R. v. Harrison, 2019 BCPC 79

Citation: R. v. Harrison 2019 BCPC 79 Date: 20190321 File No: 47496-1 Registry: Prince George IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. JUSTIN BRADLEY ARTHUR HARRISON ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE M. BRECKNELL Counsel for the Crown: R.W. Robinson Counsel for the Defendant: C. Carleton Place of Hearing: Prince George , B.C. Date of Hearing: March 21, 2019 Date of Judgment: March 21, 2019 [ 1 ] THE COURT: This is my sentencing decision on File Number 47496, the matter of R. v. Justin Bradley Arthur Harrison. Mr.

Harrison was convicted by me on October 31, 2018, of one count of assault causing bodily harm on Curtis Kinnell between June 8 and

June 10, 2017, here in Prince George. The trial of the matter took two days in July and September 2018. I published a written decision after the trial which will be eventually sent to the Court's database once this sentencing decision has been rendered and the transcript has been approved. [ 2 ] The history of the matters between Mr. Harrison and Mr. Kinnell are laid out in my trial decision, and I am not going to repeat them in depth here. I will summarize by saying that the two young men were roommates, had been friends for 10 years and, in fact, both of them described the other as their best friend.

During the time they were residing together, Mr. Harrison started to suspect Mr. Kinnell of being a thief, stealing money from him. In order to test his theory, he entered into a form of investigation and, based on what he thought was an appropriate set of due diligence steps, he came to the conclusion that Mr. Kinnell was the thief. [ 3 ] He decided to confront Mr. Kinnell about that and, on June the 8th, 2017, he did just that. Mr. Kinnell had been out for the evening and, when he returned home, Mr. Harrison was there. Mr. Kinnell describes Mr.

Harrison as being agitated, pacing around the house, and he seemed upset. He confronted Mr. Kinnell about the theft of the money, at that point being $40.00. When Mr. Kinnell denied being the thief, Mr. Harrison became even more agitated and, at one point, as I found at trial, he started to assault Mr. Kinnell. The struggle went on for a brief period of time until the parties were out on a deck of the house. [ 4 ] Mr. Kinnell, in an attempt to defend himself, made some marital arts moves and caused both himself and Mr. Harrison to fly off the deck and onto the ground. At that point, Mr.

Kinnell was injured, suffering a dislocated shoulder. The fight went on briefly in which Mr. Kinnell was struck at least a few times by Mr. Harrison about the head and face. [ 5 ] That interaction ended and the parties were apart from each other for a day or so until, on June 10, 2017, Mr. Harrison confronted Mr. Kinnell again. This time it was because Mr. Kinnell was talking on the phone with a friend and laughing. Mr. Harrison came to the conclusion that they were talking about the prior incident and that Mr. Kinnell was laughing at him. Mr.

Kinnell denied that he was laughing at him, but that did not dissuade Mr. Harrison and there was, as I found at the trial, another brief physical altercation, but Mr. Harrison stopped very quickly upon realizing that Mr. Kinnell was, in fact, injured with the dislocated shoulder. [ 6 ] Mr. Kinnell suffered bodily harm as a result of those two incidents, namely, some injuries to his head and face and the dislocated shoulder. The dislocated shoulder has caused ongoing symptoms for Mr. Kinnell which has in turn interfered with his quality of life. [ 7 ] Mr. Kinnell is in his early 20s.

He was employed as a shipper/receiver, although his present employment is not detailed for the Court. He does set out in his Victim Impact Statement which has been marked at Exhibit 2 in these sentencing proceedings that the impact of the assaults continues to be with him.

He notes that, as a result of his injuries, he has no longer been able to pursue a particular career goal that he had in mind and that he is no longer able to participate in the sporting activities that he was quite involved in throughout most of his life. [ 8 ] As a result of the injuries, he was, for a brief period of time, unable to attend to his own affairs requiring family and friends to travel with him to take him to various appointments and activities.

He claims in his Victim Impact Statement that his shoulder injury is permanent and that, despite physiotherapy, he will not be able to pursue the career goal he had. He also says that he is fearful of Mr. Harrison and that Mr. Harrison may take retributive action against him in the future. [ 9 ] Mr. Harrison is 23. His personal background is described in some detail both in the Presentence Report and in some reference letters that were submitted to the Court.

