R. v. Preddy Date:, 2012 BCPC 60

Citation: R. v. Preddy Date: 20120217 2012 BCPC 0060 File No: 3221-2C Registry: Port Coquitlam IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. TIMOTHY SHAWN PREDDY ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE D.J. O'BYRNE Counsel for the Crown: G. McDonald Appearing on their own behalf: The Accused, T.S. Preddy Place of Hearing: Port Coquitlam , B.C. Date of Hearing: February 17, 2012 Date of Judgment: February 17, 2012 [ 1 ] THE COURT : These are my reasons for sentencing in the matter of Timothy Shawn Preddy. [ 2 ] Mr.

Preddy stands charged on Information 3221-2C out of the Valemount Registry of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.

I found him guilty after a trial of: • Count 4: unlawfully confining Tracey Stewart • Count 5: unlawfully confining Valerie Bush • Count 8: committing an assault upon Tracey Stewart using a weapon, to wit: gloves • Count 9: committing an assault upon Valerie Bush using a weapon, to wit: a hammer • Count 10: assault causing bodily harm to Tracey Stewart • Count 11: assault causing bodily harm to Valerie Bush. [ 3 ] Briefly stated, the facts in this matter which are set out in my reasons for judgment which were given on February 10th, 2011 at

para. 11, are that in or about the month of July, 2008, the accused, Timothy Shawn Preddy, Tracey Stewart, and Valerie Bush, travelledto Valemount, British Columbia. They came there from Alberta in part to avoid legal matters in that Province. They arrived togethertravelling in a motor home owned by Valerie Bush and a Sunfire automobile owned by the same individual. Once in Valemount, allthree of them began a cycle of using, purchasing, and selling drugs, including crack cocaine. [4] Mr. Preddy estimated the three of them used about 10 to 12 grams of crack cocaine on a regular basis.

They obtained theirsupply from a dealer in Edmonton and they travelled there frequently to be resupplied. [5] The evidence at the trial was replete with comings and goings, toings and froings that were at times frantic in nature, veryconsistent with the ongoing daily use of crack cocaine by all three parties. [6] Throughout July and into August the drug supply became the primary focal point, especially of Mr. Preddy. He becameincreasingly paranoid, paranoid of helicopters, paranoid of Ms. Stewart and Ms.

Bush taking drugs, paranoid of not having total controlover the drug supply. [7] This all culminated in the events that are set out in the Information in August where Mr. Preddy confined both Ms. Stewart andMs. Bush, tying them up, striking Ms. Bush with a hammer, and choking Ms. Stewart until she was rendered unconscious. [8] Ms. Bush managed to escape the motor home this occurred in and was taken by a passer-by to the hospital and thus Mr.

Preddywas subsequently arrested. [9] I turn now to the matter of sentencing. [10] At the sentencing we have filed the pre-sentence report as well as a psychological assessment done on Mr. Preddy in 2006 andwe have filed as Exhibit 3, a booklet which contains my reasons for judgment, the sentencing submissions of the Crown, the victimimpact statements of both Ms. Bush and Ms. Stewart, together with the defence submissions and the cases. [11] The Crown in its written submissions to me takes the position that Mr. Preddy is the worst offender in the worst case scenario.

To this end, they point me to a series of cases and those are repeated in submissions by the Crown and as well they are in their brief. Iwill not go into the cites at this time but certainly they do support the Crown's position that seeking a sentence of the eight to ten yearrange for the unlawful confinement is appropriate.

The Crown should be asking for that. [12] As well, the Crown goes on to suggest that dealing with Count 8, the assault with a weapon, the glove, and Count 9, the assaultwith a hammer, they should each carry concurrent sentences of two years. [13] On Counts 10 and 11, the Crown seeks convictions being entered as I had invited submissions on R. v. Kienapple (SCC), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729 and I agree with the Crown and there will be convictions entered. There the Crown though seeks aconsecutive sentence, firstly for choking Ms.

