given the offence of assault is before me in thecontext of this sentencing. I agree. 29. Moreover, it is the Crown’s submission that the effect of these highly traumatic events on the health and financial circumstances ofat least two of Mr. Murphy’s victims has been both significant and profound, thereby engaging the statutory aggravating factor set out inparagraph 718.2(a)(iii.1) of the Criminal Code. Again, I agree. 30. Mr.

Murphy’s aggressive string of criminality proceeded from start to finish with a wanton and reckless disregard for the safety ofthe public and law enforcement. This, the Crown submits, endangered people on and off the roads between Fredericton and Salisburyover the span of several hours. All of this is made more aggravating still, says the Crown, when consideration is given to the fact Mr.Murphy’s dangerous driving occurred at a time when his driving privileges were suspended, which is a statutory aggravating factorpursuant to subsection 320.22(

g) of the Criminal Code. 31. The Crown first referred me to the decision of the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick in Hawkins v. R., 2008 NBCA 40 .

In this case, a 29-year-old drug addict with a very extensive criminal record who had previously served penitentiary time pleaded guiltyto 33 Criminal Code offences committed during a drug-induced 16-day crime spree between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Mr.Hawkins’ criminal rampage was fueled by the need to service his drug addiction. The 33 charges consisted of 19 counts of robbery, 10counts of possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace, one count of use of an imitation firearm, one count of theft, one count ofpossession of stolen property and one count of mischief.

At first instance, the sentencing judge imposed a global consecutive sentence of20 years with a corresponding order under subsection 743.6(1) of the Criminal Code that Mr. Hawkins be obligated to serve half of hissentence before becoming eligible for parole. Several ancillary orders were also made, none of which were challenged on appeal. 32. Mr.

Hawkins appealed the fitness of his sentence and the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick reduced it from 20 years to 13 years.Writing for the majority, Richard, J.A. (as he then was) concluded the sentencing judge neglected to give due weight to the rehabilitativeobjective of sentencing. Having accepted Mr. Hawkins’ offences were precipitated by a “drug problem,” and having acknowledged theaccused’s younger age, his guilty pleas, his remorse and his desire to control his addiction, the sentencing judge was required to weighthese factors in determining whether or not rehabilitation was an attainable objective.

By failing to do so, the sentencing judge committedan error in principle. The majority of the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick also found the sentence imposed to constitute a markeddeparture from sentences customarily imposed for similarly situated offenders committing similar crimes. Finally, a 20-year sentenceamounted to a crushing one when viewed through the lens of totality. 33. The following pertinent analysis was provided in Hawkins v. R. beginning at paragraph 9, which the Crown cited for the purpose ofcalibrating its recommendation on the three counts under

section 344 of the Criminal Code: [9] …The sentencing judge then borrowed from the authors of “Ruby on Sentencing” (evidently from Clayton C. Ruby et al.,Sentencing, 6th ed. (Markham: Lexis Nexis Canada Inc., 2004)) and stated as follows: The robbery of small commercial establishments is by far the most common type of robbery. Other than firearms, the most commonlyused weapon is a knife.

Sentences in the area of three to four years appear fairly frequently in instances where an offender with a recordfor related offences robs a small commercial proprietor at knifepoint. [10] The sentencing judge continued with references to case law and to a text by Nadin-Davis (presumably R. Paul Nadin-Davis,Sentencing in Canada (Toronto: Carswell, 1982)) in support of the proposition that robbery is a very serious offence that calls for asignificant sentence of incarceration. He culminated with the decision of this Court in R. v. Basque (G.), (NB CA),211 N.B.R. (2d) 273 (C.A.), [1999] N.B.J.

No. 211 (QL) where, at paragraph 30, Drapeau J.A. (as he then was) observed that this Courthad recognized robbery as a very serious offence and [TRANSLATION] “approved a range of sentences from three to eight years ofimprisonment in a penitentiary for this offence when committed by someone other than a young offender.” [11] The sentencing judge rightly noted that the primary consideration in sentencing someone for armed robbery is protection of thepublic, adding that “[p]ersons who work under vulnerable conditions, such that they’re operating late at night, they’re entitled to expectthat the law and the justice system will provide some degree of protection and that others will be deterred from engaging in robbery bythe sentences handed down by the Courts.” He also recognized the need for Courts to denounce this type of conduct. (emphasis added) 34.

