R. v. Logan Date:, 2011 BCPC 221

Citation: R. v. Logan Date: 20110620 2011 BCPC 0221 File Nos: 181941-4B, 187236-2C, 187589-1 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. LUCAS LOGAN REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE K. W. BALL Counsel for the Crown: J. Barclay Counsel for the Defendant: D. Gable Place of Hearing: Surrey, B.C. Date of Hearing: June 20, 2011 Date of Judgment: June 20, 2011 [ 1 ] THE COURT : Lucas William Logan is before the court on three separate Informations today. The first, by indictment, is a charge that he had possession of a stolen motor vehicle of a value in excess of $5,000, contrary to s. 355 (

a) of the Criminal Code . On the same date, that he did operate a motor vehicle while disqualified by reason of a prohibition made pursuant to the Criminal Code , pursuant to s. 259(4) , and on Information 187589, guilty pleas have been entered on Counts 2 and 3, the first of those being a breach of curfew and the second being a breach of a term requiring that he not have in his possession tools or implements outside his residence or place of employment. [ 2 ] Mr.

Logan has a significant criminal record involving a number of serious offences, including a number of offences relating to property, theft, break and enter offences, possession of stolen property, breaches of probation orders, as well as assault with a weapon and flight from a police officer. His most recent conviction was in August 2010 where he received a five-month sentence for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle which was coupled with possession of a stolen motor vehicle, it was a pursuit situation.

It is a serious record and is a very aggravating factor in relation to this particular case. [ 3 ] Dealing with the facts of the current stolen vehicle, on February 15, 2011, a vehicle owned by the individual named in the indictment was stolen from the home of the owner and his wife. In the victim impact statement the owner reported that he and his wife were shocked to learn their vehicle had been stolen from their property.

The theft resulted in this couple having to rely on others for transportation, including the insurance deductible and costs related to changing the locks and keys of the vehicle which were damaged,

replacing insurance papers, registration and warranty papers, as well as items removed from the vehicle. The outlay to the owner of the vehicle was the sum of $1,836.71. This does not in any way include the time and efforts of the owners attending to these various matters to bring their property into something like the condition it was prior to the theft of the vehicle. [ 4 ] The victim impact statement contained the words: This violation of our personal space has been painful, unsettling and an overall distressing situation.

My wife and I have lost significant sleep resulting in increased anxiety, high blood pressure and paranoia. We have been in Canada for 35-plus years and have never come across such a senseless and cowardly act. [ 5 ] On February 16, 2011, a civilian reported the vehicle, the subject of this charge, parked in a location where one would not expect this vehicle to have been parked. Police attended the location, then knowing the vehicle had been reported stolen, and placed a radio detection device, commonly known as a "puck", on the vehicle.

At 2:45 a.m. in the morning of February 16, the vehicle went mobile and the police surveillance units converged on the radio signal coming from the vehicle. The vehicle was being driven for some time by the accused, as observed by the surveillance officers, during the next three-and-a-half hours until the accused and a passenger exited the vehicle in a casino parking lot, the two of them entering the casino. The accused was arrested in the casino. [ 6 ] He was seated on a couch in the casino awaiting the arrival of a transport vehicle to the RCMP detachment.

After that vehicle arrived, an officer, who had been observing a fidgeting accused, found that the keys which operated the stolen vehicle and a small flap of methamphetamine were both found on that couch. [ 7 ] The driving prohibition which I have referred to above, under s. 259(4) of the Criminal Code , was imposed in the Provincial Court in Port Coquitlam on the charge of the pursuit and dangerous driving which I have referred to. The driving prohibition was for a duration of ten years. That occurred some nine months prior to the offences we are dealing with today.

At that time, the sentence imposed was five months in custody. A probation order had been made shortly before that, just days before that, for a period of 15 months on a charge of possession of break-in instruments, which was disposed of on the 15th of July 2010, so at that time a further probation order was not made. [ 8 ] The two breaches of probation, which took place on the 4th of March 2011, to which guilty pleas were entered before me today, included a breach of a curfew and a breach of an order prohibiting possession of tools or instruments.

The facts of that case are the accused had been observed prowling around a residence and cars parked near the residence. Police were called and a police dog was called to track the accused. The dog master was able to hear the accused running ahead of him through backyards and over fences in a residential neighbourhood. Once the dog master and the dog entered the same backyard where the accused was hiding, the accused tried to run and the dog was released to apprehend the accused.

The dog brought the accused to ground and while the accused required some medical attention as a result of the encounter with the police dog, no stitches were required. He was found at that time, first of all to be out of his residence during his curfew hours, and to have in his possession tools, among other things, including a multi-tool, screwdriver and a window-breaking implement. As a result the breach charges were laid. Those charges are the subject of guilty pleas today. [ 9 ] Mr.

Barclay for the Crown suggested that on Information 187236, that is the possession of the vehicle, that given the prior sentence in Port Coquitlam of five months, a sentence of six months might be appropriate in this case as the Crown felt it was bound by the step-up principle and the quantum of that case. During the sentencing hearing, I expressed to Mr. Barclay that I was not of the view that that was an appropriate sentence in this jurisdiction, given the significant problems that have been caused by a significant number of stolen vehicle cases in this jurisdiction.

With respect to the prohibited driving, Crown counsel suggested a 15-day sentence, and with respect to the two breach charges, that a one-month sentence on each of those charges concurrent to each other but consecutive to the stolen vehicle case would be appropriate. [ 10 ] It was noted as well in the Crown's submission that a community impact statement on behalf to the Surrey RCMP and the City of Surrey was filed, a document with which the court is quite familiar. I propose to simply attach that document to these reasons but note that the auto-theft problem in Surrey is a very significant problem.

