R. v. Pacella, 2020 BCPC 236

Citation: R. v. Pacella 2020 BCPC 236 Date: 20201210 File Nos: 29446-1 1010629-1 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. FRANK PACELLA REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE R. HARRIS Counsel for the Crown: C Risley Counsel for the Defendant: M. Forhan Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: October 21, 2020 Date of Judgment: December 10, 2020

INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Mr. Pacella is before the Court for sentencing. He has pled guilty to three offences relating to assaults on police officers. The Crown urges the Court to suspend the passing of sentence for one offence, and to impose conditional terms of imprisonment for the others. Counsel for Mr. Pacella argues that a conditional discharge for all of the offences is appropriate. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCES Information 1010629 [ 2 ] On September 8, 2018, Mr. Pacella entered a Maple Ridge store and he started to eat food items that were for sale. The store manager was notified and he spoke to Mr.

Pacella and informed him that he needed to pay for the items before he started to eat them. Mr. Pacella responded by telling the manager that he was a famous YouTube star and that he had saved the world. He also indicated that he had walked from Vancouver to check on his mother. [ 3 ] The manager tried to escort Mr. Pacella out of the store and it was at this point that Mr. Pacella pushed the manager and threatened to kill him. The manager then called the police and Mr.

Pacella left the store making his way to an adjacent mall. [ 4 ] Constable Dodgson responded to the manager’s 911 call and she entered the mall looking for Mr. Pacella. Once inside the mall, the officer spotted Mr. Pacella and she approached him from behind and tapped him on the shoulder, stating, “Hey, it is the police.” Mr. Pacella turned toward Constable Dodgson and yelled something that was unintelligible. He then grabbed the shoulder straps of Constable Dodgson’s ballistic vest. Constable Dodgson responded by shouting, “Stop, stop police.” Mr.

Pacella tried to kick the officer and what followed was a protracted struggle. Ultimately, and with the assistance of citizens and other officers, Mr. Pacella was controlled and handcuffed. Shortly thereafter, he was admitted to Maple Ridge Hospital. Information 29446 [ 5 ] On August 21, 2019, Sgt. Bryan and Constable Whiffen responded to a concerned citizen’s report of a male dancing in the street with an umbrella. The citizen was concerned that the male might be struck by a passing motorist. [ 6 ] On arrival, Sgt. Bryan and Constable Whiffen located the male; Mr. Pacella.

He was incoherent and he did not respond to the officers who were trying to speak with him. Specifically, Mr. Pacella was yelling and dancing, and he appeared to be talking to non- existent individuals. It was the officers’ perspective that Mr. Pacella was hallucinating and experiencing a different reality. [ 7 ] While dealing with Mr. Pacella, the officers noticed an open umbrella laying on the ground near him. At one point, Mr. Pacella reached for the umbrella. Sgt. Bryan became concerned because she thought Mr. Pacella might use the umbrella as a weapon. With this in mind, Sgt. Bryan grabbed Mr.

Pacella’s left arm and placed it into a lock. Constable Whiffen then stepped forward and she tried to handcuff Mr. Pacella, who tensed up and tried to pull away. Sgt. Bryan responded by pushing Mr. Pacella up against a wall. At this point, only one handcuff was on one wrist, while the other dangled freely. [ 8 ] While against the wall, Mr. Pacella continued to twist and pull away, and as he did this, he called for help. During this portion of the struggle, Mr. Pacella tripped Sgt. Bryan or pulled her to the ground. Thereafter, Mr. Pacella placed Sgt. Bryan in a headlock and he tried to bite her arm and her face.

In an effort to protect herself, Sgt. Bryan raised her arm and Mr. Pacella bit down her finger. Sgt. Bryan could not get Mr. Pacella to release her finger, so she began punching him in the groin. [ 9 ] During the struggle, Constable Whiffen tried to limit Mr. Pacella’s movements by holding onto the handcuff that was dangling from his wrist. At one point, Mr. Pacella pulled his arm with the loose handcuff in a direction that forced Constable Whiffen’s arm toward her back. As the officers struggled to control Mr. Pacella, Constable Whiffen felt Mr.

