R. v. Lucas, 2013 BCPC 444

Citation: R. v. Lucas 2013 BCPC 444 Date: 20130529 File Nos: 216167-4-KB; 218652-1; 222026-1; 225400-1; 227229-2-C; 227914-1-T Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. JORDAN DALE LUCAS REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE KITCHEN Counsel for the Crown: M. Mahoney Counsel for the Defendant: E. Cooper Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: May 29, 2013 Date of Judgment: May 29, 2013 [ 1 ] THE COURT: I must sentence Mr. Lucas on several matters. I will not go into the detail that judges have to deal with because,

in this matter, counsel have thoroughly discussed the matter, obviously, prior to coming to court and given me full details in court, and there is a joint submission concerning the outcome, which I conclude is appropriate in the circumstances, but, in

summary, these are the matters: [ 2 ] December 14, 2010, there is conviction for robbery. In

summary, Mr. Lucas was at a house party. There were drugs at the party, apparently crystal meth and perhaps other drugs. There was a disagreement over drugs and/or money and Mr. Lucas had some bear spray that he used to rob another person of $200, an iPhone, and a wallet. [ 3 ] The next offence is April 16, 2012. Mr. Lucas was involved in torturing a cat or cats and a mouse. The details were given and included burning, throwing around, putting cords around the neck of the cat, etc., and, obviously, those circumstances are most upsetting. Mr. Cooper has said that Mr.

Lucas himself was upset in being reminded of what he had done at that time. [ 4 ] April 25, 2012, shortly afterward, there is a conviction for dangerous driving, where Mr. Lucas was driving a motor scooter on the sidewalk to avoid the police and endangered some pedestrians who were on the sidewalk. [ 5 ] June 12, 2012, there is a conviction for breach of probation, which the court always is concerned about, and, in the context of Mr. Lucas' criminal record, it becomes more of a concern. [ 6 ] Finally, August 22, 2012, from Richmond, Mr. Lucas was stopped by the police.

He gave a false name and he had false identification in another name. So there are convictions for possession of stolen identity documents and obstruction of a peace officer. [ 7 ] So the appropriate global sentence here, given the record of Mr. Lucas, that is suggested is 17 months. Given the seriousness of the offences and in the context of Mr. Lucas' record, unfortunately, it is necessary that he go to jail once again. [ 8 ] I do note the diversity of these convictions and conclude that is indicative of the real continuing chronic problem Mr. Lucas has that he has got to do something about.

The jail sentences are going to get longer and longer if he does not deal with the situation. [ 9 ] My sentences, to give the global sentence of 17 months, are these: For the robbery, I sentence you to 17 months. For the cruelty to the animals, the maximum, I am told, is 18 months. I conclude 17 months concurrent is necessary to reflect the seriousness of that offence. For the dangerous driving, I sentence you to three months concurrent. For the breach of probation, I sentence you to 45 days concurrent.

For each of the Richmond offences, the possession of stolen identity documents and the obstruction of a police officer, I sentence you to 30 days, concurrent with each other and concurrent with the other sentences. All sentences being concurrent, the total sentence is 17 months. [ 10 ] As to time in custody, Mr.

Cooper has asked that I consider crediting you with credit on the basis of one and a half times for the nine and a half months that you have been in custody and for the time served. [ 11 ] In addition to the circumstances of your pretrial custody, which has included protective custody and isolation, which certainly is more restrictive, and Mr. Cooper has pointed out it is mainly a result of the charge of the cruelty to animals, Mr. Cooper has asked for that and referred to my decision in R. v. Sharma , [2013] BCJ No. 825 , where I gave Mr.

Sharma credit on the basis of one and a half times for pretrial custody. [ 12 ] As I mentioned to counsel, I did conclude Mr. Sharma's circumstances were exceptional. Mr. Klein explained, and I accepted, that the pretrial custody, the length of it, was due primarily to the complexity of the charges, the time taken for disclosure, and for consultation between Crown and defence, and I did see that there were results of that consultation, as in this case, where charges were reworked. [ 13 ] Significantly, in addition to that, Mr.

Sharma had turned himself in to custody, he had a bail hearing, and he did not get released, and was held in custody. He had the care of his mother, and had had the care of his mother for many years, and, when he went into custody, his mother had to be put into a home for the elderly, where she died shortly, and Mr. Sharma, quite understandably, felt very guilty about that situation. In fact, he, in some ways, was responsible for that, so it was understandable, and, under those circumstances, I credited Mr. Sharma with one and a half times. [ 14 ] Now, in this case, as Mr.

Mahoney has said, to a considerable extent, Mr. Lucas is the author of his own situation here, because of the type of charge he has been involved in. That classification, in pretrial custody, has apparently been necessary, and the delay from -- going back, for example, with the robbery, he was charged December 14, 2010, so a very considerable delay before the matter is ultimately dealt with. I do not conclude that there is the same good reason throughout for the delay that we see here. At the same time, I do understand that Mr.

Lucas obviously has serious problems and is having a coping difficulty, which has resulted in some of the frustrating delay experienced here. I do also understand that the protective custody has been a very strict regime. [ 15 ] So, in my discretion, in the circumstances, I will give Mr. Lucas some very limited credit for time served. He has been in custody for nine and a half months. I will give him credit for 10 months. So, for the sentence of 17 months, I give you credit for 10 months' time served. There is seven months remaining on the sentence, Mr. Lucas.

I am afraid that is the best I can do under the circumstances. [ 16 ] I will waive the victim fine surcharge. I am ordering that you provide a DNA sample, in the usual form, for at least the robbery charge. I am prohibiting you from possessing firearms, ammunition, or explosives, and, I think, under the circumstances, that will be a lifetime order. [ 17 ] In addition, following your custody, upon your release, you will be on probation for a period of two years. You will report to a probation officer within 72 hours of your release, the probation office at 275 East Cordova, and thereafter as directed.

You will reside where directed. You will take such counselling as directed. You will not be in possession of nor have as pets any animals while you are on probation. You will not possess any identification or credit cards in any name other than your own name, Jordan Dale Lucas. [ 18 ] I will accede to Mr. Cooper's suggestion concerning motor vehicles and being in them. I will not make an order with regard to

that. I will prohibit you from driving, under s. 259 of the Criminal Code , for a period of one year. [ 19 ] That is the sentence I must impose, Mr. Lucas. So seven months from here, less the deduction that the authorities will give you for good time. [ 20 ] Is there anything further? [ 21 ] MR. MAHONEY: No, thank you, Your Honour, except a stay of proceedings on the outstanding information and counts, please. [ 22 ] THE COURT: All right. [ 23 ] MR. COOPER: Thank you, Your Honour. [ 24 ] THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Good luck. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)