R. v. N.C., 2015 ONCJ 456

Citation: R. v. N.C. , 2015 ONCJ 456 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. N.C. REASONS FOR SENTENCE BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE D.A. HARRIS on July 17, 2015 at BURLINGTON, Ontario APPEARANCES : M. Ward Counsel for the Crown S. Bradley Counsel for the Crown B. Neil Counsel for N.C. FRIDAY, JULY 17, 2015

FRIDAY, JULY 17, 2015 ...SUBMISSIONS BY MS. WARD ...SUBMISSIONS BY MR. NEIL ...REPLY SUBMISSIONS BY MS. WARD CITATION: R. v. N.C., 2015 OJ 1970 REASONS FOR SENTENCE HARRIS, J. (Orally): Following a trial I found N.C. guilty of three counts of assault, all involving his common-law spouse, T.B.Mr. N.C. is before me today tobe sentenced. Crown counsel suggested that I should sentence him to imprisonment for between 60 and 90 days. Counsel for Mr. N.C. suggested that Isentence him to time served and/or impose a conditional sentence of imprisonment. Both counsel agreed that I should also place Mr. N.C. on probation and make an order pursuant to

section 110 of the Criminal Code. Crown counsel requested a D.N.A. order. Counsel for Mr. N.C. did not agree with this suggestion but did not vigorously oppose it either. I am satisfied a conditional sentence of imprisonment is appropriate in this case. My reasons for this are as follows. The conditional sentence came into being when

section 742.1 of the Criminal Code was proclaimed in 1996. The Supreme Court ofCanada subsequently stated, at paragraph 12 in R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5 , [2000] SCJ No 6, that, “Parliament clearly mandatedthat certain offenders who used to go to prison should now serve their sentences in the community.” The Supreme Court of Canada stated further, at paragraph 21, that, [An] offender who meets the criteria of s. 742.1 will serve a sentence under strict surveillance in the community instead of going toprison. [His] liberty will be constrained by conditions to be attached to the sentence....

In case of breach of conditions, the offender willbe brought back before a judge ... [who] may order him to serve the remainder of the sentence in jail, as it was intended by Parliamentthat there be a real threat of incarceration to increase compliance with the conditions of the sentence.

Section 742.1 lists five criteria that a court must consider before deciding to impose a conditional sentence. These are: 1.

The offender must be convicted of an offence that is not specifically excluded by the legislation; 2. the offender must be convicted of an offence that is not punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment; 3. the court must impose a term of imprisonment of less than two years; 4. the safety of the community must not be endangered by the offender serving the sentence in the community; and 5. a conditional sentence must be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2. The first four criteria are prerequisites to any conditional sentence.

These prerequisites answer the question of whether or not aconditional sentence is possible in the circumstances. Once they are met, the next question is whether a conditional sentence is appropriate. That decision turns upon a consideration of thefundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2.

In Mr. N.C.’s case the first four prerequisite criteria have been satisfied. His offences are not excluded pursuant to

section 742.1, nor arethey punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment. Crown counsel agreed, as do I, that I should impose a sentence of imprisonmentfor much less than two years. Finally I find that Mr. N.C. serving his sentence in the community, subject to appropriate conditions, would not endanger the safety ofthe community. He had no prior criminal record. He has stayed out of trouble since being charged with the current offence. The onlyoffences, that I am aware of, occurred within a matter of a few weeks over the course of a whole lifetime.

I am satisfied that, with the appropriate safeguards in place, there is no danger that he would return to crime following the imposition of aconditional sentence. That then leaves the question of whether a conditional sentence is appropriate in all of the circumstances of this case. In making thisdecision I must consider the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing, as set out in sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code. The fundamental purpose of sentencing, as expressed in

section 718, is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just,peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the objectives of denunciation; deterring the offender andother persons from committing offences; separating offenders from society, where necessary; assisting in rehabilitating offenders;providing reparation for harm done to victims or to the community; and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders, andacknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community. The relevance and relative importance of each of these objectives will vary according to the nature of the crime and the circumstances ofthe offender.

