R. v. Brown, 2018 ONCJ 1009

CITATION: R. v. Brown , 2018 ONCJ 1009 DATE: January 8, 2018 Court File No. 2811-998-16-37600-01 2811-998-16-37661-01 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. DWIGHT P. BROWN R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE P. WEST Of January 8, 2018, at OSHAWA, Ontario APPEARANCES : L. Crawford Counsel for the Crown B. Petrouchinova Counsel for Dwight Brown MONDAY, JANUARY 8, 2018 ...SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL; EXHIBITS ENTERED; GUILTY PLEA ENTERED. R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E WEST, J. (Orally): A preliminary hearing was held on September 6, 7, 8 and 22, 2017.

At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing an exit pre-trial was conducted respecting the four accused. The matter was adjourned for counsel to obtain instructions as to next steps, and on October 16, 2017, Dwight Brown appeared before me and entered a plea of guilty to robbery with an imitation firearm pursuant to s. 344(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code , use of an imitation firearm in the commission of an indictable offence pursuant to s.85(2) of the Criminal Code , break

and enter to commit robbery pursuant to s.348(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code , an assault on Dani Hillyer, pursuant to s. 266 of the Criminal Code . I released Mr. Brown on bail on a recognizance, strict terms, with his mother as his surety. It was a house-arrest bail. I know his counsel would have told him that had he maintained that bail right through until today’s date when the matter was adjourned for sentence, that there would have been some credit awarded to him for being on that stringent bail. Unfortunately, Mr. Brown breached his bail in two regards; namely, being outside his residence without his surety and being in possession of a cell phone.

Actually, he was in possession of two cell phones. That was on November 23, 2017. He was released for just over a month. I have reviewed the pre-sentence report and there is no doubt that Mr. Brown’s upbringing can only be described as tragic. His parents separated and divorced at a very early period following his birth. His mother remarried or was in a common-law relationship. I don’t quite know the full details of that. Mr.

Brown recounts to the probation officer in the pre-sentence report, Exhibit 2, a traumatic upbringing characterized by exposure to domestic violence against his mother, against his siblings and towards himself. When he was a youth he recalls his mother having numerous, multiple partners who were often violent and who abused drugs in their home. His mother was someone who abused illicit substances as well. In fact, there is reference in the pre-sentence report as described by Mr. Brown that he first began using marijuana when he was the age of 12 and that occurred in his home.

He was introduced to it by his mother. He and his family, through his formative years, lived in impoverished conditions, and as I have indicated, his mother who he lived with the majority of time, battled drug dependency. There were numerous moves, residential moves, and upheaval in his life. Between the ages of – actually, I think he was apprehended by Child Welfare Services at age 7 and was thereafter placed in foster care and between the ages of 12 through 17 he lived in five different group homes in the Durham Region. When he turned 17 he began to live again with his mother.

He has been with his current, common-law partner, Leanne Murphy, who is I think slightly younger than Mr. Brown. They moved in together. Their union has produced two sons, a 2-year old and now a 4-year old son. Ms. Murphy also is a recovered drug addict, has overcome her addiction issues. He has Grade 11 and is apparently approximately nine credits short of receiving his high school diploma. He has done various types of employment including home renovation, construction, roofing, driveway sealing and most recently concrete work. When he is not working, he has supported himself through Social Assistance.

The indication is, though, that his most recent employment was approximately two years ago. His drug use included cocaine, ecstasy and then later became a dependency in respect of opioids. He indicated to the probation officer that as a result of intravenous drug use, he has now contracted Hepatitis C for which he needs to seek medical attention. He claims to be on methadone in the pre-sentence report but that was not able to be confirmed.

I don’t know if he is taking methadone while he is in custody, but hopefully that is something that is happening for him, particularly given that his most recent addictions were to heroin and fentanyl. Mr. Brown, in the month and a bit that he was out of custody, knowing that he was about to be sentenced for these serious offences, did commence an assessment at the Pinewood Addiction Services in Oshawa. There is certainly an indication in the pre-sentence report that he has a desire to attend either a residential treatment program and to find a counsellor that he can trust and confide in. Mr.

Brown has no prior criminal record despite the difficult circumstances and traumatic upbringing that he was subjected to in his formative years. I have received two letters from his partner, Ms. Murphy, which speak very highly of his interaction with his two children who are extremely young.

