R. v. Doczi, 2021 BCPC 38

Citation: R. v. Doczi 2021 BCPC 38 Date: 20210308 File No: 256144-1 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Criminal Court) REGINA v. PAUL JOSEPH DOCZI REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE R. HARRIS Counsel for the Crown: J. La Porte Counsel for the Defendant: B. Movassaghi Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: January 27, 2021 Date of Judgment: March 8, 2021 INTRODUCTION

[ 1 ] On June 14, 2019, Mr. Doczi broke into an apartment suite and assaulted the occupant with a hammer. Mr. Doczi was arrested and charged with break and enter and aggravated assault. He pled guilty to these offences and a sentencing hearing was held wherein the Crown urged the Court to impose a custodial sentence in the higher end of the range of 5 to 7 years, less time served. Counsel for Mr. Doczi urged the Court to impose an effective sentence of 4 years to 4½ years, plus 3 years of probation. The task for this Court is to impose a fit sentence.

THE OFFENCES [ 2 ] On June 14, 2019, at approximately 6:20 a.m., Ms. Stevenson was asleep in her ground floor apartment. As she slept, Mr. Doczi climbed over her bedroom patio railing and he entered the bedroom through an open patio door. [ 3 ] Ms. Stevenson woke up when she realized that an unknown male was in her bedroom and she called out. Mr. Doczi immediately responded by striking Ms. Stevenson in the head with a hammer. Mr. Doczi told Ms. Stevenson to “shut up and not to talk”. Ms. Stevenson called out for help and Mr. Doczi struck her multiple times with the hammer while telling her to “shut up”.

The majority of Mr. Doczi’s strikes hit Ms. Stevenson in the head. [ 4 ] Ms. Stevenson pled with Mr. Doczi asking him not to hurt her. Despite this, Mr. Doczi continued to strike her multiple times. At one point, Ms. Stevenson almost passed out and to stop the attack she curled up into a fetal position, stopped moving and remained silent. [ 5 ] Ms. Stevenson’s actions caused Mr. Doczi to stop his assault and as Ms. Stevenson lay bleeding and motionless, he rummaged through the apartment and stole items. Ultimately, Mr. Doczi stole two laptop computers, a backpack and a debit card. He then fled out the front door.

At no time did he assist Ms. Stevenson who was on the bed, motionless and bleeding profusely. [ 6 ] Once satisfied that Mr. Doczi had left, Ms. Stevenson made her way to a neighbour’s apartment where she received help. Ms. Stevenson was then transported to the hospital where she received treatment for the following injuries: • A skull fracture to the left side at the base of her skull; • A brain hemorrhage; • Lacerations to the front and top of her skull; • Fractures to her left hand and fingers; • Lacerations to her left hand and fingers. There was significant swelling that resulted in Ms.

Stevenson’s wedding ring being cut from her finger; • Lacerations to the right hand, knuckles and forearm; • A swollen circular bruise to her left shoulder resembling the shape of a hammer head. [ 7 ] Ms. Stevenson had surgery wherein pins were inserted into her hand. She also received sutures to close the open lacerations on her head. She has attended dozens of doctor appointments, and multiple sessions for physical and psychological therapy. VICTIM IMPACT [ 8 ] Ms.

Stevenson prepared a Victim Impact Statement and within she described the financial, physical and emotional impact that she suffered. [ 9 ] As for the financial impact, Ms. Stevenson was off work for 3 months. During this period, she lost 50% of her income and she feels that her absence from her work has impacted her career advancement. [ 10 ] In terms of emotional impact, the offences have damaged Ms. Stevenson’s personal feelings of security. In this regard she wrote: Above all, the accused took a lot more from me than my things. He took my sense of security and safety in my own home and my daily life.

My husband and I spent over a month living outside our home. Once I found the courage to return home, we spent the next month sleeping on a blow-up mattress in our living room in fear of re-entering our bedroom where the accused attacked me. [ 11 ] Ms. Stevenson also struggles with fear for her safety in daily situations. Of note is, she will not walk or run alone at night, she will not open her patio doors if she is home alone, and she will cross the road if she senses someone walking closely behind her. Ms. Stevenson feels she has lost her sense of independence and trust and she has difficulty sleeping.