Section 718.1 provides that the fundamental principle of sentencing is that the punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of theoffence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The punishment should fit the crime, there is no single fit sentence for anyparticular offence. Justice Doherty of the Ontario Court of Appeal stated, at paragraph 90, in R. v.

Hamilton, (ON CA), [2004] O.J. 3252,that: The “gravity of the offence” refers to the seriousness of the offence in a generic sense as reflected by the potential penalty imposed byParliament and any specific features of the commission of the crime which may tend to increase or decrease the harm or risk of harm tothe community occasioned by the offence.

He went on to state, at paragraph 91, that: The “degree of responsibility of the offender” refers to the offender’s culpability as reflected in the essential substantive elements of theoffence -- especially the fault component -- and any specific aspects of the offender’s conduct or background that tend to increase ordecrease the offender’s personal responsibility for the crime. In paragraph 92 he then quoted Justice Rosenberg, who had previously described the proportionality requirement in R. v. Priest, (ON CA), [1996] O.J. No. 3369 (Ont.

C.A.), at paragraph 26: The principle of proportionality is rooted in notions of fairness and justice. For the sentencing court to do justice to the particularoffender, the sentence imposed must reflect the seriousness of the offence, the degree of culpability of the offender, and the harmoccasioned by the offence. The court must have regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors in the particular case. Carefuladherence to the proportionality principle ensures that this offender is not unjustly dealt with for the sake of the common good.

On this point Justice Doherty concluded, at paragraph 93, by stating that: Fixing a sentence that is consistent with s. 718.1 is particularly difficult where the gravity of the offence points strongly in onesentencing direction and the culpability of the individual offender points strongly in a very different sentencing direction. The sentencingjudge must fashion a disposition from among the limited options available which take both sides of the proportionality inquiry intoaccount.

Proportionality is the fundamental principle of sentencing but it is not the only principle to be considered. I must specifically considersection 718.2(

d) which provides that, “an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate inthe circumstances”. I must also consider the impact of

section 718.2(

e) which provides that, “all available sanctions other than imprisonment that arereasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders”. The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the application of this section, at paragraph 36, in Gladue v. The Queen, (SCC), [1999] S.C.J. No. 19, and said that: s. 718.2(

e) applies to all offenders, and states that imprisonment should be the penal sanction of last resort. Prison is to be used onlywhere no other sanction or combination of sanctions is appropriate to the offence and the offender. The Supreme Court also noted that

section 718 now requires a sentencing judge to consider more than the long standing principles ofdenunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Now, a sentencing judge must also consider the restorative goals of repairing the harmssuffered by individual victims and by the community as a whole, promoting a sense of responsibility and an acknowledgement of theharm caused on the part of the offender, and attempting to rehabilitate or heal the offender. As a general matter, restorative justice involves some form of restitution and reintegration into the community.

A conditional sentence ismuch more effective than jail in achieving these restorative justice goals. I must also note that the Supreme Court of Canada expressly said, in R. v. Proulx at paragraph 22, that a conditional sentence is, “apunitive sanction capable of achieving the objectives of denunciation and deterrence”, although it is not as effective as a sentence of realimprisonment. Mr. N.C.’s offences involve the physical and emotional abuse of his common-law partner.

Section 718.2(a)(iii) of the Criminal Codespecifically provides that this is an aggravating circumstance, and that his sentence should be increased to account for that. Before I can apply the applicable principles of sentencing, however, I must look at the facts underlying the offence, and the impact that ithad on its victim, and the background of Mr. N.C.. I found that Mr. N.C. assaulted T.B. on three separate occasions. With respect to the first assault, T.B. and Mr. N.C. were arguing over aletter from the Children’s Aid Society. She was holding the letter and he tried to grab it from her.

He said that it was his mail, she saidthat it was her letter addressed to her and that she was going to make a copy of it for him. She was at the copy machine when she dropped the letter and bent over to pick it up from the floor. Mr. N.C. grabbed her and pulled herup, twice, banging her head each time on the underside of the desk. The second assault occurred later that night. T.B. had decided that she was going to take a bath, she became distracted from this andstarted folding laundry. Mr. N.C. then came up and started running the water for the bath.