The Presentence Report is Exhibit 1 on sentencing and the references letters are Exhibit 3 on sentencing. [ 10 ] By all reports, including his self-reporting, Mr. Harrison was in general a calm, polite, attentive person throughout his growing- up years and his early years as an adult. He is described by some of his friends and family in the reference letters as being empathetic, calm, eager to help, and that, also, he is a person highly involved in sports and other activities. He was particularly skilled in snowboarding and was quite involved in that sport. He has no criminal record.

By all the evidence presented to the court during sentencing, he has a good work ethic and he has good future prospects in the employment area. He is in a stable relationship and has support of family and friends. [ 11 ] Although the reference letters provide a great deal of background and interesting information about Mr. Harrison, when it comes to utilizing them for the purposes of deciding on a proper sentence, I am unable to give them much weight because, for the most part, they do not acknowledge any knowledge of the events that occurred between Mr. Harrison and Mr.

Kinnell and the result of the criminal prosecution of Mr. Harrison. [ 12 ] The Crown takes the position that Mr. Harrison should be jailed for a period of six to nine months followed by two years of probation and that he should be required to submit a sample of his DNA and be subject to a firearms prohibition. The Crown acknowledges, in the alternative, that perhaps if a sentence of 90 days or less is imposed by way of jail, that could be served intermittently on the weekends or, in the further alternative, that a conditional sentence order might also be available to the court given that the charges Mr.

Harrison faced were proceeded by the Crown in a

summary fashion thereby making a conditional sentence order available. [ 13 ] Defence counsel submits that Mr. Harrison should receive a conditional discharge with a period of probation. No submissions were made on the issue of DNA or firearms by Defence counsel. In the alternative, Defence counsel suggests that either a short intermittent sentence or a short conditional sentence order would be appropriate. Defence counsel does, however, strongly urge the Court that in these circumstances no jail sentence is necessary. [ 14 ] After the trial concluded, I ordered a Presentence Report and one was prepared.

That Presentence Report sets out Mr. Harrison's circumstances from the past, his present health situation, his employment and financial circumstances, and other factors of importance for the court in order to decide an appropriate sentence. The Presentence Report itself for the most

part is quite positive. [ 15 ] However, the author does note in one portion of the report some information that the Crown asked the Court to consider with

particular scrutiny, and that is on page 5 under the heading, "Attitude and Understanding Regarding Offence," and I will quote the threeparagraphs: When asked about the offence, Justin stated he was still shocked that it ever went as far as a physical fight. He explains in addition to theforty dollars that was reported, in the police circumstances, several hundred dollars had gone missing from his bedroom over the courseof several months. Justin states he was of the belief the money was stolen by his long-time best friend, C.J., and he felt betrayed.

Justinstates he had loaned C.J. a significant amount of money over the years, some of which he has eventually paid back and some of which hehas not. Justin says he ultimately believed he and C.J. would talk it out and then they would still be friends afterwards.Justin says he has also learned a lot from this experience such as the value of good friends.

Additionally, he claims he used to have amore negative perception of the police, but he says he would now call them if he found himself in a situation like this again.Justin says he does not feel as though he owes anything to Curtis as he says he feels as though he has lost a lot from this experience. Justin states he, too, has not been able to move on. I would note that the reference to Curtis and C.J. are the same person. Both refer to Mr. Kinnell. [16] The applicable law in this matter when it comes to sentencing is set out in s. 718 through 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

Thosesections are under the heading, "Purpose and Principles of Sentencing." 718 says: The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for thelaw and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (

a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct; (

b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (

c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (

d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (

e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (

f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community. [17]

Section 718.1 says: A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [18]

Section 718.2 in part says, in subparagraph (b): ... a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances ... In (d): ... an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances ...