The determination of a proper sentence in this case calls for consideration and balancing of the principles of sentencing which are set outin s. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code as well as the aggravating and mitigation factors which exist. Now, I should indicate I have set out a number of mitigating circumstances. In terms of Mr. Brown’s upbringing, I would also mentionthat he has pled guilty to the charges before me.

I agree with his counsel, he pled guilty as a first offender and perhaps he was thinkingthat his co-accused were also going to resolve their matters, but they did not, and he did not attempt to resile from his guilty pleas. Hehas accepted responsibility and, in my view, that is a very significant starting point for Mr. Brown to perhaps be moving down a differentpathway in his life. Time will tell whether or not that is what he is ultimately able to achieve but it is the first start, the first step that heneeds to take.

The robbery and break and enter charges and the use of an imitation firearm are all circumstances that clearly describe what the case lawhas referred to as a “home invasion”. This phrase is not something that has been defined in the Criminal Code but there has beenconsiderable case law dealing with this type of robbery. Mr. Brown, along with Mr. Clark, and I don’t know his full relationship withMr. Clark, whether Mr. Clark was just somebody that he did drugs with or whether Mr. Clark was a long-term friend. I don’t have anyidea. They obtained entry into the house by knocking on the side door early in the morning.

They both knew that this house wasoccupied when they ultimately forced their way into it. Mr. Taylor answered the door as indicated in the facts which are contained inExhibit 1. They came to this residence with the intent to commit a robbery and they came armed; Mr. Clark armed with an imitation firearm, andMr. Brown armed with a folding knife. They came knowing that there may be resistance and, in fact, there was. Mr. Taylor in hisevidence described just how resistant he was. He was not going to let them take anything, and after being pistol-whipped on a number ofoccasions by Mr.

Clark with the imitation firearm, which was a starter’s pistol, he knocked it from Mr. Clark’s hands and began toretaliate against Mr. Clark to prevent further assaults of himself. He was unaware of what was happening with Ms. Hillyer. She wasattempting to make a phone call to call 911 to get the police. That is when Mr. Brown assaulted her by grabbing her wrist, taking thephone from her and, I think at some point, they ended up either on a mattress or a couch, and he ended up on top of her to prevent herfrom being able to call 911. Mr. Brown and Mr.

Clark thereby violated the sanctity and security of that home using threats and physical violence to achieve theirends, and I would refer to R. v. Wright, (ON CA), [2006] O.J. No. 4870, a decision of the Ontario Court of Appealwhich approves of comments made by Justice Trafford in R. v. Soares, [1996] O.J.

No. 5488, a decision of the Superior Court of Justiceof Ontario, and I can indicate that the dicta in both of those cases establishes what a home invasion is, and it is my view that I amsatisfied, based on the facts that were put in in the agreed statement of facts as well as the evidence that I heard on the preliminaryinquiry, that all of the indicia of a home invasion are present on the facts of this case.

Section 348.1 of the Criminal Code provides that: If a person is convicted of an offence under s. 98 or 98.1, ss. 279.2 or s. 343, 346 or 348 in relation to a dwelling house, the courtimposing a sentence on the person shall consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the dwelling house was occupied at thetime of the commission of the offence and that the person in committing the offence, (

a) knew that or was reckless as to whether the dwelling house was occupied and; (

b) used violence or threats of violence to a person or property. All of those circumstances are present in this case. The Ontario Court of Appeal has stated that offences involving “home invasions” are serious and must be dealt with by the imposition ofa significant period of incarceration. In R. v. Wright, which I have already referred to, the court stated at paragraph 24 that: The objectives of protection of the public, general deterrence and denunciation should be given priority although, of course, theprospects of the offender’s rehabilitation and the other factors pertaining to sentencing must also be considered. Certainly, a stiff

penitentiary sentence is generally called for. The court has recognized that there is a range of sentencing dispositions for “home invasion” cases from as low as four or five years to ashigh as eleven or thirteen years, with a suggestion that in some cases even higher sentences may be reserved for situations involvingkidnapping, the infliction of serious injuries, sexual assault or death. That is all referred to in Wright, supra, at para. 23. Although the court has been careful to state that the range of sentence for home invasions is not “embedded in stone”, they are onlyguidelines and “not fixed in law”.