Pacella push down on the top of her sidearm and she heard her holster click. Mr. Pacella then grabbed the right side of Constable Whiffen’s head and pulled. In doing so, his fingers scratched across her face and eye. Eventually, a citizen approached and shouted at Mr. Pacella to let go. Mr. Pacella released the officers, he got to his feet, and he started to run. [ 10 ] The officers pursued Mr. Pacella and as they did they were joined by Constable Ram, who had responded to their radio call for assistance. Constable Ram caught up to Mr. Pacella and he noticed the loose handcuff and he became concerned that Mr.

Pacella would use it as a weapon. Therefore, and with intention of distracting Mr. Pacella, Constable Ram punched him 3 to 4 times in the face. Eventually, other officers arrived but they could not control Mr. Pacella. Ultimately, and only after the deployment of a Taser, did the police manage to control him. Ultimately, Mr. Pacella was taken to the hospital. INJURIES SUFFERED BY THE OFFICERS Constable Dodgson [ 11 ] The Crown did not have any information regarding any injury that Constable Dodgson may have suffered. Sgt. Bryan [ 12 ] Sgt.

Bryan provided a Victim Impact Statement wherein she described her injuries. In this regard, she had cuts and scrapes to her knee and a bite injury on her right hand. As for the bite injury, Sgt. Bryan’s finger was swollen and extremely sensitive for days. When Sgt. Bryan prepared her statement, she was also experiencing difficulty in bending her finger. Sgt. Bryan feels that the wound on her hand will result in a permanent scar. [ 13 ] With respect to the emotional impact of the event, Sgt. Bryan experienced difficulty with her sleep and her focus.

The injury to her hand limited her activities and this caused her frustration. She feels judged by those who saw the video of the event and this causes her anger and embarrassment. She is a private person and she feels uncomfortable by the media attention. Sgt. Bryan is seeing a

psychologist in order to help her process the emotional impact of the event. Constable Whiffen [ 14 ] Constable Whiffen’s primary injuries were to her eye and her elbow. As for her eye, she was treated with prescription eye drops and cream. As for her elbow, Constable Whiffen suffered a sprain to multiple ligaments. She received pain medications and she has been working with a physiotherapist. The injury to her elbow caused Constable Whiffen to be absent from work and it prevented her from attending a destination wedding.

The injuries and multiple appointments has caused Constable Whiffen to feel isolated from her friends and colleagues. MR. PACELLA’S CIRCUMSTANCES [ 15 ] Mr. Pacella is 50 years old. He does not have a criminal record and he has lived a pro-social life. He has the support of his sister, his ex-partner, a long-standing friend, and a work colleague. As for his work, Mr. Pacella spent 25 years working at a local university and in May of 2018, he noticed that he was not feeling like himself. In this regard, he was having difficulty with his concentration and his focus. As a result, Mr.

Pacella decided to take a two-month leave from work. [ 16 ] While away from work, Mr. Pacella started to believe that he was receiving spiritual messages from God. As time progressed, he started performing unusual rituals involving movements and he came to believe that he was a shaman. Mr. Pacella’s family became concerned and they managed to take Mr. Pacella to a doctor. Ultimately, Mr. Pacella was diagnosed with Bipolar 1 disorder and he was placed on disability leave. [ 17 ] It was around this time, that the Maple Ridge offence occurred. In this regard, Mr.

Pacella took an extended trek to Maple Ridge and when he arrived he was dehydrated and hungry. This caused him to enter a store where he started to eat items from the shelves. This led to his interaction with the police that concluded with his arrest. Thereafter, he was taken to Maple Ridge Hospital and released with a referral to the West End Mental Health Team. [ 18 ] Mr. Pacella originally attended the West End clinic on a weekly basis, but the frequency of his visits dropped as he stabilized. The reason for the lack of attendance is because Mr.

Pacella had difficulty accepting his diagnosis and found that his medications caused him to be lethargic with little energy for his daily activities. Eventually, Mr. Pacella stopped taking his medications and his symptoms began to reoccur. In this regard, he started to experience delusions and hallucinations. Ultimately, and while experiencing an acute mental health crisis, Mr. Pacella assaulted Sgt. Bryan and Constable Whiffen. [ 19 ] After his arrest for assaulting the officers, Mr. Pacella was certified under the Mental Health Act and taken to the hospital. He spent two days in hospital and then discharged.