Then (e): ... all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victimsor to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. [19] Those are the principles I must apply in arriving at a just and appropriate sentence. [20] The Crown and Defence supplied the Court with numerous cases, all of which I have either read in great detail or at least read ina

summary fashion. They include the following decisions: R. v. Dupont, from the B.C. Court of Appeal; R. v.Jamieson, 2008 CarswellAB 2255; R. v. Kohlman, 2011 BCSC 1798; R. v. M.F.T., 2013 BCCA 20; R. v. Desgagne, 2013 ONSC 6319;R. v. White-Bynoe, 2017 BCSC 1829; R. v. Black, 2018 ONCJ 66; R. v. Croteau, 2015 ABPC 142; R. v. Manahan, 2018 BCPC 332; HerMajesty the Queen v. Tone, 2003 BCSC 880; R. v. Miller, 2015 BCSC 1052; R. v. Ranspot, 2017 BCPC 101; and R. v.

Jones, 2014BCSC 131. [21] Most of the cases submitted by counsel provide some assistance to the court in arriving at a just sentence, but as is the case inthe real world, all of them are missing some aspects that are the same as this case. Because that is the situation, the Courts have come upwith ranges of sentence for certain offences and how those ranges should be applied within the sentencing principle. [22] Depending on the nature of the case, sentencing courts often refer to a sentence as falling within a range which is based onprevious case law and directions from the appellate courts.

However, the appellate courts also make it clear that the concept of a rangedoes not preclude a different type of sentencing. [23] In any case, the facts surrounding the circumstances of the offence, the circumstances of the offender, the offender's criminalhistory, if any, are all critical to the sentencing process. Every case must be decided upon its own merits and its own circumstances,applying all the principles and purposes set out in s. 718 through 718.2 that are applicable to the case.

They must be given dueconsideration and the weight to be attributed to each purpose or principle to be determined based on the case before the court and notsome predetermined direction from other courts. [24] In R. v. Bernier, 2003 BCCA 134, the Court of Appeal said at paragraph 42:

A "range" does not preclude on grounds of deterrence or denunciation or the gravity of the particular offence a sentence different fromthat "range". Nor does a "range" preclude a lesser sentence if some special circumstances warrant such a course. When considering anyparticular case ... this court will have in mind those sentences as part of the "range". The "range" is not conclusive. [25] The Supreme Court of Canada commented on a similar topic in R. v.

M.C.A., (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500,when the Chief Justice said at paragraph 92: It has been repeatedly stressed that there is no such thing as a uniform sentence for a particular crime. ... Sentencing is an inherentlyindividualized process, and the search for a single appropriate sentence for a similar offender and a similar crime will frequently be afruitless exercise of academic abstraction.

As well, sentences for a particular offence should be expected to vary to some degree acrossvarious communities and regions in this country, as the "just and appropriate" mix of accepted sentencing goals will depend on the needsand current conditions of and in the particular community where the crime occurred. [26] I also have to consider the circumstance of Mr. Harrison's age.

That circumstance was commented on in the case of R. v.Whicher (2002), 165 C.C.C. (3d) 165, a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, where Hall J.A. reminded sentencing judgesnot to ignore rehabilitation when dealing with younger offenders. He said at paragraph 24: Regard must be had to the nature of the offence and the history and prospects of the offender. Where younger people are involved, thecourts will endeavour, if at all possible, to foster the possibility of rehabilitation.

In the long run, if the young person can be turned awayfrom a course of repeated offences, then the interests of society will be well served. Courts must also impose sentences that adequatelymark society’s disapproval of the offender’s breach of societal norms and that will deter both the individual offender and others mindedto offend, from conduct harmful to the fabric of an orderly society. [27] The Crown submits that deterrence and denunciation must be the predominant principles to be applied in this case. In theCrown's submission, Mr. Harrison shows a lack of remorse and continued animosity towards Mr.

Kinnell. Mr. Harrison suffers from nomental health issues, but, says the Crown, he clearly lost his control on the night and following days in question. The Crown furthersubmits that, at least with regard to the activities of June the 8th, there could have been some planning in advance of what Mr. Harrisonwas going to do in his dealings with Mr. Kinnell. [28] The Crown urges the Court to determine that Mr.

Harrison's actions are a form of vigilantism, but that should be tempered bythe fact that there were multiple attacks in these circumstances and that, perhaps with regard to the second event, a predeterminedintention by Mr. Harrison cannot be concluded. The Crown set out a series of what they said are the aggravating, mitigating, and otherfactors the Court should consider. [29] Defence counsel's submissions centre on the fact that, in his view, there was no plan to fight or attack Mr. Kinnell on the part ofMr. Harrison at the beginning of the first evening.