That is paragraph 22. In Wright, the court held that these cases required “a nuanced approach to sentencing” that will involve a careful examination of thecircumstances of the particular case, the nature and the severity of the criminal acts perpetrated in the course of the home invasion and ofthe situation of the individual offender. Further, “whether a case falls within the existing guidelines or range -- or indeed whether itmay be one of those exceptional cases that falls outside the range and results in a moving of the yardsticks -- will depend upon theresults of such an examination.” That is paragraph 24.

In R. v. Jacko, 2010 ONCA 452 , [2010] O.J. 2583, a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Justice Watt on behalf of thecourt stated at paragraphs 53 and 90, and I quote: 53: Degrees of responsibility vary. Some are principles. Others are aiders, abettors, counsellors or parties to a common unlawfulpurpose. And even within each mode of participation, some bear greater responsibility than others.

Although all are parties in law areequally guilty of the offence, greater punishment is the usual consequence of greater responsibility. 90: Sentencing “ranges”, such as that described in Wright are not immovable or mutable. They are and represent guidelines, of greateror lesser utility depending upon the breadth of the range. Individual cases may fall within or outside the range. To consider a range ofsentence as creating a de facto minimum sentence misses the point, ignores the fundamental principle of proportionality and is notfaithful to the teachings of Wright itself. Individual circumstances matter.

As a side note, I would just make reference to R. v. Lacasse, in the Supreme Court of Canada, a recent decision where the Supreme Courtalso echoed some of these comments that are found by Justice Watts’ decision in Jacko. Sentencing ranges are just guidelines andproportionality which is the fundamental principle of sentencing in our Criminal Code is to be considered and individual circumstancesdo matter. Consequently, I must be mindful of the roles played by each offender as well as the degree of responsibility for the specific acts that eachwas involved in during the commission of the offence.

I am mindful of the direction of the court in Wright and Jacko to conduct a careful examination of the circumstances of the case and ofthe different roles each of the offenders played during the robbery. I have come to the following conclusions based on the evidence Iheard during the preliminary inquiry, which counsel indicated would form the basis of her client’s guilty plea together with the agreedstatement of fact prepared by both counsel. Mr. Brown was aware Mr. Clark was in possession of an imitation firearm, which he was also aware Mr. Clark would brandish to try andpersuade Mr.

Taylor to turn over any drugs he was in possession of. Mr. Brown may not have been aware Mr. Clark would actually usethe imitation firearm to pistol-whip Mr. Taylor. However, Mr. Brown armed himself with a knife that he threatened Ms. Hillyer with,and he then assaulted her when she attempted to contact the police with her landline telephone. Mr. Brown and Mr. Clark exited the house without locating any drugs and they left the imitation firearm and knife in the basementapartment when they fled, which ultimately was discovered by the police after Mr. Taylor and Ms. Hillyer returned to the apartmentmany hours later.

As another side note, and I had said this at the exit pre-trial to all counsel, I think it needs to be repeated: I think Mr.Taylor was treated abysmally by Lakeridge Hospital. He was discharged almost immediately and it was only later on that same evening– this happened in the early morning hours, so much later in the evening – he was experiencing pain and discomfort and nausea and itwas when he went to the Ajax-Pickering Hospital, when x-rays were first conducted, and MRI’s, and discovered that he had actuallysuffered serious injuries from the pistol-whipping using the imitation gun by Mr. Clark.

He suffered fractures to his left facial andorbital bones, and he testified at the preliminary inquiry that he now suffers from seizures as a result of the blows to his head and his

recovery is ongoing. Ms. Hillyer did not suffer any injuries. I don’t know why Lakeridge Hospital sent Mr. Taylor home, but it is concerning to me as a judge who heard that evidence. He should have been dealt with in a more fulsome manner in that hospital, and I don’t know if it was his personal circumstances that caused the hospital to get him out as quickly as he was brought in, but he was seriously injured that morning and maybe he would not be suffering the same consequences had it been found quickly and early. Another factor that I take into account is that Mr.

Brown was under the influence of an illicit substance at the time of the commission of the robbery. This is confirmed and corroborated by the fact that when he was in police custody at 17 Division, I think it is in Oshawa, it became very evident to police that he was in distress, and I don’t know if it was at the police station or at Lakeridge Health, but he was given an anecdote, which in the evidence that was led by one of the officers, was extremely and obviously painful to him, and there were serious concerns about his wellbeing and that is why he was taken to hospital by police.