She lives in a steady state of fear. [ 12 ] The last paragraph of Ms. Stevenson’s statement is poignant: There is no amount of therapy or safety cameras that can undo the damage done by the accused. My life is a constant “what if” scenario. This feeling is heightened by the fact I have welcomed a daughter into this world, and it pains me to think that someone could harm another human like this. … [ 13 ] Ms. Stevenson’s statement makes it clear that her physical injuries have healed, however, her emotional injuries remain profound, active and present. MR.

DOCZI’S CIRCUMSTANCES [ 14 ] A pre-sentence report was prepared and it provides the Court with information regarding Mr. Doczi’s personal circumstances.

[ 15 ] Mr. Doczi is 52 years old and he was born in Ontario. He was raised in a loving household. He described his upbringing as good, however, he reports that his father was strict and that he would use spanking as a form of punishment. From Mr. Doczi’s perspective, this punishment was abusive. [ 16 ] Mr. Doczi moved out of the family home at 14 years old. According to Mr. Doczi, he left home because he owed money to a marijuana dealer and he was concerned about the consequences if his parents found out that he was using marijuana. [ 17 ] During the sentencing hearing and through counsel, Mr.

Doczi informed the Court that he had been a victim of sexual abuse and he gave the lack of privacy as the explanation given for not mentioning this to the writer of the pre-sentence report. Interestingly, the transcripts from Mr. Doczi’s previous sentencing hearings do not disclose comments regarding sexual abuse. Further, and considering the impact of any trauma that any sexual abuse may have caused Mr. Doczi’s, there is a lack of information about the abuse, there is no evidence linking the abuse to his criminality, finally, and despite any trauma that Mr.

Doczi may have suffered, he managed live pro- socially for a number of years which is evidenced by the gap in his criminal record. [ 18 ] In 2017, Mr. Doczi moved to British Columbia. He does not have any positive friends or influences. Mr. Doczi has not finished high school and he has worked as a painter. In 2018, he fell off a ladder resulting in extensive injuries and nerve damage. [ 19 ] As for substance abuse, Mr. Doczi started smoking marijuana when he was 13. Throughout his 20s, Mr. Doczi used illicit substances until 1999, at which point he stopped until 2006. [ 20 ] Mr.

Doczi’s drug of preference is crystal methamphetamine and he last consumed illicit substances just prior to his incarceration for the instant matter. According to Mr. Doczi, he was well into his addiction at the time of his offences. [ 21 ] Mr. Doczi has a significant criminal record commencing in 1993 and it contains 61 convictions. Of the 61 convictions, there are 7 convictions for break and enter, 1 conviction for being unlawfully in a dwelling house, 1 conviction for assault with a weapon, 3 convictions for assault causing bodily harm, 3 convictions for assault, and 2 convictions for threatening.

The remainder of Mr. Doczi’s record includes convictions for breach of court orders, theft, extortion and forcible confinement. [ 22 ] Mr Doczi’s rate of offending is prolific, specifically, his first conviction was 27 years ago followed by various offences and thereafter there is a 9 year gap between 1997 and 2006, as such, one can roughly conclude, and despite periods of incarceration, that Mr. Doczi averaged 3.3 convictions per year. What also becomes clear from his record is that he committed a number of offences while on probation. [ 23 ] The Crown presented the Court with transcripts from three of Mr.

Dozci’s sentencing hearings. Below, I briefly outline some details related to one of Mr. Doczi’s sentencing hearings and I do so because it underscores Mr. Doczi’s familiarity with unlawfully entering homes in circumstances when they may be occupied. [ 24 ] Further to the above, in July of 2007, Mr. Doczi was sentenced for break and enter, assault with a weapon, and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace. The circumstances of the offences were; in the early morning hours, Mr. Doczi cut the screen to a basement apartment window and he entered the apartment through the window.

Once inside, an occupant confronted Mr. Doczi and a struggle ensued with Mr. Doczi fleeing the apartment. The occupant gave chase and he managed to block Mr. Doczi’s path of escape. In response, Mr. Doczi produced a knife and he waved it at the occupant causing a minor cut to the occupant’s hand. Mr. Doczi was arrested shortly thereafter. [ 25 ] As for his current offences, Mr. Doczi indicated that he entered the apartment because an associate suggested that he steal items. As for the assault, Mr. Doczi explained that Ms. Stevenson’s screams scared him and he reacted. The writer of Mr.