She questioned him about this, he invited herto join him in the bath, and she said no. She was angry that he had done this. She waited until he was finished his bath before she brought a glass of wine with her to the bathtub and had a bath of her own. Eventually she got out, put on pyjamas, climbed into bed, and began watching a movie. Mr. N.C. was in the bed with her. He leaned over and grabbed her pyjamas and pulled her towards him. She told him to stop. He rippedher pyjamas. He took her hand. She told him, “I’m not fucking you.” He pinned her down and was between her legs. She tried to pushhim off.

He took her hands and started striking her on the face with her hands. He called her “a cunt” and “a bitch”, as well as othernames.

This third assault was actually the first one in time. It occurred two weeks earlier on a “date night”. The two of them were going through a difficult time. They had lost a baby to miscarriage. At some point he told her that he was glad the baby had died and that he would never have another baby with her. She was quite angry and upset with him. They went for dinner at Milestones Restaurant that night. It was near the theatre on Burloak Drive. Afterwards she did not want to get into the car with him. He pulled up in the car and opened the door, he grabbed her jacket, and pulled her into the car.

He hit her head, he shook her. At some point he said to her, “Stop hurting me. Stop hurting me”, and he tried to take her hand and make her hit him with it. She never did hit him. She told him he was crazy, and pulled back. Ultimately she refused to get into the car and go home with him. Instead she called her mother and her stepfather who came and picked her up, from the Tim Horton’s at Mainway and Burloak, and drove her home. With respect to victim impact, I note that T.B. did not prepare a formal victim impact statement.

She has, however, consistently made her position clear, right from the beginning of the trial. She did not want to proceed with the case against Mr. N.C.. She did not want him to be convicted. She does not want him to go to jail. She wishes to reconcile with Mr. N.C. and to resume her relationship with him and with their child. I have had the benefit of a presentence report and other material provided on behalf of Mr. N.C.. These sources have provided me with the following background information. Mr. N.C. is now 42 years old. He was born and raised in Winnipeg.

His family, consisting of his parents and siblings, continue to live there. He described his upbringing as fairly normal. He went through a series of moves, both out of his parents’ home and then back to the parents’ home, as employments took him to various locations. Eventually it required a transfer to the Province of Ontario. This occurred in 1997. He met his first wife and that marriage lasted six years. The 11-year-old daughter, who resulted from this marriage, was present in the same building as certain of the offences that are before me. Mr. N.C. and his ex-wife share joint custody of this child.

Following the breakup of his first marriage, Mr. N.C. married a second time. He has stated that it was a mistake, it was a rebound relationship, and he entered into it far too early. That marriage resulted in separation and divorce in 2011. Mr. N.C. met T.B. in 2011. Their children attended the same elementary school. They also attended the same gym. Both were separated and helped each other cope. They moved in together in 2011 and they had a son together who was born in 2012. T.B. became pregnant again. This led to the circumstances surrounding the offences before the court.

The second child died as a result of what might be described as a miscarriage. The circumstances were further complicated, however, in that essentially T.B. was required to carry the dead child almost to full term, at which time the child was removed surgically. As I indicated, this occurred a few months before the offences that are before me. With respect to education and employment, Mr. N.C. completed high school. He did not complete a degree at the University of Winnipeg. He gained employment with a number of companies. He worked for one company for approximately seven years.

When that company closed its Canadian stores, he moved on to become a regional manager with his current employer. He has been there since July, 2009. Since being charged, Mr. N.C. has completed a number of anger management counselling and personal therapy sessions at Halton Family Services. He has been noted as an attentive and willing participant in his sessions and has indicated he would like to continue counselling in the future.

His mother-in-law, former colleagues, and friends provided information for the presentence report. They all described Mr. N.C. as someone who is level headed, supportive, and even tempered. His mother-in-law wrote that she believed that the conflict between her daughter and Mr. N.C. was the direct result of their grief at the loss of their child; which neither had addressed appropriately. T.B. agreed with this assessment of the situation. She emphasized, to the presentence reporter, that the medical complications were stressful for herself and for Mr. N.C..