Tracey Stewart and causing her bodily harm and next by causing Valerie Bush to take anumerous quantity of Valium pills; she was rendered unconscious, and in fact Ms. Bush believes she was going to die. [14] It is brought to my attention that Mr. Preddy was arrested on August 23rd, 2008; he escaped from custody on August 2nd, 2009;he was re-apprehended on September 19th, 2009.

He was sentenced to two-and-a-half years for that prison break. [15] He had served 344 days in custody prior to his escape, and if I take that at the appropriate two-to-one ratio that would have beenin place at the time, I should take into account two years and ten months worth of dead time or remand time. [16] I am also asked to note by the Crown that he served 422 days following the September 19th arrest and I should take account ofthat. At the time of his sentencing on the escape where my brother Judge Gray gave him two-and-a-half years, Mr.

Preddy was told thatnone of his dead time would be taken into account and he should look to me for that. I will have more to say about that in a minute butcertainly it is because of Mr. Preddy this matter got delayed and in the course of it I should comment that he fired two lawyers and hasacted for himself over the past period of time. [17] The Crown as I have said seeks a sentence globally that would have been in the range of 16 to 18 years, but accepts that withproper credit for remand time, the range could be as low as 12 to 14 years. [18] I am also asked to direct that Mr.

Preddy provide some samples of his DNA as required for inclusion in the Databank under Part15 of the Criminal Code and to include a firearms prohibition for life. [19] In response, Mr. Preddy filed a written reply and this written reply paints a starkly different picture than his criminal record or thepsychological/psychiatric assessment report. All those speak to a person who has dedicated his life to criminality; he is of limitedlearning; he is of limited mental skills; and is unable to cope with things. Far from it. [20] In these submissions, Mr.

Preddy shows a good grasp of the situation, makes a cogent argument, and presents case law in afashion that is clear to read and understandable. He has a personal element to his submissions and that is not surprising considering he isin custody and facing a period of penitentiary time. [21] Nonetheless, he told me that he does feel remorse; he does not feel his actions were justified in the total sense of the word.

Itmay have been in the circumstance of where he was and in the context of his drug addled brain at that time but now he is aware and doesrecognize that it was a stupid game which he took way beyond what should have been. [22] I accept that. I accept that he is now working within the institution to try and take programming. That has been a criticism ofhim by his previous observers in the system. He has taken three courses within the institution and attaining certificates in all three. Hepoints to the fact that when he is unemployed that is when he gets into a life of crime.

He points to the fact that he wants to get out andstay out. He draws my attention to the fact that on occasions he has been out for periods of time and that is becoming longer and longer

and longer and he is hoping that if he gets out this time, he will not be back in for sometime at all, if ever. [ 23 ] Looking at that, I have to take into account his criminal record and what I have been told. [ 24 ] He is 46 years of age. He is of an age now where he has to realize that spending his life in prison, which he has done for most of his adult life, is not the way that is most beneficial to him. He has to come to understand that he has caused harm both physically and emotionally to both his victims. [ 25 ] In his actions he deliberately repeatedly confined and assaulted both his victims with weapons.

His motivation for these offences is difficult to comprehend even if his use of crack cocaine is taken into account although I will concede that drugs did play a role in these crimes. [ 26 ] On the face of it, Mr. Preddy is a non-repentant, hostile, recalcitrant individual who continues to manifest criminal behaviour even while he is in custody. [ 27 ] I pause to note that the maximum penalty for unlawful confinement is ten years, for assault with a weapon is ten years, and as well assault causing bodily harm is ten years. [ 28 ] Mr.

Preddy, in these offences, assaulted a person who could be described as being in a common law relationship with him and an older female friend and his assaults were both callow and vicious. [ 29 ] His criminal record indicates he is a persistent offender. The criminal record is set out in the pre-sentence report which is part of Exhibit 3 and I have numbered the pages -- it is at p. 5.