Doczi’s pre-sentence report observed that Mr. Doczi expressed feelings consistent with remorse and that he was able to recognize the impact his offence had on Ms. Stevenson. [ 26 ] While in custody, Mr. Doczi has taken several programs and the Court received numerous certificates confirming Mr. Doczi’s involvement in various programs. Also filed was a letter from the food bank confirming that Mr. Doczi donated $1,000 while he was in custody. [ 27 ] Two letters were filed in support of Mr. Doczi. One letter was from an inmate and the other appears to be from an associate. The letters speak to Mr.

Doczi’s willingness to help others. Also filed were some medical documents and they confirm that a surgically implanted wire used to repair a workplace shoulder injury is “backing” out and that Mr. Doczi has elected to have the wire and associate pin surgically removed. From submissions, Mr. Doczi is of the opinion that his current shoulder problems are the result of being mistreated when he was arrested. [ 28 ] In terms of future plans, Mr. Doczi hopes to obtain vocational training and to work in a field other than painting. As for a disposition, Mr.

Doczi informed the writer of the pre-sentence report that he prefers community supervision and that he is willing to abide by all conditions including a curfew. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES The Crown [ 29 ] The Crown argues that a global sentence in the range of 5 to 7 years jail is appropriate, with 5 years being imposed for the aggravated assault, and the higher end of 5 to 7 years (concurrent) for the break and enter. In their submissions, the Crown argues that the objectives of denunciation, deterrence and the protection of the public are significant sentencing objectives.

In support, the Crown points to the unprovoked violence, the entry into a dwelling house and Mr. Doczi’s criminal history. The Crown relies on the following authorities: R. v. D.A.W., 2020 BCCA 336 ; R. v. Bernier, 2003 BCCA 134 ; R. v. Chudley, 2016 BCCA 90 ; R. v. Smith, 2020 BCCA 87 ; R. v. L.C.D, 2004 BCCA 405 ; R. v. Sherwin, 2012 BCSC 208 ; R. v. Larose, 2013 BCCA 450 ; and R. v. Craig, 2005 BCCA 484 .

The defence [ 30 ] Counsel for Mr. Doczi encourages the Court to impose an effective sentence of 4 to 4½ years and then place Mr. Doczi on probation for 3 years. In support, counsel advises that Mr. Doczi suffered sexual abuse, that he had an abusive upbringing and at the time of the offence, Mr. Doczi had not slept for five days. Counsel relies on the following authorities: R. v. Monteiro and Ford 2005 BCSC 1201 ; R. v. Phillips, 2018 BCSC 2077 ; R. v. Stark, 2018 BCSC 2149 ; and R. v. Jalal, 2020 BCPC 238 .

THE PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING [ 31 ] Sections 718 – 718.2 of the Criminal Code sets out the purpose and principles of sentencing. The relevant portions read: Purpose 718 The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and 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 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. Fundamental principle 718.1 A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Other sentencing principles 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, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, (

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 and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. [ 32 ] Further to the above, s. 348.1 of the Criminal Code directs that a court shall consider it aggravating if an offender breaks into an occupied dwelling at a time when the offender knew or was reckless to the fact that the dwelling was occupied and the offender uses violence. ANALYSIS Sentencing objectives [ 33 ] In R. v.

Chudley , 2016 BCCA 90 , Justice Stromberg-Steinin commented in the context of a violent entry into a home on; the importance of denunciation and deterrence, the consideration of rehabilitation and the application of the “step up” principle at paras. 24- 27: [24] Further, this Court has recognized several sentencing principles that are normally engaged in home invasion type cases. First, in R. v.

Vickers , 2007 BCCA 554 , the Court held that deterrence and denunciation are the primary factors in sentencing for violent crimes, especially when these crimes violate the safety and security of a person’s home: para. 12. As Madam Justice Saunders observed in R. v. Meigs , 2007 BCCA 394 at para. 25 : … it is a grave offence to enter another person’s home without permission, and graver to enter the home and violate the occupant.

The courts must and do impose stern sanctions for such crimes … [25] Second, with respect to rehabilitation, this Court in Vickers stated that while it cannot be overlooked, it is of secondary importance. This is particularly true when there is no indication that the offender is a good candidate for rehabilitation or when he or she has demonstrated a history of violence: Vickers at paras. 13, 15 .