She stated that neither had addressed their grief at the loss of the child. She believed that his behaviour was related to this grief. Since his arrest, Mr. N.C. has lived with his surety. He has lived in the surety’s home along with a wife and two children. He has been there for a year and a half. This individual has also been the liaison between Mr. N.C. and T.B. for the purpose of access and visitation with regard to their son. The surety has described Mr. N.C. as a helpful and conscientious houseguest. The above

summary makes it clear that there are positive things that can be said in favour of Mr. N.C.. I note specifically that he had no prior criminal record. I note that I am sure that he has been personally deterred by being apprehended and brought to court. He has good prospects for rehabilitation. On the other hand, he committed very serious offences. In that regard I note that all assaults are serious. However, assaults that occur in a domestic setting have to be looked at as being more serious. There is a power imbalance that exists in many domestic relationships.

Men are often physically stronger but, as well, often the women are financially and emotionally dependent on these men. This can lead, then, to an attempt to protect the very partner who has just assaulted them. In addition, the act of assault itself can further exacerbate the power imbalance. In this particular case, as I noted earlier, there is both the physical abuse of a physical assault but it is also accompanied by the emotional abuse. There were comments that denigrated T.B. There were actions that can be viewed as more of an attempt to break her will than to injure her physically.

I should point out that I have no difficulty in condemning the emotional damage that is done as much as any physical assault that occurred in this particular case, or in any other similar case. I will point out, as I noted earlier, that the three assaults in this case all occurred within a very short period of time. Respectively, it was over a period of two weeks; two of the assaults occurred on the same day. I have to be aware of all of this when sentencing someone like Mr. N.C.. General deterrence and denunciation are the primary principles of sentence to be applied here.

I have to deliver a clear message to all possible offenders that our community, our society, will not tolerate spousal assaults. Having said that, I must not exclude rehabilitation as a factor from my determination of an appropriate sentence. Neither can I conclude that only jail can meet the goals of deterrence and denunciation. Mr. N.C. has been unable to see his common-law partner for over a year and a half now. He has had limited access to his son. I am satisfied that he sees this as a high price to pay for his actions; a price that he would not like to pay again.

I also recognize that a conditional sentence of imprisonment can be a punitive sanction capable of achieving the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. I also recognize that these assaults all occurred, as I said, at a time of great stress in the life of Mr. N.C. and that of T.B.

When I take all of this into account, I am satisfied that a conditional sentence of imprisonment would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing, set out in sections 718 to 718.2 . The sentences then will be concurrent, with respect to all three offences, and will be as follows. I sentence Mr. N.C. to time served, presentence custody of four days credited as six days, plus a conditional sentence of imprisonment for four months to be served in the community. That will be followed by probation for three years. I am making an order pursuant to

section 110 of the Criminal Code , and that will run for five years. All three offences are secondary designated offences. I am satisfied, in the circumstances, that this is an appropriate case for me to make an order authorizing the taking of such bodily substances, including blood, as are necessary for forensic D.N.A. analysis. We will

schedule the necessary appointment for that. The conditions of the conditional sentence of imprisonment will be as follows. The statutory terms require Mr. N.C. to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. He must appear before the court when required to do so by the court. He must report, within two working days, in person to a supervisor, and thereafter report when required by the supervisor and in the manor directed by the supervisor. He must notify the supervisor, in advance, of any change of name or address and promptly notify the supervisor of any change of employment or occupation.

He must remain within the Province of Ontario unless written permission to go outside the province is obtained from the court or the supervisor. The following terms will also apply. With respect to the reporting, you will cooperate with your supervisor. You must sign any releases necessary to permit the supervisor to monitor your compliance and you must provide proof of compliance with any condition of this order, to your supervisor, on request. You will live at 4062 Donnic Drive, Burlington, Ontario, and not change that address without informing the supervisor, in writing, in advance.