Within days of his discharge, Mr. Pacella was re-certified and taken back to the hospital where he remained for five weeks. [ 20 ] On his release from hospital, Mr. Pacella has been compliant with all treatment recommendations. He regularly attends appointments with his psychiatrist and he is engaged with the West End Mental Health Team. Filed with the Court were letters from Ms. Henderson, a nurse, and Dr. Manjunath, a psychiatrist, and they confirm Mr. Pacella’s engagement and commitment to maintain his mental health. Dr. Manjunath writes: From the team’s standpoint, Frank continues do well in the community.

He has been stable and he has been compliant with his medication regime at home. He continues to attend his appointments for regular assessment monitoring. Frank has been consistently showing good insight and judgement. Over the months of working with him, he has been able to identify his triggers as well as routines that promote his mental health. [ 21 ] Ms. Henderson writes: Frank has demonstrated dedication to educating and understanding the context of his mental health challenges and strategies he can implement to navigate these challenges.

Frank has indicated insight into this by identifying and reflecting on the past several years of the progression of his mental health challenges, and appears to continue to explore and implement necessary interventions to support his wellness.

It has been observed from the team’s standpoint, Frank continues to support himself by remaining consistent and responsible with his medication regime, taking his medications as prescribed and attending team for his depot injections, attending team for his appointments, with his psychiatrist and case manager for mental health follow up and monitoring, and maintaining a relationship with his mental health team. Frank attends his appointments regularly with out issues, demonstrating accountability and transparency in regards to his health.

In this, Frank has remained stable from a mental health standpoint. [ 22 ] Also filed with the Court was a letter from Dr. Cave, a psychologist, who has worked with Mr. Pacella since December 2019. Dr. Cave’s letter confirms that he has seen Mr. Pacella on several occasions and he notes that Mr. Pacella is receptive to interventions. [ 23 ] Dr. Cave’s letter also confirms that treatment has revolved around helping Mr. Pacella with his diagnosis and its management. He observes that Mr.

Pacella has insight into his illness, self-control issues, associated stigma and personal responsibility for actions while in a psychotic state. Also noted by Dr. Cave was Mr. Pacella’s strong desire to improve his mental health and prevent any deterioration. Finally, Dr. Cave, while acknowledging that he is not a forensic psychologist, observes that Mr. Pacella’s submission to treatment will mitigate against any future psychotic episodes that would put others at risk. [ 24 ] In addition to working with mental health professionals, Mr. Pacella occupies his time by daily exercise and volunteering in the community.

In this regard, he walks several kilometres daily and has spent several hours volunteering with community organizations.

[25] Character letters from his sister, his ex-common law partners, and persons from his worksite express shock and surprise overMr. Pacella’s charges. All comment on Mr. Pacella’s kind, gentle and caring personality. They also acknowledge the onset ofMr. Pacella’s struggles, his decline, his significant improvement, and their commitment to him. In sum, the letters describe their supportfor a kind loving individual, who through no fault of his own, became seriously mentally ill. [26] Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that Mr.

Pacella’s offences were completely out of character and that he was in an acutemental health crisis when he assaulted the officers. I am also satisfied that Mr. Pacella has taken significant steps to address and maintainhis mental health, that he has the support of those who are close to him and that they are committed to helping him. [27] In terms of his attitude toward his offences, Mr. Pacella is genuinely remorseful. In this regard, letters of apology addressed tothe officers and to the manager of the Maple Ridge retail store were filed with the Court. Within the letters, Mr.

Pacella expresses sincereregret and embarrassment for his actions. He offers his apologies and he explains what he is doing to maintain his mental health. Theletters are not generic or similar to each other; rather, they are heartfelt and were obviously prepared with thought, care and focus. POSITION OF THE PARTIES The Crown [28] The Crown argues for the following sentences: for the Maple Ridge assault, a suspended sentence with probation for 12 months,a 2 month conditional sentence of imprisonment for the assault on Constable Whiffen and a 4 month conditional sentence ofimprisonment for the assault on Sgt.