I commend the police officers for the manner in which they dealt with Mr. Brown because based on the evidence that I heard and what was said to me today by Ms. Petrouchinova, Mr. Brown might not be here had it not been for those police officers who took him to the hospital in the state that he was in and where he received the medical attention that he clearly needed. Further, his conduct inside the convenience store which is connected to the Petro Canada gas station, as we discussed during submissions, and his disposal or attempted disposal of the landline telephone which he had taken from Ms.

Hillyer but continued to hold in his hand after fleeing the apartment, running down the street for several blocks until he got to the Petro Canada, he still had it in his hand, realized that he did in the store, and put it in a garbage can, but then he took it out of the garbage can, then he put it back in the garbage can, then took the green garbage bag containing the cell phone, tried to leave the store with it, it got hung up on the handle of the door and he was then arrested by police officers who had arrived at the scene.

This can all be seen because of the surveillance video in the Petro Canada convenience store and, in my view, what I observed on that video can only be described as bizarre. It also corroborates what the officers felt back at the police station and what had been made to me by way of submission. Madam clerk, can I have Exhibit 1 again, please. As I indicated, the case law in our province seems to indicate a range of sentence that starts at about four years for home invasions. The Crown is not seeking a four-year sentence. I believe the reason for that is because Mr.

Brown is a youthful first offender; he had never been in trouble with the law before from the evidence put before me. I am mindful of cases like Stein and Priest and Batisse , and Duvinsky , all from our Court of Appeal, which indicate that for youthful first offenders, the principle of restraint is an important principle in sentencing even involving serious violent offences such as home invasions, and I take that into account in imposing the sentence I am going to impose, and I believe the Crown took that into account in proposing the sentence recommended.

I have had placed before me a joint submission with the exception of how I treat the pre-trial custody before the most recent breach and that sentence is as follows: A two and a half year sentence which will be served on the robbery with imitation firearm. The same sentence will be on the break and enter commit robbery, or commit an indictable offence, which will be concurrent. The assault on Dani Hillyer, in my view, should be a sentence – the Crown proceeded by indictment on that charge but it should be a sentence of three months, but it is also concurrent.

The use of imitation firearm and commission of an indictable offence under s. 85(2) carries a one-year minimum sentence which must be consecutive and so there will be, in effect, a three and a half year sentence with respect to the four charges that Mr. Brown pled guilty. That will be less the pre-trial custody that he served of 75 days in actual pre-trial custody which translates into 108 days of credit that will be taken off of the three and a half year sentence. There will also be a primary-designated DNA order under 487.04 and 487.051 as well as a s. 109 weapon’s prohibition order for 10 years.

This is a first offence. I do not think it is necessary to impose a lifetime at this point but certainly 10 years is appropriate. MS. CRAWFORD: And that was s. 109, Your Honour, then? 109? THE COURT: That’s the s. 109 order, yes, and it is a mandatory order.

I also will make a s. 743.21 order that he is to have no communication, Mr. Brown is, when he is in custody, with Dani Hillyer or Trevor Taylor. With respect to the breach of recognizance, Mr. Brown has spent 47 days in pre-trial custody. The credit for that, on a 1.5 to 1, is 71 days of credit and that will be reflected on the information for the breach of recognizance. I am going to impose a suspended sentence and probation for a period of three years. The terms of that probation will be the statutory terms, most important of which Mr. Brown, is keep the peace, be of good behavior.

This will be a reporting probation to a probation officer within five working days of his release from custody and after that, at all times and places directed by the probation officer or any person authorized by the probation officer to assist in his supervision. He will live at a place approved of by the probation officer and not change that address without obtaining the consent of the probation officer in advance. This probation order is for a period of three years.

He is not to have any contact or communicate in any way directly or indirectly by any physical, electronic or other means with Dani Hillyer and Trevor Taylor and there are no exceptions, and he is not to be within 100 metres of any place where he knows any of those persons named live, work, go to school, frequent or any place that he knows them to be, except for required court appearances.