[26] Third, the “step principle” - the idea that sentences should only be increased in moderate steps to avoid an adverse impact on the offender’s chances of rehabilitation - is generally not helpful when the dominant sentencing factor is protection of the public: Vickers at para.16. Also, the “step principle” generally only applies when rehabilitation is a significant sentencing consideration: R. v. McCallum , 2004 BCCA 341 at para. 10 [27] Fourth, higher sentences are appropriate when serious injuries are inflicted: Vickers at para. 19 .

In A.J.C. at para. 42, then Chief Justice Finch stated that a 14 or 15 year sentence may be appropriate in “the most aggravated circumstances where a ‘home invasion’ involves not only a break and enter to commit robbery, the terrorizing and confinement of victims, and the use of weapons to achieve these objectives, but also the infliction of serious injuries, sexual assault or death. [ 34 ] Applying the above, the sentence imposed in this matter must have the objectives of denunciation and deterrence with Mr. Doczi’s rehabilitation taking a diminished role. [ 35 ] Mr.

Doczi’s 7 convictions for break and enter necessitates that the objective of deterrence be specific and general. As for Mr. Doczi’s rehabilitation, the programs that he has taken, his age, the gap in his criminal record, his previous probation orders, his custodial sentences, and the observation that at a number of his earlier offences were committed while he was on probation, leads to the regrettable conclusion that Mr. Doczi’s current rehabilitative prospects hold little promise. Proportionality [ 36 ] Mr. Doczi has pled guilty to serious criminal offences.

The maximum penalty for breaking into a dwelling house with the intent to commit an indictable offence is life imprisonment and the maximum penalty for aggravated assault is imprisonment for fourteen years. [ 37 ] As for Mr. Doczi’s degree of responsibility, I find his responsibility to be high. Noteworthy is Mr. Doczi engaged in sufficient planning to enter a dwelling house with the intention of committing theft, that he did so with a hammer at the ready, and that he assaulted Ms. Stevenson with purpose of silencing her so he could achieve his planned objective. In reaching my conclusion, I accept that Mr.

Doczi may have been under the influence of drugs at the time; however, the facts do not show that his planning and execution was impaired or diminished. Aggravating and mitigating circumstances [ 38 ] Mr. Doczi’s criminal record is aggravating. He has an extensive criminal record containing a broad spectrum of offences with several related convictions. His criminal record also informs me that custodial sentences and rehabilitative sentences have failed to assist Mr. Doczi in adopting a pro-social lifestyle and in the result society has not been protected. [ 39 ] It is aggravating that Mr.

Doczi was reckless as to whether Ms. Stevenson’s dwelling was occupied and that he committed a violent act while inside the dwelling. [ 40 ] Mr. Doczi’s assault on Ms. Stevenson is highly aggravating. The assault was prolonged, vicious, unprovoked and it involved the use of a weapon at a time when Ms. Stevenson was defenceless, in an inferior position, and trapped in her bedroom. I do not accept that the assault occurred because Mr. Doczi was startled and that he reacted. In support, I observe Mr. Doczi entered with a hammer at the ready and when he heard Ms.

Stevenson call out, he did not leave, instead, he attacked her with the hammer and maintained his attack until he achieved his objective of silencing her so he could fulfil his ultimate goal of stealing valuables from the apartment. [ 41 ] The degree of planning is aggravating. It is clear that Mr. Doczi had a plan to find valuables and to steal them and in furtherance of his plan he armed himself with a hammer, entered Ms. Stevenson’s apartment and assaulted her. [ 42 ] In mitigation, Mr.

Doczi pled guilty and in doing so, he not only saved the time and expense associated with what would have been a long trial, but he saved Ms. Stevenson from having to revisit the events of that morning. The guilty plea is also an expression of remorse. [ 43 ] The rehabilitative steps that Mr. Doczi, has taken while in custody is mitigating. [ 44 ] As for Mr. Doczi’s shoulder injury, there is not enough information from which I can conclude that the police improperly conducted themselves and, if so, that they caused the problem associated with the surgical hardware in Mr. Doczi’s shoulder.