I am not requiring you to reside with the surety, sir. What I am doing is providing the address where you are going to be subject to house arrest until that address should change. It is not my intention to make this a matter within the control of the supervisor, other than to insure that the supervisor will be aware of your address and will be so aware before you change it. There will be a provision for house arrest. This home confinement condition will be in effect for the first 60 days of the sentence. You will remain in your residence or on the property of your residence at all times, except: (

a) between 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, in order to acquire the necessities of life; (

b) for any medical emergencies, involving you or any member of your immediate family: spouse, child, parent, sibling; (

c) for going directly to and from or being at school, employment, court attendances, religious services, and legal, medical, or dental appointments; (

d) for going directly to or from and being at assessment, treatment, or counselling sessions; (

e) you will confirm your schedule, in advance, with the supervisor setting out the times for these activities; (

f) with the prior written approval of the supervisor, the written approval is to be carried with you during these times.

During your period of home confinement, you must present yourself at your doorway, upon the request of your supervisor or a peace officer, for the purpose of verifying your compliance with your home confinement conditions. Do not contact or communicate in any way, either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic, or other means, with T.B., except as set out below. Do not be within 20 metres of any place where you know her to live, work, go to school, frequent, or any place you know her to be, except: (

a) pursuant to a family court order made after today’s date or for the purpose of conducting or defending family court proceedings; (

b) in the presence of or through legal counsel; (

c) for the purpose of making contact arrangements for or having contact with your children through a mutually agreed upon third party; (

d) with the prior written consent of the above named person, filed in advance, by that person, with the assigned supervisor. This may be cancelled by the person in any manner at any time. You will attend and actively participate in all assessment, counselling, or rehabilitative programs as directed by the supervisor, and complete them to the satisfaction of the supervisor, for domestic violence which may include the Partner Assault Response program, stress management, bereavement/grief issues, and any other program directed by the supervisor. The terms of the probation will include the statutory terms.

These require you, Mr. N.C., to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, appear before the court when required to do so by the court or the probation officer, 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. Mr.

N.C. must report in person to a probation officer within two working days of completion of his conditional sentence of imprisonment, and after that, at all times and places as directed by the probation officer or any person authorized by a probation officer to assist in his supervision. He must cooperate with his probation officer. He must sign any releases necessary to permit the probation officer to monitor compliance and must provide proof of compliance with any condition of this order to the probation officer on request. Mr.

N.C., you may note that there are similarities between a conditional sentence order and a probation order. The primary difference is, you hear the word “supervisor” with regard to the conditional sentence, and “probation officer” with respect to the probation order. I suspect that you will discover that those two people are one and the same person. The title is about the only thing that will change. The nature of the order, and I will get to that in a moment, will also change but many of the terms remain the same.

Do not contact or communicate in any way, either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic, or other means, with T.B., except as set out below.

Do not be within 20 metres of any place where you know her to live, work, go to school, frequent, or any place you know her to be, except: pursuant to a family court order made after today’s date or for the purpose of conducting or defending family court proceedings; in the presence of or through legal counsel; for the purpose of making contact arrangements or having contact with your children through a mutually agreed upon third party; or with the prior written consent of the above named person, filed in advance, by that person, with the probation intake or the assigned probation officer.

This may be cancelled by the person in any manner at any time. You will attend and actively participate in all assessment, counselling, or rehabilitative programs as directed by the probation officer, and complete them to the satisfaction of the probation officer, for domestic violence which may include the Partner Assault Response, PAR, program, stress management, bereavement/grief issues, and any other program directed by the probation officer. With respect to

section 110 of the Criminal Code , for the next five years you are prohibited from owning, possessing, or carrying any

firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, or explosive substance. THE COURT: Mr. N.C., do you understand the terms of the conditional sentence of imprisonment, the probation, and the firearms prohibition? N.C.: Yes, Your Honour. THE COURT: Can you live up to them? N.C.: Yes, Your Honour. THE COURT: Do you understand that if you breach the terms of any of these orders you can be charged with a criminal offence? N.C.: I do understand, yes. THE COURT: Okay.

Now I am going to address the terms that apply to the conditional sentence of imprisonment, so that there can be no question that you understand the following, sir. In the reasons that I have given for sentence I make note of the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada, in Proulx , indicated that a conditional sentence of imprisonment is capable of achieving punitive goals. Do you understand that? They point out that there is a distinct difference between a conditional sentence of imprisonment and a period of probation.