He was not acting as a vigilante, just things got out of hand when the confrontationoccurred. Defence counsel points out that it is not in Mr. Harrison's nature to be a violent person, relying on what the author of thePresentence Report gathered from Mr. Harrison and others and the reference letters which all describe Mr. Harrison as being a peacefulperson. [30] Defence counsel also submits that it is not unreasonable for Mr. Harrison to hold the belief, both at the time and now, that hewas the victim of a theft by Mr. Kinnell, but that Mr.

Harrison recognizes that the steps he took on those occasions did not obtain theresult that he wanted. [31] Defence counsel says that a conditional discharge is appropriate in light of the circumstances of the offence and Mr. Harrison'scircumstances. In that regard, Defence counsel relies on the decision of R. v. Fallofield found at (1973), (BC CA), 13C.C.C. (2d) 450, a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Defence counsel submits that if Mr.

Harrison is saddled with acriminal record as being advocated by the Crown, that might impact upon his future employment and international travel opportunities. [32] Based on my findings at the trial, the Presentence Report, the case law provided by counsel, the letters of reference, andcounsel's submissions, I find that there are aggravating and mitigating and other factors as follows. Aggravating Factors [33] Mr. Harrison attacked Mr. Kinnell on two occasions. Each of those occasions were unprovoked. Mr.

Kinnell suffered seriousinjuries, particularly on the first occasion, and some of those injuries have long-lasting symptoms and they will have an effect on hisquality of life going forward for at least the foreseeable future. [34] Mr. Harrison's actions can be described, at least in the limited way, as vigilantism. He thought he was being stolen from. Therewere other ways he could have addressed that issue either that night or in other occasions, but instead he confronted Mr. Kinnell andthings, frankly, got out of hand and went too far. Mr. Harrison wanted answers.

His claim that he has made both at the trial andsubsequently that he wished to talk it out is, in my view, disingenuous. What he wanted was an admission from Mr. Kinnell that he hadbeen a thief and nothing less would do. Perhaps after that admission, they could work out things, but in my view, Mr. Harrison was intenton getting that admission. [35] A further aggravating factor was this attack occurred in Mr. Kinnell's home. It was Mr. Harrison's home, as well, but Mr.Kinnell should feel that he can be safe in his own residence. [36] Mr.

Harrison's lack of insight and acceptance or remorse for his actions, in my view, is also an aggravating factor. Whether ornot Mr. Kinnell stole money from Mr. Harrison, his reaction indicates a very strong view of the matter, a desire to get a result that willsatisfy him and, in my view, a high level of moral blameworthiness. Mitigating Factors

[ 37 ] There are mitigating factors. Mr. Harrison has no criminal record. I am satisfied based on what I have read that he has no history of violence. He is not a skilled fighter. He has a good standing in the community both in his employment, in his social activities, and in his volunteerism. He has a stable spousal relationship. He has good family and friend support, all of which suggest that going forward he can receive the necessary guidance and assistance to ensure that he will not in the future act out as he did on June 8 and 10 of 2017.

Other Factors [ 38 ] There are other factors to be considered, mainly that the decision at trial and this sentencing decision is not a resolution of the issue of whether or not Mr. Kinnell stole money from Mr. Harrison. Mr. Harrison accuses Mr. Kinnell of these thefts, Mr. Kinnell denies the thefts, but the Court is not here to determine that issue. [ 39 ] The only disagreement between the Crown and the Defence with regard to a proper sentence is whether or not, prior to imposing a probation order, Mr.

Harrison should be subject to either a conditional discharge, a conditional sentence order, or a jail sentence and, if a jail sentence if it is less than 90 days, whether or not it should be intermittent. Counsel did not address, but it is necessary for me to consider, a fourth possible outcome which is whether or not there should be a suspended sentence in these circumstances. [ 40 ] In order to grant a conditional discharge, the offence must have no minimum penalty or a sentence greater than 14 years. Those aspects apply here.