And while it is only one page long, it is remarkable because it has six robberies on it the last of which he got nine years for and six escape lawful custodies of which the last he got 30 months or two-and-a-half years. [ 30 ] The pre-sentence report shows to me that in the past Mr. Preddy has been a persistent offender whose removal from society for a substantial period of time is necessary for the protection of the public. His criminal record including the robberies and the escapes demonstrates his criminality is a serious concern.

He appears to knowingly devote himself to criminal activities. [ 31 ] In addition, the pre-sentence report shows that he requires a strict high security environment and while he is in custody he treats others with intimidation and violence. [ 32 ] He does not appear to grasp the gravity of his actions or the impact on his victims. For example, he choked one of his victims until she stopped breathing.

He has spent the majority of his adult life in custody. [ 33 ] Here, I must remind myself of the principles of sentencing that I must follow. [ 34 ] First, I must consider deterrence, that is, general deterrence to others who might be like minded, specific deterrence to you, Mr. Preddy, and as well protection of the public, and lastly rehabilitation. [ 35 ] Given the circumstances here and your record, I have to consider specific deterrence and protection of the public are of the greatest importance.

The sentence that I impose must adequately address the protection of the public. [ 36 ] The victim impact statements that are filed here as part of Exhibit 3 show some of the harm that was caused to the complainants in this matter. [ 37 ] Initially, I considered rehabilitation to be of little importance giving your indicated attitude towards this aspect of sentencing. However, today and in your written submissions you have indicated that you now want the opportunity to take full advantage of the penitentiary system to see if you can better yourself, train yourself and obtain employment upon release from custody.

As I have said, you are intelligent, and yet you seem to display an antagonism towards authority or social mores. Simply put, these crimes call for a lengthy term of incarceration in a penitentiary. [ 38 ] Accordingly, I will direct firstly that you will provide such samples of your DNA as are required for inclusion in the DNA Databank pursuant to

Part 15 of the Criminal Code . That is a primary ground Madam Registrar and will be on Counts 4 and 5, the unlawful confinement. [ 39 ] Next, pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code there will be a firearms prohibition on Counts 4 and 5 and the firearms prohibition will be for life and it will prohibit you from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition and any prohibited ammunition or explosive substance as I have said for life.

That order will be forthwith. [ 40 ] No one has addressed the victim fine surcharge but I think it is only reasonable that I waive that in the circumstances. [ 41 ] Turning now, then, to the sentences to be assigned and in fairness to Mr. Preddy he and the Crown do not differ that much in their sentencing.

The only thing is whether or not I ought to impose consecutive sentencing as opposed to concurrent sentencing, the difference there of course being between a sentence that goes all at once versus one that follows upon the other. [ 42 ] On the Crown's submission I should be considering consecutive sentences that should take the matter up into the 12 year range. [ 43 ] On Mr.

Preddy's submission I should take a much lower approach after taking in account time served and one that would allow him to be back out within five or six years. [ 44 ] I will take into account the 344 days served in remand before the escape and I will credit you with remand time and dead time there. Additionally, I will take into account one year and two months of post-escape remand. So there will be four years of remand credit that will be taken.

[ 45 ] So on Count 10 there will be a sentence of one year concurrent to any other sentence. [ 46 ] On Count 11 there will be a sentence of one year concurrent to any other sentence being served. [ 47 ] On Count 8, that is the assault with the glove on Tracey Stewart, there will be a sentence of two years concurrent to any other sentence being served. [ 48 ] On Count 9, that is the assault with the hammer on Valerie Bush, there will be a sentence of two years concurrent to any other sentence being served. [ 49 ] Now, taking into account four years of remand time, the appropriate sentence on Counts 4 and 5 would have been nine years.

In the circumstances, I will take that into account and there will be a sentence of five years on Count 4 and five years on Count 5 concurrent to each other and concurrent to any other sentence. [ 50 ] Five years new time, Mr. Preddy. [SUBMISSION BY MR. MCDONALD] [ 51 ] THE COURT: Any signature of Mr. Preddy that is required will be dispensed with at this time and that order is forthwith. [ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED]