R. v. J. N. L. Date:, 2014 BCPC 364

Citation: R. v. J. N. L. Date: 20141217 2014 BCPC 0364 File No: 4662-1 Registry: Prince George IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. J. N. L. REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE S.K. KEYES Youth Matter - Restriction on Access s. 118 & s. 110 YCJA Counsel for the Crown: C. Baerg, Articled Student (as Agent for T. G. Bauman) Counsel for the Defendant: C. B. Hutchinson

Place of Hearing: Prince George , B.C. Date of Hearing: December 17, 2014 Date of Judgment: December 17, 2014 [ 1 ] THE COURT: J. N. A. Y. L. is a 16-year-old youth. He has pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm and ammunition while prohibited by a court order, contrary to s. 117.01(1); possessing a loaded, prohibited firearm, specifically a shotgun, contrary to s. 95(1); uttering a threat to cause death or bodily harm to Constable Charron; assault causing bodily harm of J. T.; and breaching his probation, all on March 21, 2014.

It is my task to fashion a suitable sentence for this young person, bearing in mind the purpose and principles enunciated in s. 38 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act . Circumstances [ 2 ] I have been provided with an agreed statement of facts, entered as Exhibit 1 in these proceedings, and have been provided with additional information in the pre-sentence report and from counsel in the course of submissions. The circumstances before me are that on March 21, 2014, Mr. L. was living at [omitted for posting] in Prince George, the residence of his mother, R. L. On that day, Mr. L., in the company of a friend, R.

S., went to a residence on [omitted for posting] in the same neighbourhood where there were a number of young men outside. According to Mr. S., Mr. L. wanted to see why these people had a beef with him. Mr. L. pulled a Rambo knife out of his back pocket and began fighting with a young man there. One of the other youngsters had a crowbar and knocked Mr. L. to the ground with it. [ 3 ] Photographs of the knife can be seen in photos number 27 and 28 in the photo pack marked Exhibit 4 in this proceeding. [ 4 ] Mr. S. helped up Mr. L., and Mr. L. said he wanted to go home and get his gun. [ 5 ] On his way home, Mr.

L. was openly brandishing the buck knife. J. T. was walking by and observed Mr. L. with the knife. He confronted Mr. L. about having the knife where there were children around, bearing in mind these events occurred at approximately one in the afternoon, and Mr. L. replied, "Oh, you wanna be a tough guy?" Mr. L. then attacked Mr. T. with the knife. Mr. T. leaned back to avoid the knife swings, holding out his hands to defend himself. Mr. L. slashed with the knife, cutting Mr. T.'s left ring finger. A second swing narrowly missed Mr. T.'s stomach. Mr. T. then pushed Mr. L. away, and Mr. L. and Mr.

S. took off. [ 6 ] It should be noted that these events occurred at approximately 1 p.m. in the afternoon, as I have mentioned. [ 7 ] Another witness, Ms. T., observed Mr. L. attack on Mr. T. and phoned the police, who attended and spoke with Mr. T., who provided a description of Mr. L. as [omitted for publication] which, in Prince George, is a relatively unique description. [ 8 ] Constable Charron and Constable Grieve recognized that description as matching Mr. L. and set out for his address on [omitted for posting]. [ 9 ] In the meantime, Mr. S. and Mr. L. went to Mr. L.'s home, and Mr. S. helped Mr.

L. deal with the injury to his head caused by the crowbar. Mr. L. grabbed a shotgun which was loaded. The shotgun can be seen in the photographs which were made Exhibit 3 at the sentencing. Both the barrel and the stock of the shotgun have been sawed off so that it resembles a long-barrelled handgun. Mr. L. had showed the shotgun to Mr. S. on many previous occasions. According to Mr. S., Mr. L. commonly walks around with the gun and has told Mr. S. that he wants to rob people and has described to him how he used the gun previously. This circumstance is particularly interesting given that Mr.

L. was bound at the time by two separate firearms prohibition orders, one stemming from a robbery conviction out of Prince George and the other stemming from break and enter and robbery convictions out of F. St. J. [ 10 ] When Constable Grieve and Constable Charron arrived at Mr. L.'s residence on [omitted for posting], Constable Grieve observed through the front window two males who appeared to be leaving through the back of the residence. He alerted Constable Charron, who went to the rear of the residence and saw Mr. L. at the top of the stairs. Constable Charron yelled at Mr.

L., told him he was under arrest, and drew his pistol, as he believed Mr. L. was armed with a knife. Mr. L. attempted to flee inside the residence but Mr. S. was blocking the doorway. Constable Charron ran up the stairs and tackled Mr. L., who was much bigger than Constable Charron. [ 11 ] Constable Charron yelled at Mr. L. to put his hands behind his back, but Mr. L. did not comply and was reaching into his waist. Constable Charron used his pistol to strike Mr. L. in the head and was then able to cuff him. The struggle took Constable Charron and Mr.

L. from the top of the stairs to the bottom, and in the course of that struggle, Constable Charron could feel a hard object in Mr. L.'s pants. He asked Mr. L. if it was a gun, and Mr. L. said that it was. [ 12 ] Constable Charron placed Mr. L. on his stomach at the bottom of the stairs and removed from his pants a prohibited, loaded, sawed-off, double-barrelled shotgun. Constable Charron broke the action and observed live shells in each chamber. [ 13 ] Constable Grieve arrested Mr. S., who was wielding a metal pipe in the doorway. Sergeant MacNeill appeared on scene, and Mr. L. spat at him twice.

Constable Charron kicked Mr. L. in the face, and Mr. L. agreed that he would keep his head down and make no more attempts to spit on officers. [ 14 ] I am told by Mr. Hutchinson, counsel for Mr. L., that he was not actually attempting to spit on the officers but was, rather, attempting to clear his throat. I note, however, from the pre-sentence report that Mr. L. had a habit of spitting on classroom teaching aides while attending school at the Prince George Youth Custody Centre. [ 15 ] Mr. L. made a number of comments to various police officers about the shotgun. To Constable Mikkelsen, Mr.

L. said, "Lucky I don't have my gun or I would have shot you." To Constable Charron, Mr. L. said that his shotgun was "pretty sick" and that Constable

Charron was "lucky that [he] didn't get to the shotgun or [he] would have shot him." When Constable Baker helped Mr. L. up off the ground, Mr. L. looked at the shotgun on the ground and said, "That gun is pretty sick, but it's okay. I'll get another one." [ 16 ] Lastly, when Mr. L. was searched, he had a liquor bottle in his pant leg. He was on probation conditions at the time not to possess or consume alcohol. Pre-sentence report [ 17 ] I have the benefit of a pre-sentence report prepared by Clayton Gull, youth worker, with respect to Mr. L. He appends additional reports concerning Mr.

L. prepared for sentencings on prior convictions last year. Personal background [ 18 ] Mr. L. reports that he was born in Vancouver and raised in his early years in F. St. J., British Columbia. His father was a tree planter from K. His mother, R. L., is of aboriginal ancestry from the N. reserve in F. St. J. Mr. L.'s father was murdered by R. L.'s first husband when Mr. L. was only 11 months old. In his childhood, Mr. L. was largely raised by his grandmother, C. L., whenever his mother was unable to care for him due to her substance abuse issues.

He resided, more or less, with his mother until he was 13 when he left home and spent much of the ensuing years moving from one step-sibling's residence to another's. He has five step-siblings. [ 19 ] In the psychosocial history assessment appended to the pre-sentence report, the author notes that the L. family, immediate and extended, has experienced substance abuse, family violence, poverty, neglect of the children, involvement in the criminal justice system, as well as deaths by accident and suicide.