Similar sentences [ 45 ] Counsel has provided the Court with helpful authorities and I have reviewed all of them. They are instructive and provide guidance. Nevertheless, I remind myself that sentencing is an individualized exercise. As such, the sentences imposed reflect the offender’s particular circumstances and the unique circumstances of their offences. Below is a

summary of some of the cases provided. [ 46 ] In D.A.W. , the appellant pled guilty to break and enter and robbery. The circumstances of the offences were; the appellant and an accomplice entered the home of an elderly couple and threatened them with a knife. The appellant left for another part of the house and when he returned to the living room his accomplice was struggling with the wife on the couch and fondling her breasts. The appellant held a knife to the husband’s cheek. The pair left the home after approximately 30 minutes, taking money and jewellery.

The appellant had a prior criminal record, but was receptive to treatment and acknowledged his addiction issues. His sentence of 10 years and 10 months was upheld on appeal. [ 47 ] In Bernier , the offender successfully appealed a 14 year sentence that was imposed after he was convicted of break and enter and commit theft and other offences. The circumstances involved individuals entering a home that they believed contained a marijuana grow operation. Once inside, they claimed they were the police, they handcuffed the occupant and they pointed a gun at him.

The intruders then searched the house and did they not find any marijuana. From an upstairs suite, they stole some electronics. During the events, the

occupant was hit on the head with the butt of the firearm. At trial, it had not been established that appellant entered the home, rather, he was convicted on the basis that he had masterminded the offences. The appellant was Indigenous, 21 years old, and he had a criminal record for break and enter, assault and carrying a concealed weapon.

The appeal was granted and the sentence was reduced to six years owing to errors that resulted in an unfit sentence. [ 48 ] In Smith , the appellant’s appeal of a global sentence of 10 years before time credited was dismissed (there was, by agreement, a minor 2 month adjustment for time served). The appellant entered guilty pleas at the end of the Crown’s case to offences related to the unlawful entry into a home. In this regard, the victim was awaken by an intruder who demanded his wallet, bankcard, and security code. The victim endured a prolonged assault involving an attack with a hammer and a knife.

The victim suffered a concussion, lacerations, bruises, broken ribs and a loss of hearing. The sentencing judge concluded that the appellant was not the person who assaulted the victim. The appellant was 24 years old, he had experienced racism, he had a youth criminal record, and he had a challenging upbringing. In dismissing the appeal, the court observed that the sentence was not demonstrably unfit and that it was consistent with sentences imposed in similar cases.

Notably, the Court observed that the range for violent home invasions is 5 years to 12 years jail: at para. 31. [ 49 ] In Sherwin , the offender was convicted of aggravated assault, and break and enter and committing an indictable offence. The offender received a sentence of 3 years and 3 months comprised of the time served plus a sentence of two years less a day, followed by probation for 3 years. The offences involved the offender forcing open the door to a residence, entering the residence, assaulting the occupant with a baseball bat and taking some property.

On fleeing, the offender threw a sheathed knife at a responding police officer, there was a brief chase and he was arrested. The offender had a bipolar disorder and a drug addiction. The offender was 23 years old at the time of the offences, not taking his medication and abusing street drugs. He had a grade 10 education, a supportive family and employment. He had a criminal record that included a conviction for assault, uttering threats, public mischief, and wilfully obstructing a police officer. [ 50 ] In Monteiro and Ford , the offenders entered the victim's house for the purposes of collecting a debt.

One had a gun and pointed it at the victim's head. A knife was used to cut two of the victim's fingers to the bone. The offenders pointed the gun at the victim's wife and she was struck as she tried to call 911. Two children were present and they were taken to the basement. Ford was 23 years old. He had the support of his mother and his spouse. He did not have any addiction issues, nor did he have a criminal record. Monteiro was 24 years of old. He was viewed positively by others. He had a positive upbringing and he was well-motivated in positive life pursuits. He planned to return to school for a nursing career.

He did not have substance abuse issues and had no criminal record. Both defendants entered guilty pleas, accepted responsibility for their conduct and expressed their apologies. The sentence imposed on Monteiro was three-and-a-half years and Ford received four years. The difference between the two men was the charge of aggravated assault that elevated Ford’s degree of culpability. [ 51 ] In Phillips , the offender was sentenced 14 months jail for break and enter and a concurrent sentence of 4 months for an assault followed by probation for 2 years.