The Court of Appeal of New Brunswick found no fault in the analysis of the sentencing judge, as reproduced above. To thecontrary, it was favourably considered and, as noted earlier, the sentencing decision was overturned based on other considerations. 35. The Crown also referred me to the very recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v.

Hilbach, 2023 SCC 3 .Though the issue before the Supreme Court of Canada in that case was the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence of fiveyears’ imprisonment for a first offence conviction of robbery committed with a restricted or prohibited firearm, paragraph 53 offers thefollowing observations which are germane to Mr. Murphy’s sentencing: [53] Here, the robbery offence does not cast too broad of a net as to capture conduct that carries low moral fault or little risk topublic safety. The gravity of the offence and the culpability of offenders convicted of it is relatively high.

To start, even when committedwithout a firearm, robbery is a serious offence based on the requisite actus reus of the use or threat of violence or force in stealing orattempting to steal property. Adding a firearm to the equation simply increases the gravity of the offence. Further, mere possession of thefirearm is not sufficient for conviction. The offender must use the firearm in the commission of the offence. As this Court wrote in R. v.Felawka, (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 199, when a firearm is used to threaten or intimidate, it “presents the ultimate threat ofdeath to those in its presence” (p. 211).

Prohibited firearms are among the most potent tools in the commission of crime. For example,sawed-off rifles are capable of deadly force, while being easier to conceal, transport, and maneuver in close quarters, like conveniencestores. (emphasis added) 36. Continuing at paragraph 76 in R. v. Hilbach, the Supreme Court of Canada noted as follows: “…To begin, sentences below twoyears’ imprisonment are relatively rare for robbery, which has no mandatory minimum sentence where it is committed with no weaponor a weapon other than a gun (Ruby, at §23.498).

Where a weapon (other than a gun) is used in robberies of commercial establishments,as is the case here, the low end falls in the one-to-two-year range, with a mid-range between three and five years, and a high end ofaround eight years (Ruby, at §§23.521, 23.528 and 23.532)”. Finally, paragraph 97 states “Robbery constitutes a grave offence evenwhen committed without a weapon, given the offence involves the use or threat of violence in stealing property”. There is a palpableimmediacy to such a threat in the context of a robbery regardless of whether a firearm or other weapon is used.

It is also clear that theimpact of this form of criminality on victims should not be given short shrift (see paragraph 99). 37. The Crown did not cite any common law authority in support of its recommendations on the other offences before me onsentencing. Submissions on Behalf of Mr. Murphy 38. Prior to the commencement of her argument, Mr. Murphy’s solicitor asked if Mr. Murphy’s father could be given an opportunity toread prepared remarks. I considered this request, concluded it was inappropriate and, accordingly, I declined it.

It is the consistentpractice of sentencing judges in this jurisdiction to permit considerable latitude, for example, in accepting and considering written

correspondence which may speak to such things as the good character of an accused. I am reluctant, however, to elevate such an initiativeto the same level that statutorily exists, for example, for victims to either read or have their Victim Impact Statements read aloud in thecontext of a sentencing hearing. With this, Mr. Murphy’s counsel moved on and began her submission by addressing the issue ofconsecutive versus concurrent sentences. No request was made for the prepared remarks of Mr. Murphy’s father to be tendered andconsidered by me before the passing of sentence. Consecutive versus Concurrent Sentences 39.

Before delving into the common law authority Ms. Henry cited, it bears mention that there is a general and longstandingpresumption in favour of consecutive sentences which can be displaced, for example, in circumstances where there is a close nexusbetween multiple offences having regard to both time and place. At paragraph 13 of R. v. Veysey, 2006 NBCA 55 , the Court ofAppeal of New Brunswick had this to say: [13] In R. v. Johnson, (NB CA), 182 N.B.R. (2d) 373 (C.A.) the court held that for concurrent sentences to beimposed there must be a reasonably close nexus between the offences in time and place. In R. v.