The report also indicates that: From the time he entered school J. displayed delays in language ability as well as behaviour difficulties, such as rudeness to teachers, conflicts with peers and a lack of motivation to do schoolwork. J. has had an erratic school history with poor performance, absences and suspensions. J. is known to spend time hanging around with peers instead of going to school and likes to [use his cachet] of being a gang member. J. has a history of alcohol and marijuana use. [ 20 ] I note specifically that Mr.

L. informed the report writers that he was kicked out of school in grade 9 for having half an ounce of cocaine in his school locker. Cultural background [ 21 ] Mr. L. states that he has "always" closely identified with his aboriginal ancestry and feels that his interest in his culture will continue in the future, according to the pre-sentence report prepared by Mr. Gull. His mother told Mr. Gull that J. took

part in traditional activities such as hunting, fishing, berry picking, and the smokehouse, which skills were taught to J. and his siblings by the elders in the community and his grandmother C. According to the psychosocial history assessment prepared August 7, 2013, by Alan Huggett, referring to the Nechako Valley Community Services assessment and treatment plan dated several years before, January 14, 2009, Mr. L. "connects with his First Nations roots but is often labelled as black by community members. [Mr.

L.] really enjoys listening to black rap artists and often demonstrates gang signals when playing with his peers." [ 22 ] More recently, however, I note that Mr. L. has not shown any consistent interest in the Prince George Youth Custody Centre aboriginal cultural programming and activities while incarcerated there during the last nine months. Criminal record [ 23 ] Mr. L. has been convicted of 19 previous criminal offences.

The substantial offences include two convictions for break and enter in 2012 and 2013, convictions for robbery in 2012 and 2013, obstruct peace officer, unauthorized possession of a firearm in 2012, possession of a controlled substance in 2012, two breaches of bail in 2012, and nine failures to comply with a youth sentence from May 2013 to September 2013. The last sentence for robbery was open custody of 82 days community supervision and -- community supervision 54 days, and a probation order for 12 months. A firearms prohibition for two years was imposed as well on September 24, 2013. I take note that Mr.

L. was bound by both the probation order and the firearms prohibition at the time that he committed the offences before the court today. Attitude toward offending [ 24 ] Mr. L. has a lengthy history before the courts for someone so young. His attitude towards his prior offending may explain his repeated interactions with the justice system. According to the provisional psychosocial assessment dated August 7, 2013, prepared by Dr. Noa Schwartz, Mr. L. bragged about starting to sell cocaine at the age of 10 and bragged "I earned $6,000 a day. I had everything. Thirty pairs of shoes.

Three hundred dollar shades, six of them." He also told Dr. Schwartz that he carried a gun at the age of 11 when he was selling drugs. [ 25 ] With respect to a series of offences committed in October 2012 which included possessing a stolen gun, breaking into a liquor store wearing a mask, and robbing a liquor store while his accomplice sprayed bear spray onto the store clerks, he was asked how he felt about his offences. He replied, "I don't feel nothing," and when asked if he felt guilt, remorse, or shame, he said, "Positive. I did it for fun." I note that despite these admissions to Dr. Schwartz last year, Mr.

L. denied any personal involvement in the drug/cocaine trafficking during his interview more recently with Mr. Gull. [ 26 ] With respect to the circumstances before the court this time, Mr. L. indicated to Mr. Gull that he was the victim in this incident. He said he was intending to have a consensual fight with a person but was assaulted with a crowbar. He admitted that he was intending to return to the scene of the fight with his gun but claimed he was only intending to scare the group of people who assaulted him.

[ 27 ] Mr. Gull commented that Mr. L. presented as "being smug, overconfident, and arrogant" and was not forthcoming with information relating to the offence. Response to youth justice involvement [ 28 ] Despite Mr. L.'s extensive involvement with the youth justice system, Mr. L.'s behaviour has worsened rather than improved. According to Mr. Gull, Mr. L.'s compliance with court-ordered conditions "has been non-existent." Mr. Gull further states that Mr. L. "has a complete disregard for the law and will do what he pleases.