He is to attend and actively participate in all assessment, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed by the probation officer and complete them to the satisfaction of the probation officer for substance abuse or any other reason that the probation officer deems appropriate. He will sign any release of information forms as will enable his probation officer to monitor his attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed, and he shall provide proof of his attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed.

I think I am going to put a term in as well under the “no contact”. Madam clerk, you can add the following names: Ricardo DaSilva, Lamar Clark and Ashley Page. There should be no contact with those three individuals and the same 100 metre – not to attend within 100 metres of any known place where those individuals live, work, go to school, frequent, or at any place to know them to be. That was recommended by the probation officer, and I think it is an appropriate term, and I think under the 743.1, I think it would be a mistake to allow Mr. Brown to have contact with Mr. Lamar [sic] or Mr.

DaSilva if he is in custody and their names will be added to that 743.1 order as well that is made... CLERK: Ashley Page’s name as well? THE COURT: I’m sorry? CLERK: And Ashley Page? THE COURT: And Ashley Page as well, yes. Mr. Brown, would you stand now, please. Do you have any questions with respect to the orders that I have made? DWIGHT BROWN: No, sir. THE COURT: Okay. I want you to listen carefully to what I am going to say to you now. If you are truly serious about overcoming your addiction, you are now going to have, in effect, three years and a bit, subject to you being released on parole.

As you will find out, you need to scale down within a penitentiary setting, so you need to get to minimum security before you are ever going to be granted parole. You are going to start off in maximum security; that’s where you are going to start and hopefully you will scale down into medium fairly quickly, although this is a serious violent offence, will be viewed as such by the correctional authorities. I had a gentleman before me last week who I found quite impressive.

He had a 57-month sentence for robbery, a serious robbery, but he was using the time that he spent in custody – I made reference to him when I was talking to Ms. Petrouchinova – he is at Beaver Creek Institution. It has both medium and minimum. It is a place that inmates often go when they are being scaled down to ultimately be released on parole. So I am indicating this to you, if you are really serious about overcoming, you are going to have access, unfortunately, to illicit substances when you are in custody. It is your decision not to use.

I am going to tell you, if you are serious, this is your opportunity to take this time and get your nine credits for your high school; that’s number one, and number two, take every, every program that is offered, and there are many, that deal with addiction, that deal with illicit substances and find out about this program that they are offering at Beaver Creek that I mentioned to you. He meets every day, this young man – actually, he’s not so young anymore, he’s 40, but from my perspective that is still a very young man.

He has meetings, group counselling sessions, every single day at Beaver Creek, and he described to me how helpful that has been, and when he gets out, this is the next thing I am going to

tell you, if you are serious about overcoming your addiction, you cannot move back to Oshawa, cannot come back to this location.

I am telling you that seriously because all the people that you used to do drugs with are still here, and the temptations will be too great for you, and you could fall down that slippery slope as you did on November 23 rd , and I don’t know how many days before when you were not in the company of your mother and you had the cell phones, because you knew when I released you on bail, you knew that you were not supposed to do those things, and you knew you had two children, and you knew you had a partner who had overcome her addictions, and you knew you were about to be sentenced by me in the New Year, and yet you ignored all that and that’s what drugs do; they push you down that rabbit hole, they push you down that slippery slope, and you no longer have control over your actions.

This is your opportunity to gain control over your actions, make wise decisions. This is your opportunity to go down a different path in your life.

At 25 you have a lot of living left to do, and you can either be where you are right now for the rest of your life, in and out, in and out, in and out, because I can tell you if you continue to use fentanyl and heroin, that is where you are going to be, because you are not going to be able to work, you are going to steal, you are going to rob people, you are going to do the kind of thing that got you serving a three and a half year sentence less your time spent in pre-trial custody. So, I want you to hear what I am saying. You have to move. His intent, this other gentleman, was to move out of Oshawa.

He wasn’t coming back here. His partner was also a recovered addict, nine years sober, nine years drug free. It only takes one day to fall off the wagon though. So you need to make those kinds of decisions for yourself and there are programs that are available to you, you can grab hold of those and who knows how quickly you can scale down to the point where you are now being considered at some point for parole. It’s entirely up to you.

They are going to see you are a first offender, they are going to see you are youthful, so you have a lot of things going for you but, again, you’ve got to demonstrate to those in the penitentiary, those in charge, that you are co-operative, you want to change. If you do all those things, Dwight, you will be successful, and that’s the only thing I want for you is for you overcome this because I had a sense when I released you back in October that you were very serious, but as I said to you, I know there are steps forward and steps back.

I know that that’s what can happen, but I want you to hear what I am saying to you. You need to make some really serious decisions for yourself and then everything else will come into line. If you decide you don’t want to use, and you stick by that – some people think that when they go into prison they don’t have to worry, they will dry out, and they will be just fine.

In fact, your father said that to the probation officer in the pre-sentence report, “He needs to go to prison to dry out,” well, the difficulty is there is too much drugs in the prisons and it’s not being brought in in most cases by the families, it’s being brought in by those who work in the prisons as there are many charges that are laid, so all I am saying to you is do not fall into the trap of thinking you can use when you are there. Number one, it’s going to be very costly, and number two, when you get out you are not going to be on the path you need to be on if you want to restore your relationship with Ms.

Murphy and restore your relationship with your kids. Any questions about any of the orders I have made? DWIGHT BROWN: No, sir. THE COURT: All right. There are also victim surcharges in respect to these charges. There are four charges; that’s $800, $200 a charge, and with respect to the breach of recognizance it is a $100 amount. I am going to give you five years to pay... MS. PETROUCHINOVA: Thank you very much Your Honour. I appreciate that. THE COURT: ...those victim surcharges.

If I had the discretion, as I once did to waive those victim surcharge fines, I would, because you are going to jail for three and a half years potentially. I think it is a travesty that that law has not been changed back, but it has not, and I am bound by it, and I have higher courts than I telling me that I am bound by it, so I impose those, but I am going to give you time to pay. You will have to pay those. Be aware of it and be aware as well - you probably won’t remember this five years from now - but I give extensions all the time. Just show me good faith.

In other words, when you get out, start paying monthly amounts, whatever you can pay. That’s all you need, and if you are able to show me that, you make an application, you haven’t paid the full amount, it’s $900. When somebody has been in custody that long that’s dealt with the things you’ve dealt with, it’s going to be hard for you to pay that, so I recognize that. DWIGHT BROWN: Yeah. THE COURT: All right. Good luck to you. MS. CRAWFORD: Your Honour, just – I’m sorry, just before Mr.

Brown goes, I am sorry, there’s going – I just wanted to clarify with Your Honour, because I didn’t want it to conflict with what we filed as Exhibit 1, because Ms. Cook’s position is a total sentence of three year’s less a day, and I think that there was a two and a half year plus another year? THE COURT: I apologize. It’s misspeaking on my part. MS. CRAWFORD: I just wanted to make that – because... THE COURT: It’s two... MS. CRAWFORD: ...it would have... THE COURT: ...less a day... MS. CRAWFORD: ...conflicted.

THE COURT: ...plus a year, so it’s three less a day. MS. CRAWFORD: Okay. I didn’t want it to conflict with the... THE COURT: Yes, no... MS. CRAWFORD: ...exhibit we.... THE COURT: ...thank you. Let’s just... CLERK: Before he leaves then, the pre-trial custody, are you – would you count in your attaching that to the robbery with an offence.... THE COURT: I’m sorry, say again. CLERK: The pre-trial custody. THE COURT: It’s 101 days on the – so on the robbery charge, you can do it on that charge... CLERK: The hundred... THE COURT: ...on the two... CLERK: ...and eight days, the 75 days which it was...

THE COURT: The 75 days which translates into 108 days. CLERK: And I’m subtracting that from two years then. THE COURT: Two years less a day. Yes. CLERK: Okay. THE COURT: And then the 47 days which translates into 71 days... CLERK: Right. THE COURT: ...that’s being reflected on the suspended sentence on the breach of recognizance. I think that that... CLERK: Okay. THE COURT: ...reflects the severity of that breach. CLERK: And the weapon’s prohibition, was that for 10 years? THE COURT: Yes, it is. CLERK: Okay. That’s all I needed clarified. THE COURT: All right. Thank you. MS.

CRAWFORDD: The remaining charges can be marked withdrawn... THE COURT: Remaining charges withdrawn at the... MS. CRAWFORD: Thank you very much. THE COURT: ...request of the Crown. Thank you. ... M A T T E R C O N C L U D E D ********