The numbers of stolen automobiles and those that traffic in stolen automobiles and stolen automobile parts is a huge problem in this community which has resulted in significant community assets in the form of police officers, specialized police units, and very specialized, high-tech equipment used in both detecting stolen vehicles and detecting the movement of stolen vehicles have been required in order to make an attempt to interdict the significant stolen-car problem in this community. [ 11 ] Mr.

Gable's submissions were that while there was no question the vehicle here was a stolen vehicle, that it was a case, in his client’s circumstances, of wilful blindness. He knew that the people he was with likely had a stolen car and he decided he wanted to drive it to the casino. That submission is difficult to accept, given his record, but for present purposes I am dealing with it.

This was not a situation where the accused put up any resistance to an arrest, this was not a case where there was a high-speed pursuit or anything of that sort, but in this case there was a group of policemen required to surveil the accused while this vehicle was in motion on February the 16, 2011, with the use of a piece of high-tech, electronic detection equipment which comes at a very high cost to this community. There was some damage to the vehicle involved; it was limited to the driver's door. [ 12 ] The accused is 24 years of age. He apparently has "some drug issues", those were the words Mr. Gable used.

He is employable, he has a relationship with his soon-to-be-five-year-old daughter. I am told he is trying to deal with drug issues. I assume that is code for "he's an addict", but that was never said. It was suggested he sought treatment and recovery homes may be available to him. [ 13 ] A conditional sentence is simply not appropriate here, and so a sentence that included anything other than incarceration would not be permissible under R. v . Proulx 2000 SCC 5 , although I should say I have not been asked to impose anything but a jail sentence here; the question is, how long should that sentence be? [ 14 ] Mr.

Gable suggested, in his very able submission, that because the accused has already spent approximately three-and-a-half months in custody, the sentence should be something like six months less the time he has spent in custody so that he would serve two or three months.

[ 15 ] In my view, taking into account the provisions of s. 718 and the sections that follow of the Criminal Code , and looking at the community impact statement and victim impact statement in this case, as well as the principles of deterrence, both general and specific, protection of the public and the rehabilitation of the accused, I am satisfied that denunciation and deterrence must, in this case, be the principles of sentencing which receive the most emphasis, followed very closely by protection of the public.

No member of the public in this community should go to sleep at night with the expectation that their car won't be there in the morning, and that is, in effect, what has happened to a great many people in this community, and so anything but a sentence that responds to that very essential need to protect the public would be an inappropriate sentence. [ 16 ] I look at Mr. Logan's record and simply comment that he has obviously had a problem with, among other things, narcotics, for some time.

I do not know why I would have any confidence that he intends to address it today, and there does not seem to be any particular program that he has taken

part in that I have been told of. [ 17 ] In this case I am satisfied that the sentence with respect to the possession of the stolen vehicle should be a sentence of 12 months, and I say that for the reasons that I have just given. That sentence will apply to 187236-2C. [ 18 ] With respect to the prohibited driving, I am content in the circumstances that there be a sentence of 15 days; that will be concurrent with the 12-month sentence.

There will be a driving prohibition for an additional nine months which will be consecutive to the driving prohibition he is presently facing. [ 19 ] With respect to Information 187589, there will be a one-month sentence on each of the counts to which guilty pleas have been entered. Those one-month sentences will be concurrent with each other but consecutive to the 12-month sentence. So the global sentence will be 13 months.

He will receive credit for three-and-one-half months which have been spent in custody already so he will serve nine-and-a-half months in custody, starting today. [ 20 ] There will be a DNA order so that he will provide a DNA sample in custody. [ 21 ] There will be a stand alone restitution order in favour of Mohan Moudgill in the amount of $1,836.71. [ 22 ] There will be a probation order on Information 187236-2C for a period of two years. Keep the peace and be of good behaviour. You will appear before the court when required to do so by the court.

You will notify the court or probation officer in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the court or probation officer of any change of employment or occupation. [ 23 ] You will report within 48 hours of your release to the probation officer at 100 - 13545 - 64th Avenue in Surrey, British Columbia, and thereafter as and when directed. [ 24 ] You will reside where directed by the probation officer and not change that residence without the prior written permission of the probation officer. [ 25 ] You will not be outside your place of residence from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., seven days a week, except with the written permission of the probation officer, and the probation officer may give permission for Mr.

Logan to attend a place of employment during curfew hours, provided that permission is given in writing. Mr. Logan is to present himself in person to any peace officer attending his residence to determine compliance with this condition. [ 26 ] He is not to have contact, direct or indirect, with Mohan Moudgill, and he is not to attend within 100 metres of any residence which is known to him occupied by Mr.

Moudgill. [ 27 ] He is to attend, participate and successfully complete such counselling as directed by the probation officer, which may include but is not limited to substance abuse, anger management, life skills and related core programs. [ 28 ] He is prohibited from owning, possessing or carrying any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code of Canada , or any knives, except while preparing or consuming food or used by him during the course of employment while he is at a place of employment. [ 29 ] He is not to have in his possession any instruments or tools which may be suitable for breaking into any dwelling or vehicle, other than tools which may be used by him during the course of his employment and at a place of employment. [ 30 ] He is not to touch a private motor vehicle or be found in a private motor vehicle unless the registered owner is present. [ 31 ] He is to seek and maintain employment and/or attend an education or vocational institute as directed by the probation officer. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)