J.F. (2001), 240 N.B.R. (2d) 159, 2001NBCA 81 the Court intervened because the sentencing judge erred in imposing concurrent sentences when there was no temporal nexusbetween the two offences that the accused committed. The accused had committed two separate offences against two entirely differentvictims and the events had occurred two years apart. The Court held that the fact there was no nexus between the two offences has abearing on the question of the totality of the sentence, and that it was not appropriate to impose concurrent sentences in thosecircumstances… (emphasis added) 40.

Further guidance and nuance is offered on this issue at paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick’s decision inR. v. Peterson, 2017 NBCA 29 : [16] Also in Daye, this Court states consecutive sentences are to be imposed unless there is a reasonably close nexus between theoffences in time and place as part of one continuing criminal operation or transaction. Courts must take a commonsense approach in thisanalysis.

For example, concurrent sentences may be appropriate where they are committed as part of a continuous criminal endeavor thattakes place during a relatively short period of time. [17] However, in R. v. Howe, 2007 NBCA 84, 330 N.B.R. (2d) 204, Richard J.A. observes multiple appellate courts have departedfrom concurrent sentences where the offences, though part of the same transaction, are intrusions on different legally protected interests(paragraph 29)… (emphasis added) 41. In R. v.

Howe, 2007 NBCA 84 , at paragraph 29, Richard, J.A. (as he then was) quoted with approval from paragraphs 13and 14 of the Court of Appeal of Ontario’s decision in R. v. Gummer, (ONCA), where Martin, J.A. observed, in part,as follows at paragraph 13: “…We do not consider the rule that sentences for offences arising out of the same transaction or incidentshould normally be concurrent, necessarily applies where the offences constitute invasions of different legally protected interests,although the principle of totality must be kept in mind…” 42.

This statement of law has been adopted and consistently followed here in New Brunswick as well as in several other provinces, asendorsed by their respective appellate courts. On a practical level, I understand it to mean that the question of whether to impose consecutive versus concurrent sentences engages two distinct analytical steps.

I must first consider whether the November 2nd, 2022events are to collectively be considered a single, continuous transaction owing to such factors as close proximity in both time and placeor, to the contrary, whether they are to be considered stand-alone events which engage different victims and involve “the invasion ofdifferent legal interests”.

Where it is found that the presumption in favour of consecutive sentences has not been displaced under the firststep, the totality analysis nevertheless still requires me to consider whether any offences to which I would ascribe a consecutive sentenceought to run concurrently so as to avoid violating subsection 718.2(

d) of the Criminal Code by imposing a global consecutive sentencethat is “unduly long”, “disproportionate” or “crushing”. 43. In submitting that the events of November 2nd, 2022 happened in close proximity having regard to both time and place and,consequently, should attract concurrent sentences, Mr.

Murphy’s solicitor has placed considerable emphasis on paragraph 22 of R. v.Peterson where the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick somewhat tepidly observed that “it might have been open to the judge to imposeconcurrent sentences with respect to the two robberies in British Columbia at the same bank”, which had occurred six days apart. In theend, however, the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick ultimately rejected this suggestion and required the sentences for these twooffences to run consecutively at three years each. 44. By way of background, in addition to the two British Columbia robbery counts noted above, Mr.

Peterson pleaded guilty to severalCriminal Code offences that were committed in New Brunswick including theft of a motor vehicle, mischief, assaulting a police officerwith a weapon, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, flight from police, two counts of possession of property obtained by a crime andbreaking and entering a residence. Mr.

Peterson had an extensive criminal record, which included at least six prior convictions forrobbery, 19 theft and property-related offences, two for assaulting a police officer, two for obstruction of justice, two for assault and onefor flight while being pursued by a police officer. The Crown appealed the fitness of the 66-month global consecutive sentence imposedat first instance, less remand credit. After a detailed totality analysis, the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick overturned this sentence andreplaced it with one totaling 11-and-a-half-years. 45.

In support of her submissions regarding consecutive versus concurrent sentences, Ms. Henry also highlights the decision of theCourt of Appeal of Manitoba in R. v. Wozny, 2010 MBCA 115 as standing for the proposition that a so-called “crime spree”,particularly when it is fueled by the need for an addict to support their drug addiction, can attract concurrent sentences. Briefly, Mr.Wozny was 25-years-old with no criminal record when he committed 17 gas station robberies over the span of six weeks to feed his

addiction to crack cocaine. In 14 instances, Mr. Wozny was armed and in nine instances he was disguised. Before the sentencing judge,the Crown sought an eight-year sentence. Mr. Wozny sought a three-year sentence, less a remand credit of 17 months, and the sentencingjudge imposed a sentence of 48 months, less remand credit, with the last 16 offences all running concurrently to the first. On appeal, aseven-year sentence was substituted, less remand credit.