The Fallofield decision requires the Court to apply a two-part process: first, is a conditional discharge in the best interests of the accused person? Clearly, it would be in Mr. Harrison's best interests to get a conditional discharge because if he was to serve the probationary term successfully, he could tell anybody who might ask that he does not have a criminal record.

He would not be able to tell anybody who asked that he was never charged or convicted, but that he has no criminal record. [ 41 ] The second part of the test is whether or not granting a conditional discharge would be contrary to the public interest.

Some of the factors to be considered in that regard are whether or not the accused is of good character, whether or not they have any previous convictions, whether there is any future threat to the community, whether there is any need to rehabilitate the accused, and whether or not the accused will suffer significant adverse repercussions if a conditional discharge is not granted. [ 42 ] The case law following Fallofield makes it clear that a conditional discharge should not be used as an alternative to either probation or a suspended sentence.

It should not be applied routinely to any particular offence or group of offences and that the imposition of a conditional discharge generally requires a set of unique circumstances. The case law also makes it clear that conditional discharges are generally not granted for serious violent offences of which assault causing bodily harm is one of them, but that a conditional discharge may be granted for that type of offence in an exceptional circumstance. [ 43 ] Applying that criteria to this case, I am able to determine that granting a conditional discharge would clearly be in Mr. Harrison's best interest.

I cannot think of an example where somebody would want to have a criminal record. [ 44 ] With regard to the second test to be applied, although Mr. Harrison meets several of the aspects and factors set out in the test, he does not meet all of them, in my opinion.

His responses both at trial and in the Presentence Report shows a lack of understanding and acceptance that his actions went much too far in the circumstances and, as such, he may, in my view, pose some form of future danger to others in the community if he thinks that he has been wronged by another member of the community and he has not yet addressed his ability to handle the situation differently than he did in this case. [ 45 ] There is no doubt that there are possible future repercussions to Mr.

Harrison, but there is no evidence presented that any repercussions would pertain to his employment and any suggestion that it will impede his future international travel is speculative at best and may be a required collateral consequence arising from his criminal behaviour. [ 46 ] Given that a conditional discharge is not appropriate, I must next consider whether or not either a real jail sentence or a conditional sentence order served in the community is the appropriate result.

I listened carefully to the Crown's submissions on that point and I do not accept that a jail sentence, either served in an institution or in the community, is necessary in these circumstances. In my view, deterrence and denunciation of Mr. Harrison's behaviour can be served in the community without the necessity of imposing a jail term, and that the mere fact that Mr. Harrison will have to serve the sentence in the community by way of probation is, in my view, sufficient denunciation and will serve to deter him and others in similar circumstances. [ 47 ] Given Mr.

Harrison's youthful age, his good personal history, and his general prosocial lifestyle, incarceration, in my view, is not necessary. It is far more appropriate to approach this situation from a rehabilitative perspective and that is best suited by virtue of a suspended sentence and probation. [ 48 ] The issue of restitution was raised because Mr. Kinnell put it in his Victim Impact Statement. The Crown advised during sentencing submissions that it was not pursuing restitution and provided information to the Court that that decision was made after discussions with Mr. Kinnell and his family.

On the face of it, it seems somewhat unusual to me that Mr. Kinnell would not want to pursue some restitution in this Court. He has clearly suffered loss and injury. He has suffered financial losses by having to pay for some rehabilitative steps such as physiotherapy. He has lost employment and hence income and he has lost his ability to engage in activities including some activities that he had to pay for in advance and could not be reimbursed for. [ 49 ] Had it been pursued by Mr.

Kinnell and the Crown, I would have carefully considered granting at least some of those restitution claims, particularly in light of the fact that Mr. Harrison told the Presentence Report author that he is a man of frugal nature and has been able to amass, for a young person, considerable assets. However, it is possible that once these sentencing proceedings are concluded, Mr. Kinnell might pursue civil remedies for assault and damages, something that Mr. Harrison should be aware of going forward.

Those possibilities of civil lawsuits are of no import or effect to the decision I have made in the sentencing process, but they are available to Mr. Kinnell. [ 50 ] Mr. Harrison, please stand up, sir.