Bryan to be followed by probation. The Crown also seeks a DNA order and a weapons prohibitionpursuant to s. 110 of the Criminal Code. [29] In support, the Crown acknowledges that Mr. Pacella is a person of good character, that his mental health was a significant factorin the offences, and that he has made significant progress. Nevertheless, the Crown is of the view that injuries suffered were serious and,therefore, a sentence that strongly denounces and deters is required. In support, the Crown relies on: R. v. Schur, 2015 BCSC 1406; R. v.Leclerc, 2017 BCCA 228; R. v. Chaston, 2017 BCCA 430; R. v.

Craig, 2016 BCSC 618; and R. v. Legrandeur, 2006 BCSC 227. Counsel for Mr. Pacella [30] Counsel for Mr. Pacella recommends that the Court grant Mr. Pacella a conditional discharge. In this regard, counsel suggests a12 month conditional discharge for the Maple Ridge assault, and concurrent 18 month conditional discharges for the assaults involvingSgt. Brayn and Constable Whiffen. [31] In support, counsel points out that Mr. Pacella’s mental health reduced his moral culpability, consequently, the requisite degreeof denunciation and deterrence is reduced. Counsel points to Mr.

Pacella’s good character, his mental illness, and his rehabilitative stepsas factors showing that it would be in Mr. Pacella’s best interests to receive a discharge and not contrary to the public interest. Counselrelies on the following: R. v. Delmastro, 2007 ONCJ 676; R. v. M.A.M., 2004 BCPC 438 , 2004 BCPC 0438; R. v. Manahan,2018 BCPC 332; R. v. Sandy, 2013 BCSC 2388; R. v. Shipley, 2015 BCPC 276; R. v. Sowden, 2011 ONCJ 244; and R. v. Tone, 2003BCSC 880. PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING [32] Sections 718 – 718.2 of the Criminal Code set out the purpose and principles of sentencing.

Section 718 reads: 718 The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect forthe law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the followingobjectives: (

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. [33]

Section 718.02 mandates that denunciation and deterrence are the primary sentencing objectives for assaulting a police officer. [34] As per s. 718.1, proportionality is a fundamental principle of sentencing. As such, the sentence that I impose must beproportionate the gravity of Mr. Pacella’s offences and to his level of responsibility. In R. v.

Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, Justice Label at para.37 commented on proportionality and in this regard observed: [37] The fundamental principle of sentencing (i.e., proportionality) is intimately tied to the fundamental purpose of sentencing — themaintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society through the imposition of just sanctions. Whatever weight a judge may wish to accord tothe various objectives and other principles listed in the Code, the resulting sentence must respect the fundamental principle ofproportionality. Proportionality is the sine qua non of a just sanction.

First, the principle ensures that a sentence reflects the gravity of theoffence. This is closely tied to the objective of denunciation. It promotes justice for victims and ensures public confidence in the justicesystem. As Wilson J. expressed in her concurring judgment in Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486, atp. 533:

It is basic to any theory of punishment that the sentence imposed bear some relationship to the offence; it must be a “fit” sentence proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. Only if this is so can the public be satisfied that the offender “deserved” the punishment he received and feel a confidence in the fairness and rationality of the system. Second, the principle of proportionality ensures that a sentence does not exceed what is appropriate, given the moral blameworthiness of the offender. In this sense, the principle serves a limiting or restraining function and ensures justice for the offender.

In the Canadian criminal justice system, a just sanction is one that reflects both perspectives on proportionality and does not elevate one at the expense of the other. [ 35 ]

Section 718.2 outlines additional sentencing principles that a court shall take into consideration when imposing a sentence. Relevant to the instant matter are the following subsections: (

a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, … (

b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances; (

c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh; (

d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and (

e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. ANALYSIS Sentencing objectives [ 36 ] Pursuant to s. 718.02 , the Criminal Code mandates that denunciation and deterrence are the primary sentencing objectives when sentencing an individual for assaulting a police officer. Justice Saunders in Leclerc commented on the

section and observed at para. 27: [27] I take Pontcorvo and Marsman as correctly recognizing that police officers hold positions for the protection of the public and are exposed to frequent and significant dangers in the course of their work. By s. 718.02 it is announced to the world what we may have long recognized, that offences against police officers are considered particularly egregious offences against the community itself. In R. v. Nielsen , [1990] B.C.J. No. 2806 Mr.