The circumstances of the offences were; at about 5:00 a.m., the offender forced open a ground level window, broke through the blinds and entered the dwelling. Once inside, an occupant confronted the offender and a struggle ensued during which the offender tried to pull the occupant to the door. The offender fled and then stole a delivery van. At the time of the offences, the offender had some belief that an unknown group of people were about to do him harm. The occupant suffered bruising on her arms and legs and a knee injury.

In considering the matter, the sentencing judge observed that the offences were irrational, disturbing and likely stemming from some type of substance abuse. In considering a range, the sentencing judge stated at para 57: From these authorities, I conclude that for a residential break and enter of an occupied home involving a level of violence at the lower end of the scale by an offender who is neither youthful nor a first-time offender, the sentencing range is from perhaps three months to two years in jail. [ 52 ] The offender was 54 at the time of sentencing.

He had held a variety of jobs for the majority of his life. He had a dated, sporadic criminal record with convictions for possession of narcotics, impaired driving, assault and breaching court orders. The offender had used substances for a number of years and had a history suggestive that he had paranoid thoughts. [ 53 ] In Stark , the offender pled guilty to a number of offences including; break and enter to two residences and two aggravated assaults. The offender broke into the first house and while inside the resident returned home and there was a confrontation.

During the confrontation, the offender assaulted the resident with a gun, screwdrivers, and a knife causing serious injury. He then broke into another house where he stabbed the resident twice in the chest. The offender was a 32-years old; he had the support of others and he led a pro- social life until the death of his brother, which led to an addiction. Thereafter, and over a period of 18 months, the offender accumulated a lengthy but otherwise non-violent criminal record.

For the aggravated assaults, he received concurrent sentences of four years and for the break and enters, he received concurrent sentences of four years. [ 54 ] In Jalal , the offender was convicted of break and enter, assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm. The offender and others forced their way into the victim’s apartment and assaulted him with a bat and a pair of scissors. The victim suffered a concussion, lacerations and his epilepsy was aggravated. The offender was 21 years old, he had a court history for assault, robbery, breach of court orders and being unlawfully in a dwelling house.

While in custody the offender had taken some rehabilitative steps. The offender received a global sentence of 30 months. On imposing the sentence, the Court noted that sentence needed to deter and denounce while preserving the offender’s rehabilitative prospects. [ 55 ] I have also considered R. v.

Laramee, 2017 BCSC 1799 , wherein the context of sentencing a 23 year old for a number of offences related to breaking into a home, Justice MacNaughton observed: [56] A review of these cases relied on by both the Crown and the defence Indicates that the range of sentence for home invasions depends on the nature and the extent of the offender's involvement, the use of a firearm or weapon, the extent of the violence, and the offender's criminal record. In some cases, the reason for the home invasion or the motive for it was also taken into account.

The cases are, however, consistent in their conclusion that in these types of offences, the paramount sentencing consideration is deterrence and denunciation, given that home invasions violate the safety and security of a person's home.

[ 56 ] In Larose , the offender’s appeal of two concurrent seven-year terms of imprisonment that were imposed for the offences of aggravated assault was dismissed. The circumstances of the offences were; during a street altercation, the offender slashed and stabbed the first victim. He then slashed the neck of a second victim. The offender was 20 at the time of the offence, he had a difficult upbringing, he abused drugs, and he had a sporadic work history.

The offender had four convictions for assault, convictions for property offences and, at the time of his offence, he had a court condition prohibiting him from possessing weapons. In dismissing the appeal, the Court noted that the circumstances of the offenses justified a sentence beyond the range established in Craig . [ 57 ] In Craig , the Crown successfully appealed a sentence of imprisonment of 1 year, followed by probation for 2 years. The offender was convicted of aggravated assault involving a stabbing.

The stabbing was unprovoked, without warning, against a former partner and committed with the intention of maiming and disfiguring the victim. In allowing the appeal, the Court observed that the sentence imposed did not adequately deter and denounce the actions of the offender, specifically, a deliberate attempt to maim and disfigure. The Court allowed the appeal and imposed a 3 year sentence.

In doing so, the Court recognized a range between 16 months and 6 years and explained that an unprovoked attack with a weapon tends to result in a sentence near the high end, whereas a consensual fight that escalated and resulted in an injury tends to result in a sentence at the lower end. The offender was in his early 50s, he had a long employment history and a dated and unrelated criminal record.