Probation, they say, is for rehabilitation, a conditional sentence of imprisonment can actually achieve punishment. They point out that the nature of the terms that might be included in a conditional sentence of imprisonment are one part of the punitive aspect. However, they recognize that most of those terms could be included in a probation order. The difference between a conditional sentence of imprisonment and a probation order is to be found, to a great deal, in what happens if there is an allegation of breach.

If you are accused of breaching any of the terms of you conditional sentence of imprisonment, you will find that the authorities will have a much easier time in prosecuting you. The odds are that you will be taken directly into custody and you have less likelihood of being released than if it was simply an allegation of breach of probation. The Criminal Code and the Supreme Court of Canada, in Proulx , made it clear that you can be taken before any judge to be dealt with, with respect to a breach of conditional sentence.

But they make the recommendation that where possible you should be taken back before the sentencing judge. In other words, you would be brought back before me. The intention is that, when dealing with such breaches, it should be the judge who has the greatest knowledge of the case who deals with it. The next part of it is that the Supreme Court of Canada has also pointed out that there is a wide range of possible penalties that would be open to the sentencing judge, if the judge is satisfied that there is a breach.

However, the court goes on to suggest strongly that the appropriate penalty would simply be one of converting the remaining time, for the conditional sentence of imprisonment, to time to be spent in a jail. I wanted to make certain that you understand that distinction. THE COURT: Do you understand that, sir? N.C.: Yes, Your Honour. THE COURT: I point this out because when one reads the newspapers, one tends to see comments about a period of house arrest being a slap on the wrist. The suggestion is that anyone can spend two months in their residence, and they can do it standing on their head.

My position is that anybody who makes a comment like that has never tried to comply with those kinds of rules. They have certainly not tried to do it under circumstances where they were compelled to do it.

I have no doubt that you are going to leave here today and you are going to be feeling that things went well. You would rather not be in jail. However, I also suspect that after a week or two of being in your residence and looking outside and seeing all the other things that you might be doing, you might begin to chafe at the restrictions. That would be a natural thing for most people to do. At that point, the thought is going to start going through your mind that, surely, His Honour could not have meant that I could not go out at any time.

What I am going on at length here to do is to try to make it clear to you, sir, that I very much mean that. The position taken by the Crown, with respect to jail, was one that could well have ended up in a jail sentence. So just keep that in mind if, at some point, you are looking and you start to think that a conditional sentence of imprisonment is too restrictive. Quite frankly, it is not something I would want to serve. But I can assure – well, you have a pretty good idea that jail is much worse. THE COURT: We are on the same page, sir? N.C.: Yes, Your Honour.

THE COURT: I will give you 90 days to pay the surcharges. MR. NEIL: Thank you, Your Honour. I believe we need a date for the D.N.A. And, I’m sorry, on the wording that Your Honour used in regards to the exceptions, I know I’m being extra cautious. Do we have the exception to the D.N.A. appointment as well, in there? THE COURT: No. I did not put it in because I was not used to – I am still slowly catching on to the local methods. We will add, as an exception to the house arrest, “and except for appointments to comply with any court D.N.A. order”. MR. NEIL: Thank you. THE COURT: Anything else, counsel? MR.

BRADLEY: No, thank you. MR. NEIL: No, Your Honour. THE COURT: So that it is clear on the record, then, the attendance for D.N.A. purposes will be July 28, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. at the address indicated. MR. NEIL: Thank you, Your Honour. THE COURT: There were no other charges before the court? MR. NEIL: Was the replacement information dealt with – or the original information dealt with? Because we proceeded with the replacement on the first day, Your Honour. MR. BRADLEY: Anything outstanding I ask to be marked withdrawn, if there is. MR. NEIL: On Mr. N.C.’s behalf, Your Honour, I’ll thank you for....

THE COURT: I am noting that there are – there is five entries on the docket. So that suggests to me that there were other versions before the court. Any other counts will be endorsed withdrawn at the request of the Crown. MATTER ADJOURNED