Justice Wallace approved this approach by the sentencing judge in that case: … he considered it necessary that the sentence convey a message, to those who might be inclined to break the law and cause officers injury, that the courts will unquestionably protect officers acting properly in the course of their duty. [ 37 ] Despite the requirement that denunciation and deterrence form the primary sentencing objectives, I am of the view that this requirement does not obviate the need to consider less pressing objectives. With this in mind, I conclude that any sentence imposed must support Mr.

Pacella’s continued rehabilitation and it must give him an opportunity to provide reparations for the harm caused to the community. On these points, Mr. Pacella has actively engaged in his rehabilitation and he has achieved significant success, as such, any sentence that continues to assists him would protect him and the community. As for reparations, the event involving Constable Whiffen and Sgt. Bryan, occurred in a busy part of the city, it was videotaped and uploaded to social media and I suspect those who viewed the events were alarmed. As such, it makes sense to impose a sentence where Mr.

Pacella has an opportunity to give back to the community through community work service. [ 38 ] Turning to the seriousness of Mr. Pacella’s offences, I observe that the Crown proceeded summarily and consequently the maximum available sentence is imprisonment for two years less a day. [ 39 ] As for Mr. Pacella’s degree of responsibility, I have no doubt in concluding that his mental illness triggered his offences, and in the result I conclude that his moral culpability is substantially reduced. My conclusion is based on the following: Mr.

Pacella had previously led a law abiding peaceful existence, the timing of the offences coincide the onset of his illness, the circumstances of the offences, the officers’ observations, Mr. Pacella’s discussions with Dr. Cave and, finally, Mr. Pacella’s psychiatric admissions to hospital. Aggravating and mitigating factors [ 40 ] The offences are aggravating in that Mr. Pacella’s assaults were unprovoked. I also find the nature of his assault, biting of Sgt. Bryan, to be aggravating. [ 41 ] In my view, the following factors are mitigating; Mr.

Pacella pled guilty thereby saving the time, the expense, and the difficulties associated with a trial. Mr. Pacella is committed to a regime of wellness wherein he takes his medications, he maintains regular contact with his treatment team and he is attending counselling. Mr. Pacella has the support of family and friends. Lastly, Mr. Pacella is genuinely remorseful.

Sentencing authorities [ 42 ] I have reviewed the cases referenced by counsel and although they provide guidance, it must be acknowledged that sentencing is an individualized exercise and each sentence must reflect the unique characteristics of the particular offender and their offenses. [ 43 ] As for the cases, they demonstrate a sentencing range of a conditional discharge to custodial sentences. In para. 48 of Leclerc, Justice Saunders commented on the range and attributed it to the variety of circumstances wherein the offence of assaulting a police

officer can occur. [ 44 ] Finally, the cases referenced are quite distinct from Mr. Pacella’s circumstances. Notably, the cases did not involve an offender whose mental illness was a substantial contributing factor. This is significant because an offence triggered by a mental illness impacts the offender’s moral culpability, consequently, and by operation of the principle of proportionality, the sentence is reduced. In sum, sentences tend to be harsher where the offender’s responsibility is high and not reduced by mental illness. SENTENCING DECISION [ 45 ] In considering Mr.

Pacella’s matter, I find that he has demonstrated that his circumstances are exceptional. My finding is based on the relationship between Mr. Pacella’s mental health and his offences, as well as, the significant and verified steps that he has taken toward a healthy life. In light of my conclusion that his circumstances are exceptional, a sentence that is below the range is justified. [ 46 ] Turning to the issue of a conditional discharge, R. v.

Fallofield, [1973] 13 C.C.C. (2d) BCCA 450 dictates the following conditions precedent to the granting of a discharge; first, a discharge must be in the best interests of the accused, and second, a discharge must not be contrary to public interest. [ 47 ] With the above in mind, I am satisfied that a conditional discharge is in Mr. Pacella’s best interest. I am satisfied that a criminal record would have serious repercussions on his employment prospects. I am also satisfied that a criminal record is not necessary to deter Mr.

Pacella, nor is it necessary to assist with his rehabilitation. [ 48 ] As for whether a discharge is contrary to the public interest, I observe that discharges are available for any offence that does not have a mandatory minimum sentence. As such, a discharge is available for the offence of assaulting a police officer.