The robberies were grouped into three temporal categories by the Court ofAppeal of Manitoba with the first offence in each category running consecutively while each of the other offences ran concurrently.Totality was a prominent driver in this decision. 46.

At paragraphs 51 and 52, the Court of Appeal of Manitoba expressed the underlying reasoning as follows: 51 The rationale for permitting a sentencing judge to impose in his/her discretion a concurrent sentence, notwithstanding the factthat “spree offences” appear to be separate and distinct, is that the sentencing judge may conclude that the accused was acting under anunbroken influence of addiction, such that the offences could be seen or interpreted as forming a single, continuous transaction. 52 While there has been no uniform definition of what is meant by a crime spree fueled by or carried out to feed an addiction, itwould seem that it is a series of similar and recurring offences which are committed, if not continuously, within a sustained and relativelyshort period of time, for the purpose of obtaining resources necessary to feed an addiction. (emphasis added) The Step Principle 47.

Returning to R. v. Peterson, Mr. Murphy’s solicitor highlights the treatment of the “step principle” provided at paragraph 19 toanchor her position that the magnitude of the Crown’s sentencing recommendation would be more appropriate for an accused with anextensive criminal record for similar offences. She emphasizes that her client’s criminal record is very limited and his only past sentencewas served in the community pursuant to a Conditional Sentence Order in 2021. In other words, Ms. Henry states this is a majordistinguishing factor relative to the circumstances of Mr.

Peterson as well as the accused in Hawkins v. R. Notwithstanding this notabledistinguishing factor, Ms. Henry’s submissions fell short of addressing the decision of the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick inHawkins v. R. and, more recently, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Hilbach. In particular, these two decisionsstrongly emphasize that

section 344 offences under the Criminal Code, even when a weapon is not used, are highly morally blameworthyand, as a starting point, the low end of the range almost invariably involves a penitentiary sentence even for an accused with no priorcriminal record. THE APPLICABLE LAW The General Principles and Purposes of Sentencing 48. Sentencing has been described as “one of the hardest tasks confronting a trial judge” (see R. v. Gardiner, (SCC) atparagraph 108).

The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that the fitness of a sentence imposed can establish or diminish the“credibility of the criminal justice system in the eyes of the public” (see R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, at paragraph 3). 49. The task is governed by the provisions of the Criminal Code but it involves “the exercise of a broad discretion by the courts inbalancing all the relevant factors in order to meet the objectives being pursued in sentencing” (see R. v. Bosco, 2016 BCCA 55, atparagraph 29).

The purpose and principles of sentence, as set out in the Criminal Code, allow for “sentence individualization" and guidethe sentence I shall impose. 50. In particular,

section 718 of the Criminal Code describes the fundamental purpose of sentencing. It reads: 718. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect forthe law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the followingobjectives: (

a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by 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 or to the community. 51. What constitutes an appropriate sanction and which of the objectives may be most important is not dictated by strict guidelines orrigid imperatives. Rather, the imposition of a just sentence requires “sufficient manoeuvrability to tailor sentences to the circumstancesof the particular offence and the particular offender” (see R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, at paragraph 38). Put another way, sentencing ismore art than science. 52. The objectives described in

section 718 of the Criminal Code may have predominance in a set of circumstances dictated by theoffence, the offender or both. On some occasions the objective of denunciation (often along with deterrence) “must be emphasized toconvey society's condemnation” (see R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, at paragraph 5). When denunciation becomes predominant, as is thecase here, sentencing judges may “have very few options other than imprisonment for meeting these objectives, which are essential tothe maintenance of a just, peaceful and law-abiding society” (see R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, at paragraph 6).

I am required to attributeto the objectives of denunciation and deterrence their proper predominant influence in the crafting of a just sentence for Mr. Murphy.