Other principles [ 58 ] In considering the appropriate sentence, I recognize that the sentence imposed must be the least restrictive that is appropriate, that all reasonable sentencing options other than imprisonment should be considered and that care must be taken to ensure that consecutive sentences do not result in a sentence that is unduly long or harsh. SENTENCES [ 59 ] Mr. Doczi’s offences need to be denounced; additionally, he and others need to be deterred. Specifically, through the sentences imposed, I must communicate society’s condemnation of Mr. Doczi’s conduct.

The sentence must also send a message to others including Mr. Doczi that the violent entry into the sanctuary of another’s home will result in significant consequences. [ 60 ] I acknowledge that the sentence imposed must be proportionate. In this regard, the sentence must be proportional to the seriousness of the offences and to Mr. Doczi’s degree of responsibility. As already mentioned, the offences are serious and Mr. Doczi possessed a high degree of responsibility. [ 61 ] In considering an appropriate sentence, I have considered the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The mitigating factors have caused me to reduce the sentence. [ 62 ] As for the sentence suggested by counsel for Mr. Doczi, I decline to impose it because the sentence does not adequately denounce or deter, nor would it be proportionate to the seriousness of the offences or Mr. Doczi’s degree of responsibility. [ 63 ] After considering all of the factors, it is my view that a sentence for the break and enter of 7 years less time credited of 2 years, 7 months and 7 days for time that Mr.

Doczi has served in custody will achieve the requisite sentencing objectives and thereby ensure the protection of the public. [ 64 ] As for the Crown’s sentencing position for the aggravated assault, I conclude that the suggested sentence of 5 years would not adequately meet the sentencing objectives, nor, would it be proportional for the circumstances. With respect to proportionality, aggravated assault is serious offence and Mr.

Doczi committed it with a high degree of responsibility. [ 65 ] As for my conclusion that the proposed sentence would not meet the heightened sentencing objectives, I consider the following to be relevant to the weight afforded to the sentencing objectives: First, Mr. Doczi has a criminal record demonstrating that previous justice system interventions have failed to abate Mr. Doczi’s violent behaviour. Second, when Mr. Doczi entered the apartment he was armed with a weapon. Third, Mr. Doczi assaulted Ms.

Stevenson in circumstances where she was not a threat to him, nor, did she provoke him, she was unarmed, she was defenceless, she was laying on her bed, and she was trapped in her room. Fourth, the assault was prolonged, vicious and for the sole purpose of facilitating an opportunity to steal items. Fifth, and importantly, Ms. Stevenson suffered serious physical injuries and deep emotional trauma. Accordingly, and with the above in mind, Mr.

Doczi’s conduct and his criminal record, requires that the public be protected by the imposition of a sentence that meets the requisite degree of denunciation and deterrence. [ 66 ] With the above in mind, I impose a sentence of 7 years for the aggravated assault less time credited of 2 years, 7 months, and 7 days to be served concurrently with sentence imposed for break and enter.

I acknowledge that the sentence is above the range established in Craig , however, in the circumstances, the protection of the public requires a sentence that strongly denounces and deters and, therefore, a sentence above the range is required. [ 67 ] In deciding to impose a sentence above the range, I recognize that ranges are not inflexible boundaries and there may be circumstances that justify going above or below the range. The circumstances that I rely on to justify going above the range are set out in paragraph 65 and I would underscore that the only rational for the assault was to silence Ms.

Stevenson so that Mr. Doczi could search for valuables to steal. Lastly, and I also would add the offence was committed by a 50 year old with 61 prior convictions, including convictions for assault and assault with a weapon, thereby, confirming that previous interventions by the justice system have failed to protect the public. ANCILLORY ORDERS DNA [ 68 ] Pursuant to s. 487.04, aggravated assault is a primary designated offence, accordingly, and pursuant to s. 487.051 (1) of the Code, I order that a sample of Mr. Doczi’s DNA be taken.

WEAPONS PROHIBITION [ 69 ] Pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code , Mr. Doczi is prohibited from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, and explosive substances for life. NON-COMMUNICATION ORDER [ 70 ] Pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Code, while in custody Mr. Doczi is prohibited from communicating directly or indirectly with Andrea Stevenson. ____________________________ The Honourable Judge R. Harris Provincial Court of British Columbia