I also note the public interest in deterrence and denunciation does not preclude the judicious use of the discharge provisions: Fallofield, at page 455. [ 49 ] Despite the Crown’s able submissions and after considering all of the circumstances, I am satisfied that the granting of a conditional discharge would achieve the requisite degree of denunciation and deterrence and, therefore, a discharge would not be contrary to the public interest. Information 29446 [ 50 ] I grant a conditional discharge and place Mr. Pacella on probation for 12 months, the terms of the probation order are as follows: 1.

You are keep the peace and be of good behaviour. 2. You are to appear before the Court when required to do so by the Court. 3. You must notify the Court or the probation officer 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. 4. You are to have no direct or indirect contact with Daniel Shipley. 5. You are not to attend any residence, work place, education institute, or place of worship known to you to be that of Daniel Shipley. 6.

You must report on or before 4 pm, Friday, December 11, 2020, to a probation officer at 275 East Cordova Street, Vancouver, BC, and thereafter report as directed by your probation officer. 7. You must not leave British Columbia unless you have the prior written permission of your probation officer. You must carry the written permission, which can be in electronic format, with you at all times if you are outside the province. Having consented in Court, you must do the following: 1.

Report to Forensic Psychiatric Services or elsewhere for any intake, assessment, counselling or treatment as directed by your probation officer; 2. Attend all scheduled appointments with the professionals in charge of your mental health care; 3. Take all medications and medical treatment prescribed to you by those professionals; 4. Provide your probation officer with the names, addresses, and phone numbers of those professionals; 5. Give those professionals a copy of this order. 6.

If you decide not to follow these directions, you must immediately report that fact to your probation officer. • You have consented in Court to those professionals notifying your probation officer if you fail to attend for an appointment or refuse to take the prescribed treatment or medication. Information 29446-1 [ 51 ] I grant a conditional discharge and place you on probation for 24 months. The terms of this probation is longer than suggested by counsel and this is because the seriousness and relative recency of Mr. Pacella’s illness indicates that he will need support for some time. I also observe that Mr.

Pacella is free to apply to have the order amended if the conditions become too onerous. The terms of the probation order are as follows:

• You are keep the peace and be of good behaviour. • You are to appear before the Court when required to do so by the Court. • You must notify the Court or the probation officer 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. • You must report on or before 4 pm, Friday, December 11, 2020, to a probation officer at 275 East Cordova Street, Vancouver, BC, and thereafter report as directed by your probation officer. • You must not leave British Columbia unless you have the prior written permission of your probation officer.

You must carry the written permission, which can be in electronic format, with you at all times if you are outside the province. Having consented in Court, you must do the following: 1. Report to Forensic Psychiatric Services or elsewhere for any intake, assessment, counselling or treatment as directed by your probation officer. 2. Attend all scheduled appointments with the professionals in charge of your mental health care. 3. Take all medications and medical treatment prescribed to you by those professionals. 4.

Provide your probation officer with the names, addresses, and phone numbers of those professionals. 5. Give those professionals a copy of this order. 6. If you decide not to follow these directions, you must immediately report that fact to your probation officer. • You have consented in court to those professionals notifying your probation officer if you fail to attend for an appointment or refuse to take the prescribed treatment or medication. • At the direction of your probation officer and to their satisfaction you must complete 20 hours of community work service.

Such community work service must be completed on or before March 22, 2022. It is the recommendation of this Court that the work service be completed at an organization in the West End of Vancouver. • You must prepare letters of apology for Sgt. Bryan and Constable Whiffen. These letters must be provided to your counsel. ANCILLORY ORDERS DNA [ 52 ] Assaulting a police officer is a primary designated offence, accordingly, and pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code , I direct that Mr. Pacella provide a sample of his DNA.

Section 110 weapons prohibition [ 53 ] I decline to impose a weapons prohibition. My decision is based on several factors. First, Mr. Pacella does not have a criminal record. Second, he has no history of violence. Third, his offences occurred in an effort to escape, rather than a surprised unprovoked attack. Fourth, in order to obtain any firearms he will need to obtain the proper licencing and is unlikely. Fifth, Mr. Pacella, has insight into his illness, he is engaged with treatment, and he has the support in the community. _____________________________ The Honourable Judge R. Harris Provincial Court of British Columbia