53. Deterrence is subdivided into specific and general elements. Specific deterrence is designed to convince the offender not to re-offend. The circumstances of the offender and the prospects for rehabilitation must be considered. The sentencing judge must look at theindividual, his record and attitude, his motivation and his prospects for reformation and rehabilitation. 54. General deterrence is aimed at persuading others who may be inclined to commit the same offence from so doing.

If this is the aim,the sentencing judge must consider the gravity of the offence, the incidence of the crime in the community, the harm caused by it eitherto the individual or to the community and the public attitude toward it. 55. The separation of an offender from society is sometimes necessary. The application of the objective must be read in concert withsubsection 718.2(

e) of the Criminal Code, which essentially requires imprisonment to be the sentence of last resort. There arecircumstances of both offender and offence which require Mr. Murphy to be imprisoned in this case. 56. The maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society, as is mandated by

section 718 of the Criminal Code, can often best beachieved by the rehabilitation of offenders. As the Supreme Court of Canada has held, “Rehabilitation is one of the fundamental moralvalues that distinguish Canadian society from the societies of many other nations in the world” (see R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 atparagraph 4). 57. The Criminal Code also holds that the fundamental principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity ofthe offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

This is a codification of the proportionality principle and is found at section718.1 of the Criminal Code. 58. Other principles are important in crafting an appropriate sentence here. First, subsection 718.2(

b) of the Criminal Code states that“a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances”. This isa codification of the parity principle. 59. Subsection 718.2(

a) of the Criminal Code indicates a “sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevantaggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender”.

Section 718.2 also dictates that: (

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

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

f) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done tovictims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginaloffenders. 60. The totality principle, which I have touched on earlier in this decision, strongly militates against the imposition of “unduly long”,“disproportionate” or “crushing” consecutive sentences. It is codified in subsection 718.2(

d) of the Criminal Code. In effect, the totalityprinciple safeguards against a “pile on”, which can present in a wide variety of circumstances including those where the offender facesmultiple charges committed in rapid succession and/or the offender is serving a consecutive sentence or consecutive sentences already.The applicable principles and corresponding approach to totality were most recently restated by the Court of Appeal of New Brunswickin Brown v.

R., 2022 NBCA 33 , where the following was noted at paragraph 23: [23] A framework for the principled application of the totality principle was addressed by this Court in R. v. Peterson, 2017 NBCA29, [2017] N.B.J. No. 152 (QL), per Quigg J.A., which adopted the guidelines set out in R. v. Hutchings, 2012 NLCA 2, [2012] N.J. No.12 (QL), per Green C.J.N.L., as he then was.

These guidelines (Hutchings, at paragraph 84) may be summarized as follows: 1. identify a sentence for each offence, applying proper sentencing principles; 2. consider whether any of the individual sentences should be made consecutive or concurrent, on the ground that they constitute asingle criminal adventure; 3. if this results in two or more sentences being served consecutively, take one “last look” at the combined sentence to determinewhether it is unduly long or harsh, in the sense that it is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility ofthe offender, having regard to the following factors:

a) the length of the combined sentence in relation to the normal level of sentence for the most serious of the individual offencesinvolved;

b) the number and gravity of the offences involved;

c) the offender’s criminal record;

d) the impact of the combined sentence on the offender’s prospects for rehabilitation, in the sense that it may be harsh or crushing, and

e) such other factors as may be appropriate to consider to ensure that the combined sentence is proportionate to the gravity of theoffences and the offender’s degree of responsibility; 4. if the combined sentence is not unduly long or harsh and is proportionate to the gravity of the offences and the offender’s degree ofresponsibility, the sentence must stand; 5. where the combined sentence is unduly long or harsh, determine the extent to which the combined sentence should be reduced toachieve a proper totality by, first, attempting to adjust one or more of the sentences by making it or them concurrent with othersentences, but if that does not achieve the proper result, in addition, or instead, reduce the length of an individual sentence below what itwould otherwise have been; and

6. in imposing individual sentences adjusted for totality, the judge should be careful to identify:

a) the sentences that are regarded as appropriate for each individual offence applying proper sentencing principles, without considerations of totality;

b) the degree to which sentences have been made concurrent on the basis that they constitute a single criminal adventure; and

c) the methodology employed to achieve the proper totality that is indicated, identifying which individual sentences are to be made concurrent or to be otherwise reduced. 61 . These are the general principles which inform the sentencing of Mr. Murphy. As has already been noted in the context of the Crown’s submissions, with which I agree, the protection of the public as well as denunciation and deterrence, both general and specific, are the predominant applicable sentencing principles in this case. Moreover, rehabilitation is also a central sentencing consideration. VICTIM IMPACT 62 .

Victim Impact Statements were requested from a total of seven individuals and received from two: Mr. Campbell and Ms. Girouard. Of the five individuals who have not provided Victim Impact Statements, two could not be contacted despite considerable efforts being undertaken by Victim Services (Mr. Peterson and Mikayla Dejong) and three declined (Justin Jeong, Corporal Furlotte and Constable Rodriguez). 63 . Mr. Campbell reports his encounter with Mr. Murphy has had a considerable and lasting emotional toll on him.

Seeing pedestrians on the side of the road in circumstances where he must slow down or come to a stop made him very nervous for several months post- incident and he remains apprehensive about driving at night. This traumatic incident has also caused him to experience nightmares and difficulty sleeping. Though the Van belonged to his employer, Mr. Campbell explains repair costs were in the order of $10,000.00 and delays in obtaining replacement parts meant the Van was out of service for four months. 64 . Ms. Girouard reports that the events of November 2 nd , 2022 have “completely changed my life”.

Following her encounter with Mr. Murphy, she took one month off from her job as an LPN and manager at a special care home owing to what she describes as “incredible PTSD”. Ms. Girouard explains that, after the incident, “I felt like I was drowning, I felt so behind in life that I would never catch up”. The adverse impact on her daily routine and her ability to concentrate necessitated that her work duties be substantially modified.

She is currently unable to work as an LPN on the advice of her physician and is overwhelmed with uncertainty about when (or even if) she will be able to return to the profession she loves and successfully worked in for 13 years pre-incident. 65 . Ms. Girouard’s relationship with her young son has been adversely impacted and she has become highly reliant on her family since her devastating encounter with Mr. Murphy. Money she had put aside to purchase Christmas gifts for her son last year ended up being redeployed to pay her insurance deductible.

She explains “it’s a daily challenge for me to get out into public, as I am hypervigilant, almost as if I am anticipating something bad will happen”. 66 . Since this event, Ms. Girouard has been diagnosed with “Complex PTSD” and takes two new medications to suppress her anxiety and nightmares. She participates in regular counselling which she must now pay for out of pocket because her work health coverage has come to an end.

She explains that “finding consistent work that I am able to do at this time has been challenging…I had a lifestyle I was proud of, and very capable of maintaining, and now I have no financial security at all”. 67 . Despite the profoundly devastating effect Mr. Murphy’s criminal actions have had on Ms. Girouard’s professional and personal life, her message for him is that “as a mother, and a nurse, I feel compassion for you, and I hope you overcome whatever it is that put you in the position that you’re in today”. 68 . It is obvious from the Victim Impact Statements before me that Mr.

Murphy’s criminality has had a profoundly adverse effect from the perspective of victimization. AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS Aggravating Factors 69 . I find the following circumstances to be aggravating in this case: a. Though limited, Mr. Murphy does have a criminal record which includes a recent assault conviction. This overlaps with the nature of some of the offences before me in the context of this sentencing; b. The effect of these highly traumatic events on the health and financial circumstances of at least two of Mr.

Murphy’s victims has been both significant and profound, thereby engaging the statutory aggravating factor set out in paragraph 718.2 (a)(iii.1) of the Criminal Code , and c. Mr. Murphy’s dangerous driving occurred at a time when his driving privileges were suspended, which is a statutory aggravating

factor pursuant to subsection 320.22(

g) of the Criminal Code. Mitigating Factors 70. I find the following circumstances to be mitigating in this case: a. Mr. Murphy has pleaded guilty to these offences, thereby eliminating the necessity of a trial. In taking clear responsibility for hiscriminal actions, Mr. Murphy’s many victims need not relive the trauma he caused them by having to testify in a stressful and adversarialsetting; b. Mr. Murphy has expressed contrition and remorse for his criminal actions, which I believe to be sincere, and c. Mr.

Murphy has undertaken some notable positive steps while remanded to avail himself of counselling and other programming.Moreover, his Pre-Sentence Report is positive in many respects and underscores his commitment to and prospects for rehabilitation. THE RANGE OF SENTENCE 71. In considering what constitutes a fit and appropriate sentence for Mr. Murphy, I am mindful of the consistent refrain of the SupremeCourt of Canada that “the maximum sentence for an offence is a reflection of, and a proxy for, its seriousness” (see, for example, R. v.Sharma, 2022 SCC 39 at paragraph 105). 72.

In keeping with this direction, I have given due consideration to the maximum penalties which accompany each of the offencesbefore me. I note that a charge of robbery, contrary to

section 344 of the Criminal Code, carries a maximum sentence of lifeimprisonment. The maximum penalty for indictable assault on a peace officer with a weapon, contrary to

section 270.01 of the CriminalCode, indictable dangerous driving, contrary to subsection 320.13(1) of the Criminal Code and indictable flight from a peace officer,contrary to

section 320.17 of the Criminal Code is 10 years imprisonment. The remaining Criminal Code charges before me carry aminimum penalty of either two years or two years less a day. 73. The common law authority provided by the Crown and Mr. Murphy’s solicitor is helpful insofar as it pertains to the sentencingprinciples and related analytical framework that applies to robbery. As it relates to the balance of the offences before me, it is the casethat the ranges of sentence cut a wide swath and are obviously driven by the circumstances of the offence and offender.

Suffice it to say Ihave considered the wide body of sentencing case law as it pertains to the remaining offences in fashioning what I believe to be a fit andappropriate sentence for Mr. Murphy. APPLICATION OF THE LAW AND SENTENCE 74. Having considered the submissions of the parties and conducted my own further research, I will begin by addressing what I believeis a fit and appropriate sentence given the circumstances of the offences and the offender. I have an obligation to impose a sentence thatis faithful to the parity and proportionality principles.

As I earlier noted, rehabilitative considerations figure prominently in this case asdo the sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence, both specific and general. I must also give due consideration to the safety ofthe public and victim impact. Finally, it is critical that I carefully and thoughtfully apply the totality principle to ensure that the globalityof the sentence I impose does not run contrary to subsection 718.2(

d) of the Criminal Code. In so doing, I turn to the helpful guidance theCourt of Appeal of New Brunswick has given to sentencing judges when it comes to considering and applying totality, as recentlyrestated in Brown v. R. The Crown and Mr. Murphy’s solicitor have both emphasized totality looms large in this case. I agree. 75. I have considered Ms. Henry’s submissions respecting the presumption in favour of consecutive sentences.

More particularly, she argues this presumption is substantially displaced in relation to the events of November 2nd, 2022 because they happened in closeproximity in both time and place and constituted a single, continuous transaction or “crime spree”. Earlier in this decision, I canvassed thespecifics of this position and will not revisit those details here. I respectfully

part company with Ms. Henry’s submissions on this point.Even though these highly aberrant and serious criminal events happened in rapid succession and within a short period of time, it is clearto me that these distinctive and varied offences engaged many different victims across several different contexts. In other words, theyobviously constituted “invasions of different legally protected interests”. Consequently, the presumption in favour of consecutivesentences has not been displaced in the fashion proposed by Mr. Murphy’s solicitor as it relates to the three

section 344 offences;however, it has been displaced in relation to some of the other offences before me. 76. Given Mr. Murphy’s background, the seriousness of the offences before me and the sentencing guidelines and principles, bothstatutory and otherwise, which I am obligated to consider and apply, I would impose the following sentence in this case if not bound bythe totality principle: CourtFile No. PoliceFile No. OffenceDate Charge Appropriate Sentence (BeforeTotality)11836305FPF 22-23691 Oct. 7, 2022334(b)(ii) 15 days 11836705FPF 22-23958 Oct. 7, 2022266(b) 15 days, consecutive 11836805FPF 22-26456 Nov. 2, 2022344(1) 3 years, consecutive

270.01(2)(a) 2 months, consecutive (see

section 270.3 of the Criminal Code ) 129(a) 1 month, concurrent 11838605 RCMP 22- 1594995 Nov. 2, 2022 344(1)(b) 3 years, consecutive 11836905 RCMP 22- 154739 Nov. 2, 2022 344(1)(b) 4 years, consecutive 320.13(1) 3 months, concurrent 320.17 3 months, consecutive 129(e) 1 month, consecutive 345(1) MVA $500.00 fine Global Consecutive Sentence (Before Totality) 10 years and 7 months, less a remand credit of 587 days 77 .

To impose a global consecutive sentence of 10 years and seven months for the October 7 th , 2022 and November 2 nd , 2022 offences would, in my view, amount to an “unduly long”, “disproportionate” or “crushing” sentencing outcome for Mr. Murphy when considered against his background, the nature and severity of the offences he committed and all of the other factors I have considered.

Having acknowledged his guilty pleas, his contrition and remorse, his desire to control and address his mental health and addiction issues, the positive steps he has taken while remanded in pre-trial detention and the various other pro-social factors at play here, I believe the outlook remains promising for Mr. Murphy from the perspective of rehabilitation. I am also convinced that if I were to impose a global consecutive sentence of 10 years and seven months, such sentence would amount to a marked departure from the sentences customarily imposed for similarly situated offenders committing similar crimes.

Put bluntly, it would exceed what is necessary to meet the ends of justice in this particular case. 78 . Having regard to the various considerations which inform the application of the totality principle, as recently reiterated by the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick at paragraph 23 of Brown v. R. , I provide below a table outlining the final sentence I impose regarding each offence. Relative to the table provided immediately above, the table below clearly shows the totality adjustments I have made in arriving at what I believe to be a fit and appropriate sentence for Mr. Murphy. Court File No. Police File No.

Offence Date Charge Sentence Imposed (After Totality) 11836305 FPF 22- 23691 Oct. 7, 2022 334(b)(ii) 15 days 11836705 FPF 22- 23958 Oct. 7, 2022 266(b) 15 days, consecutive 11836805 FPF 22- 26456 Nov. 2, 2022 344(1) 3 years, consecutive 270.01(2)(a) 2 months, consecutive (see

section 270.3 of the Criminal Code ) 129(a) 1 month, concurrent 11838605 RCMP 22- 1594995 Nov. 2, 2022 344(1)(b) 3 years, concurrent 11836905 RCMP 22- 154739 Nov. 2, 2022 344(1)(b) 3 years and 6 months, consecutive 320.13(1) 3 months, concurrent 320.17 3 months, consecutive 129(e) 1 month, concurrent 345(1) MVA $500.00 fine Sentence Imposed (After Totality) 7 years, less a remand credit of 587 days 79 .

In keeping with the breakdown set out in the immediately foregoing table, I impose a global consecutive sentence of seven years, less a remand credit of 587 days, together with a fine of $500.00 in relation to the Motor Vehicle Act offence. Given that Mr. Murphy has been remanded in pre-trial detention for more than one year and will be serving a lengthy sentence, I waive all applicable Victim Fine Surcharges. 80 . Additionally, I impose the following ancillary orders: a. A no-contact order pursuant to

section 743.21 of the Criminal Code which precludes Mr. Murphy from having any direct or indirect contact with either Mr. Campbell or Ms. Girouard while he is incarcerated;

b. An order pursuant to subsection 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code authorizing the taking of the number of samples of bodily substances from Mr. Murphy that is reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis; c. A weapons prohibition order pursuant to

section 109 of the Criminal Code for a duration of 10 years; d. A driving prohibition of 12-months pursuant to paragraph 320.24(5) (

b) of the Criminal Code , and e. A restitution order in the amount of $16.32 for the benefit of Petro-Canada c/o Quinn Legere. 81 . In conclusion, Mr. Murphy, the crimes you committed are very serious and have had a significant and lasting impact on several of your victims. With the various supports available at the institution where you will be serving your sentence, I remain optimistic you will be able to address the root causes of your criminality and get the counselling you need for your mental health and addiction issues. You are extremely fortunate to have such a caring and loving family.

They have been here for you every step of the way, which I can confidently say is more the exception than the rule. My hope for you is that you continue to make productive and positive use of your time while incarcerated so you can heal and ultimately return to being a contributing and law-abiding citizen - or, to use your words, to again become the best version of yourself. I sincerely wish you, your family and your son well going forward. BRITTAIN, PCJ