Interventions thus far provided by the RCMP and/or Youth Justice Services have not been successful. With respect to J.'s behaviour in custody, it is this Officer's opinion that J. only continues to challenge authority and makes no attempt to improve his willingness to comply with the rules and/or expectations set out within a custodial placement." [ 29 ] Mr. Gull adds: After consultation with the Prince George Custody Centre, it has been determined that J. L. does not appear to be [a] suitable candidate to serve a custodial sentence in open custody.

The reasons for this decision are due to his confrontational behaviour and the apparent "bullying" that he subjects other residents too [sic]. [ 30 ] Mr. Gull informed the court in oral submissions that there are some programs available to Mr. L. at the Youth Custody Centre that he has not availed himself of, such as the violent offenders program. Additionally, Mr. Gull informed me that until Mr. L. pleaded guilty, Forensic Services was prevented from approaching Mr. L. with specific programming relevant to his offence but they would like the opportunity to do so now. However, it should be noted that Mr.

L. has hitherto declined the opportunity to meet with Mr. Huggett, the clinician from Youth Forensics. Position of the Crown [ 31 ] Mr. Bauman, for the Crown, submits that a sentence of 18 months followed by 18 months' probation, meeting the three-year maximum permitted under s. 42(15) of the YCJA , is an appropriate global sentence in the circumstances before me. He also seeks a DNA database order and a firearms prohibition. He did not submit any authorities with respect to this particular length of sentence. He submits that the nine months that Mr.

L. has spent in custody since the date of the offence should be credited to him on a 1:1 basis against that 18-month period, leaving nine months remaining to be served as six months' custody and three months' community supervision. Mr. Bauman further notes that the range of sentence for an adult in circumstances like this would be two to five years in custody. [ 32 ] With respect to the circumstances of the offence, Mr. Bauman comments that it is lucky no one was killed given that if the police had not attended so quickly, Mr. L. might have been able to return to the scene of the party with the loaded shotgun.

He specifically notes that if Constable Charron had not acted as he did, Mr. L. might have been able to remove the shotgun from his pants. Given Mr. L.'s stated intention of shooting Constable Charron had he been able to reach his gun, I must agree with the Crown that Constable Charron's actions are to be commended. Position of the defence [ 33 ] Mr. Hutchinson, for the defence, submits that an appropriate sentence in this case would be one year in custody followed by two years' probation. Similarly, he also provides no authority for that particular length of sentence.

He submits that the nine months' time served should be applied in its entirety to the custodial portion of the one-year sentence with the remainder to be community supervision. He takes no position with respect to the ancillary orders. [ 34 ] Mr. Hutchinson argues that a shorter period of custody and a lengthier period of probation, that is, two years instead of 18 months as suggested by the Crown, would be better for Mr. L. and better for the community, but he does not explain how. [ 35 ] Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that living in his mother's home in Prince George has been beneficial to Mr.

L. in the sense that there was a six-month gap in his offending pattern since the last convictions in September 2013 in F. St. J. While that is true, I must note that Mr. L.'s possession of the buck knife and the shotgun, as well as the alcohol, all occurred in his mother's residence. I also note that Mr. L.'s history of drug dealing and drug dealing carrying a firearm began, according to him, while he resided in his mother's home as a preteen so it is difficult to see what dampening effect, if any, her presence in the home has with respect to Mr.

L.'s offending behaviour. [ 36 ] It is difficult for me to understand how placing Mr. L. on probation for longer as opposed to shorter could be better for the community given that almost all of his offences have been committed while he was on probation in the community. It is also difficult for me to understand how placing Mr. L. on probation could be better for Mr. L. given his abysmal response to Community Corrections so far, unless "better for Mr. L." simply means that he will be out in the community blithely ignoring court orders that bind him and free to commit further offences. [ 37 ] Mr.

Hutchinson suggests that Mr. L. has made progress in the Y. B. program to which he will be able to return once out of custody. However, Mr. Gull advised me that Mr. L. left the Y. B. program when he was about to be asked to leave and that in any event, the Y. B. program is not supported by Youth Corrections because that program does not report breaches of probation nor support the reporting requirements of youth probation. Range of sentence [ 38 ] Both counsel referred me to the decision of R. v. Holt , 2014 BCSC 2170 , which contains a helpful review of sentencing cases

involving s. 95(1), which is possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm. In that case, Madam Justice Warren notes, at paragraph 28, that the presence of a mandatory minimum sentence of three years for adult offenders has had an inflationary effect on sentencing whereby only the least culpable offender would receive a minimum three-year sentence. Mr. L. is, of course, a youth, to whom the mandatory minimum sentence does not apply. However, in order to assess the appropriateness of any proposed sentence to impose on Mr. L., I must consider s. 38(2) (

a) of the YCJA which requires that the sentence imposed on a youth must not result in a punishment that is greater than the punishment that would be appropriate for an adult who has been convicted of the same offence committed in similar circumstances. [ 39 ] Of the sentencing cases reviewed in Holt , the closest to the circumstance before me is R. v. Ashley , 2011 ONCJ 2 , which is summarized at paragraph 38 of the Holt decision as follows: [T]he offender was living with his grandmother who saw a handgun tucked into the pocket of his shorts which were lying on the floor.

She called the police and they located a loaded handgun. The offender was 18 years old at the time of the offence and had no criminal record. He grew up in Jamaica where his mother had been murdered. He testified that he was prepared to shoot the people responsible for his mother's murder should he encounter them in Toronto.

The Ontario trial judge imposed a four-year sentence finding that the aggravating factors of the offender holding onto the firearm for a number of months, his lack of regret, and his acknowledgment that he was prepared to shoot people, distinguished the case from a "best offender" case. [ 40 ] The circumstances in Ashley are considerably less serious than those involving Mr. L. [ 41 ] For sentences involving youths, I note R. v. K.K. , 2011 ONCJ 382 , a case involving a 17-year old youth who participated with adults in a break and enter of a home.

He brandished a handgun which discharged twice during a struggle that occurred within the home, injuring two people. His criminal record was minimal, consisting of a single conviction for theft under several years earlier. The court noted that it was accepted as a part of the circumstances that K.K. did not have the intention to shoot anyone. However, the charges he faced were more serious than those faced by Mr.

L. given that they involved a home invasion and actual injury to persons. [ 42 ] The court in that case imposed a sentence of 23 months' custody and supervision on each offence, including the s. 95(1) conviction followed by 13 months' probation. [ 43 ] Madam Justice Warren conducted an extensive review of the case law with respect to adult offenders and notes, at paragraph 60, that: It is apparent from all the cases I have referred to that the paramount sentencing objectives for a s. 95 offence are public safety, general and specific deterrence, and denunciation.

Rehabilitation, while important, is a secondary concern.

The potential for violence and physical harm arising from the possession of a loaded firearm is an aggravating factor that is given significant weight. [ 44 ] The purposes of sentencing, according to the YCJA , s. 38(1), is to hold a young person accountable for an offence through the imposition of just sanctions that have meaningful consequences for the young person and that promote his or her rehabilitation and integration into society thereby contributing to the long-term protection of the public. [ 45 ] Although the purposes of sentencing in the YCJA are primarily rehabilitative, the objectives include, according to s. 38(2) (f) , to denounce unlawful conduct and to deter the young person from committing offences.

Aggravating circumstances [ 46 ] In my view, this case involves multiple aggravating circumstances as follows. 1. Mr. L. has an extensive criminal record for offences of violence, including robbery. 2. Mr. L. has a prior offence for possession of a firearm. 3. Mr. L. was subject to a firearms prohibition at the time of this offence. 4. Mr. L. was on probation for robbery, break and enter, and obstructing a peace officer when this offence was committed. 5. Mr. L. had retained possession of this firearm for a considerable period of time. 6. Mr.