[ 51 ] Sir, I am going to impose a suspended sentence and probation, but before we get to that, we are going to deal with the ancillary orders. [ 52 ] First of all, Madam Clerk, a DNA order. [ 53 ] Count 1 on Information 47496 is a primary designated DNA offence. Pursuant to s. 487.051(1), I make an order in Form 5.03 authorizing the taking of samples of bodily substances from you for the purpose of registration in the DNA national databank.

You must attend at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police detachment at 455 Victoria Street, Prince George, British Columbia, no later than March 29, 2019, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and submit to the taking of the samples. This order is valid until executed. [ 54 ] The Crown has also sought a firearms prohibition against you, sir, under s. 110 of the Criminal Code .

Given that there were no weapons used or intimated in this situation, I am not going to grant the order sought by the Crown. [ 55 ] I am going to suspend the passing of sentence on you, sir, and put you on a period of probation for 24 months. Now, I want to make it clear to you, sir, that in general when a suspended sentence is imposed if the person breaches it, the Crown usually takes the position of charging the person with breach of probation.

In these circumstances and given the findings that I have made, I would urge the Crown to keep in mind the consideration that if you breach the terms of your probation, they have available to them the right to bring the matter back before the court for me to sentence you. In other words, what they could do if they chose is bring you back if you breach your probation and ask me to impose the sentence I would imposed had I not suspended the passing of sentence. I have not disclosed to you, the Crown, or your lawyer in any of these reasons what the appropriate sentence would be in the circumstances.

So I ask you to keep that in mind. [ 56 ] Twenty-four months, sir. The terms of your probation are as follows. [ 57 ] You must keep the peace and be of good behaviour. You must appear before the Court when required to do so by the Court.

You must notify the court or the probation officer at least days in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the Court or the probation officer of any change of employment or occupation. [ 58 ] 2002, Madam Clerk, you must have no contact or communication directly or indirectly with Curtis Kinnell. [ 59 ] 2005, Madam Clerk, you must not go to or be within 50 metres of any residence, school, or workplace of Curtis Kinnell, except as follows: (

g) while in a moving motor vehicle on your way to some other place. [ 60 ] 2101, Madam Clerk, you must report in person to a probation officer at 101 - 250 George Street, Prince George, British Columbia, by 3:00 p.m., tomorrow, March 22, 2019, and after that, you must report as directed by the probation officer, except, I am going to add this in, Madam Clerk, the probation officer may discontinue your reporting condition after you have completed the counselling and other terms of this order, Madam Clerk. [ 61 ] 2501, Madam Clerk, you must attend, participate in, and complete any intake, assessment, counselling, or program as directed by the probation officer.

Without limiting the general nature of this condition, the intakes, assessments, counselling, or programs may relate to anger management. [ 62 ] Sir, your actions not only caused harm to Mr. Kinnell, it did also, in my view, disrupt the peace and harmony of our community and, as such, I am going to impose upon you the necessity of doing some community work service. [ 63 ] Madam Clerk, 2509, you must complete 25 hours of community work under the direction of the probation officer.

Your community work service must be completed by February 29, 2020. [ 64 ] Now sir, I would say, based on the letters I read, that you have some interest in participating in sporting activities. You might suggest to the probation officer that there might be a place for you to go to assist young persons in learning safety on a ski hill or something like that. Feel free to suggest things to the probation officer. If they feel it is appropriate, they will let you participate in it. [ 65 ] Mr. Robinson, any more terms you think you need on the probation order? [ 66 ] MR.

ROBINSON: Your Honour, in light of the nature of the offence, Crown was seeking a no-weapons. Although no weapon was used, it is certainly of concern given the nature of the offence. [ 67 ] THE COURT: Yes, and I have considered your concern and rejected it. [ 68 ] Mr. Carleton, anything further? [ 69 ] MR. CARLETON: Nothing, Your Honour. [ 70 ] THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Harrison, the paperwork that you need to sign will be ready probably between now and about 4:30 this afternoon. You will see that the gate will close at 4:00, but do not leave the building.

They will call your name out when the paperwork is ready for you to sign. You then have until tomorrow afternoon to report to the probation officer and a couple of weeks to get arranged with the city detachment of the RCMP a test for your DNA. [ 71 ] Anything further, sir? Anything questions? [ 72 ] Thank you. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)