L. claimed that he commonly walks around with the gun, had been walking around with the gun the night before, and that he wanted to shoot someone. 7. Mr. L. armed himself with a buck knife and attended a gathering with the intention of fighting, using it. 8. Mr. L. hid the gun in his pants with the intention of returning with it to the previous altercation. 9. Mr. L.'s attack on Mr. T. was unprovoked and could easily have caused Mr. T. life-threatening injuries. 10. Mr. L. expressed the intention of shooting Constable Charron had Constable Charron not taken the gun from him. Mitigating circumstances

[ 47 ] Gladue factors apply to Mr. L. It is clear that in his upbringing on the N. reserve, it was largely dysfunctional and fraught with difficulties. According to the pre-sentence report, his home life was chaotic, and he was exposed to substance abuse, residence instability, violence, and pro-criminal attitudes from a very young age. What is a fit sentence? [ 48 ] This is the most difficult question to answer. I agree with the Crown that the circumstances of this case could only be more serious if Mr. L. had actually discharged the firearm. Given that Mr. L.'s attack on Mr.

T. was an attack with a knife on a complete stranger without provocation, I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Hutchinson that Mr. L.'s intention was merely to scare the group of individuals that he had previously attacked with that knife. [ 49 ] In my view, it is admitted in the statement of facts that Mr. L.'s stated intention was to shoot people with the shotgun and to shoot Constable Charron, and I have no reason not to accept that as a genuine statement of his intentions. [ 50 ] Certainly, Mr. L. acted in accordance with those stated intentions.

He had concealed the sawed-off shotgun in his pants and was headed out the back door of his residence, apparently in furtherance of his stated intention to return to the site of the fight with a gun, when the police arrived. That being the case, likely homicide and certain injury was only prevented by the swift intervention of the police. [ 51 ] With respect to the defence submission that a lengthy period of probation would be beneficial to Mr. L., I have no evidence before me to support that submission. As previously mentioned, Mr. L. already left the Y.

B. program under a cloud, and there is nothing to be drawn from his performance at the Youth Custody Centre to indicate that his behaviour towards the staff at the Y. B. program would be any better now than it was in the past. [ 52 ] Similarly, Mr. L. asserts that if released, he would have work available to him on the railway or in construction, from which I assume I am being invited to infer that Mr. L. would engage in a prosocial lifestyle by being employed if bound by a lengthy period of probation. However, according to the pre-sentence report, Mr.

L. has never engaged in any employment aside from odd jobs within his home community of F. St. J. However, his comment that he has "never had to worry about money" leads inevitably to the conclusion that his sources of income are not legitimate. Certainly, there is no evidence before me as to how he acquired a prohibited sawed-off shotgun by prosocial means. [ 53 ] It is apparent to me that the community-based dispositions previously imposed on Mr. L. have done nothing whatsoever to rehabilitate him. The previous custodial sentences being relatively brief have not made an appreciable difference either.

In my view, only a significant custodial sentence can hold Mr. L. accountable for his offending and provide any hope of rehabilitating Mr. L. and reintegrating him into society. [ 54 ] If the youth workers have sufficient time to work with Mr. L. in custody where he will be less distracted by the siren call of his pro-criminal lifestyle, they may be able to get through to him that there are other ways to live. In order for Mr.

L. to take the violent offender program and hopefully receive offence-specific assessment and programming from Youth Forensics, a further custodial sentence of several months is necessary. [ 55 ] Hopefully, a significant custodial sentence will deter Mr. L. from committing further offences. Certainly, a continued custodial sentence will protect the public from Mr. L. if only in the short term.

In any event, in my view, only a significant custodial sentence can provide meaningful denunciation in these circumstances. [ 56 ] In my view, a fit sentence, having considered all the purposes and principles in s. 38 of the YCJA , is a global sentence of 22 months (or 660 days) custody and supervision, followed by 14 months probation. Mr. L. is entitled to credit for the time he has served in custody to date. Although I have wide discretion to take that time into account in a variety of ways, I am persuaded that the position taken by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in R. v.

J.E.O ., 2013, SKCA 82 , is the most suited to these circumstances. In considering what ratio of credit to apply and whether to apply the credit to the entire sentence or the custodial portion of the sentence, the court had this to say: [45] As between the alternatives of calculating a credit for pre-sentencing custody at 1:1 or 1.5:1, it seems that the latter ratio represents the better approach.

This is because it reflects the fact that youth sentences are comprised of two-thirds custody and one-third community supervision [and the learned justice has quoted a number of authorities for that proposition] . . . [46] The second question which must be answered here concerns the point in the analysis at which a "credit" generated by virtue of the 1.5:1 ratio should be introduced. As noted above, some youth court judges have been applying the credit to the global sentence (custody plus supervision) and others have been applying it to the custody part of the sentence.

In my view, the former approach is preferable if a 1.5:1 credit is employed because it keeps the ultimate result more closely in line with the sentence that would have been imposed in the absence of remand time.

Of course, that approach also generates the same result as does the one advocated by the Crown, i.e. applying a "credit" at the rate of 1.5:1 against the global sentence generates the same net sentence as does applying a credit at the rate of 1:1 against the custodial part of the sentence and then setting the length of the supervision term at half of the resulting custodial time. [ 57 ] In view of the foregoing, therefore, Mr. L. will have credit for the time he has served thus far at the rate of 1.5 days to each actual day served.

To today's date, he has served nine months and five days, which I calculate to be 275 days. At the rate of 1.5:1, he will have credit for 412 days, leaving 248 days to serve. That will be served at 165 days in custody and 83 days on community supervision. The custodial portion of the sentence will be in closed custody. [ 58 ] The sentences, all concurrent, will be imposed as follows:

• Count 1, s. 117.01(1), possessing a firearm while prohibited, one day with credit for six months' time served • Count 5, s. 95(1), possessing a loaded, prohibited firearm, 248 days custody and supervision with credit for 412 days • Count 6, s. 264.1(1), utter threats to Constable Charron, one day with credit for 60 days' time served • Count 8, s. 267 (b) , assault causing bodily harm to J.

T., one day with credit for 10 months' time served • Count 10, s. 137 YCJA , fail to comply with a youth disposition by possessing alcohol, one day with credit for 60 days' time served [ 59 ] There will be a period of probation of 14 months to follow. I agree with counsel's submissions that it would be beneficial to Mr. L. to reside in Prince George, British Columbia, and specifically not in F. St. J. I also agree that an intensive support and supervision order would be beneficial to Mr.

L., and that is only available in Prince George. [ 60 ] So the probation order will be as follows. [ 61 ] Starting 100P, Madam Clerk. You shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour. You shall appear before the Youth Justice Court when required to do so by the court. [ 62 ] 202P, Madam Clerk. Within 72 hours after the completion of your term of custody and supervision, you shall report in person to the youth worker located at the youth probation office located at 1040 Third Avenue, Prince George, B.C., and after that you shall report as and when directed by the youth worker. [ 63 ] 207, Madam Clerk.

You shall reside at a residence in Prince George approved by the youth worker, and you shall not change your residence at any time without first obtaining the written consent of the youth worker. [ 64 ] 209. You shall obey all rules and regulations of your residence. [ 65 ] 211.

You shall obey a curfew by being inside your residence or the lot on which your residence is located between the hours of 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. each day, except as follows: with the written consent of the youth worker obtained in advance - such consent is to be given only for compelling personal, family, or employment reasons; and in the event of a medical emergency and then only when travelling directly to or returning directly from a hospital emergency ward. [ 66 ] 216. You shall have no contact or communication, directly or indirectly, with J.

T. or with Constable Charron except while Constable Charron is engaged in his occupation as a peace officer. [ 67 ] 223. You shall not possess or consume any alcohol or any controlled substance within the meaning of s. 2 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , except as prescribed for you by a physician. [ 68 ] 224. You shall not enter any liquor store, beer and wine store, bar, pub, lounge, or other business premises from which minors are excluded by the terms of their liquor licence. [ 69 ] 214.

You shall present yourself at the door to your residence to any peace officer or youth worker who attends there for the purpose of determining your compliance with the curfew conditions of this order. [ 70 ] 215. You shall respond personally and immediately to the phone when a peace officer or youth worker makes a phone call to your residence for the purpose of determining your compliance with the curfew conditions of this order. [ 71 ] 231. You shall not possess any weapon as defined in s. 2 of the Criminal Code . [ 72 ] 234.

You shall not possess any knife outside of your residence except for the immediate preparation or eating of food or for purposes directly and immediately related to your employment. [ 73 ] 242. You shall attend, participate in, and successfully complete any assessment, counselling, or program as directed by the youth worker.

Without limiting the general nature of this condition, such assessment, counselling, or program may include and relate to anger management, alcohol or drug abuse, and any such full-time attendance program as may be directed by the youth worker, and you shall comply with all rules and regulations of any such assessment, counselling, or program. [ 74 ] 251.

You shall attend, participate in, and obey all the rules and regulations and successfully complete an intensive support and supervision program to the satisfaction of the youth worker. [ 75 ] Counsel, have I forgotten anything with respect to the probation terms? [ 76 ] MR. HUTCHINSON: Nothing, Your Honour. [ 77 ] MS. BAERG: No, Your Honour. [ 78 ] THE COURT: Okay. [ 79 ] CLAYTON GULL: Your Honour? [ 80 ] THE COURT: Mr. Gull?

[ 81 ] CLAYTON GULL: For the record, Clayton with Youth Probation Services. I have spoken with Mr. Bauman and Mr. Hutchinson with respect to releasing Exhibits 1 through 4 for case management purposes. I'm wondering if Your Honour can make an order or a condition that -- [ 82 ] THE COURT: That copies be made for the youth worker? [ 83 ] CLAYTON GULL: Please. [ 84 ] THE COURT: I will make that order. [ 85 ] CLAYTON GULL: And also, I respectfully request that we also receive your written -- that we also receive your written reasoning for the sentencing. [ 86 ] THE COURT: All right.

I will order that the transcript of my reasons be provided to the youth worker. [ 87 ] CLAYTON GULL: Thank you, Your Honour. [ 88 ] THE COURT: Lastly, there will be a DNA order and a firearms prohibition order. The DNA order, Madam Clerk, is found in the adult conditions at 161. [ 89 ] Pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code , I make an order in Form 5.03 authorizing the taking of the number of samples of bodily substances by any peace officer for the Province of British Columbia that is reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis and registration in the national DNA databank from J.

L. by January 1, 2015. [ 90 ] Counsel, I invite submissions from you with respect to the length of the firearms prohibition. I note there have been two firearms prohibitions put into place before for Mr. L. at a length of two years, but I invite submissions with respect to the appropriate length of a firearms prohibition given that he is a youth. (SUBMISSIONS) [ 91 ] THE COURT: There will be a two-year firearms prohibition under the YCJA , and the terms of that prohibition will be that -- I guess we will use 165, Madam Clerk.

You are prohibited from possessing any firearm, crossbow, restricted weapon, prohibited weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, and explosive substances for a period of two years. [ 92 ] All right. Anything further, Counsel? [ 93 ] MR. HUTCHINSON: No, Your Honour. [ 94 ] MS. BAERG: No, thank you, Your Honour. [ 95 ] THE CLERK: The remainder of the counts, Your Honour? [ 96 ] MS. BAERG: The Crown directs a stay of proceedings on the remaining counts. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)