R. v. Q.K., 2018 BCPC 137

Citation: R. v. Q.K. 2018 BCPC 137 Date: 20180605 File Nos: 19148-1, 20057-1, 20260-1 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal REGINA v. Q.K. REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE A.M. WOLF Counsel for the Crown: Federal Crown: F. Lépine Counsel for the Crown: Provincial Crown: M. Fortino Counsel for the Defendant: G. Jose Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Dates of Hearing: March 13, March 16, April 5, May 1, 2018 Date of Judgment: June 5, 2018

1. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] I start by mentioning a point that might be lost on most. In my view this case is exceptionally unique and, arguably, would have very little precedential value as a whole. I believe it would be a rare occasion that a youth would ever be before the court in these exact circumstances. What is so exceptional about this case? A. Exceptional Charges [ 2 ] He is before the court on drug charges, as well as kidnapping charges. He was under the age of 18 when some of the offences took place.

In the normal course of sentencing a youth, certain dispositions such as deferred custody and supervision orders would be available. In this case it appears that due to his age, there is a possibility that Youth Probations might not be able to enforce some of these dispositions. As well, any further period of incarceration will be served in an adult facility, even though the charges arise from when he was a youth. B. Exceptional Place of Pre-trial Detention [ 3 ] He is currently remanded in an adult pre-trial facility. This is due to his age and as a result of some behavioural issues.

Thus, while an adult would potentially get one and one half days credit for each pre-trial day spent in custody, this youth will not. A youth is entitled only to pre-trial credit on a one to one basis. C. Circumstances Upon which Pleas were Entered [ 4 ] Initially, the young accused instructed his counsel to enter pleas based on ‘plea deals’ made with the Federal Crown on drug charges. The Crown seeks more substantial penalties than originally sought. The initial sentencing position of the Crown has shifted as there have been more offences committed since the time the plea deal was made. D.

Provincial and Federal Matters [ 5 ] The Provincial Crown agreed to a two-year term of custody on a joint submission. It is possible that this joint submission was achieved through an innocent misunderstanding that a two-year term was the maximum term available for a kidnapping charge.

Once establishing that a three-year term was allowable under the Youth Criminal Justice Act , the Crown confirmed that they would like the court to rely on the two-year joint submission as originally proposed. [ 6 ] I find that in considering an appropriate global sentence, I need to keep in mind that the sentence of two years proposed by the Provincial Crown on the kidnapping offence needs to be assessed in light of any disposition given on the drug charges, and vice versa. 2. THREE SETS OF CHARGES [ 7 ] Generally speaking, there are a number of drug charges, as well as an unlawful confinement and kidnapping. A.

Information Number 20057 More specifically, he has pled guilty to two counts of being in possession of heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking on July 28, 2016. The facts are that a police officer noticed him walking along some trails. As the officer was walking by Q.K., the youth dropped a baggie of what the officer believes was drugs. Q.K. was arrested for being in possession of a number of baggies of controlled substances. A trial commenced, but Q.K. pled guilty to the offence of being in possession of substances for the purpose of trafficking. B.

Information Number 19148 He has also pled guilty to unlawfully possessing heroin and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking on September 8, 2016. The accused was seen doing some hand to hand transactions. Upon arrest he had on his person cash and drugs. C. Information Number 20260 Lastly, he has pled guilty to the following charges: on July 14, 2017 unlawfully confining another youth and using an imitation firearm while attempting to commit kidnapping. These offences are contrary to section 279(1) (

a) and 85(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada . [ 8 ] The facts are that the victim was involved in a street level drug trafficking business with the accused. He tried to leave the dial- a-dope operation and the accused tried to collect $5,000 from the victim as a ‘fee’ or ‘fine’ for being allowed to leave the drug trade. On or near school property on July 14, 2017, the victim was punched in the face by one person. The victim then fled. The accused caught up with him, pointed a gun at him, and put him in the trunk of a car.

The victim was driven to a quiet spot where the accused pistol whipped him to the point of unconsciousness. Upon arrest the accused told an undercover police officer, “This is what you get when you owe people money.” 3. THE LAW [ 9 ] The Youth Criminal Justice Act S.C.2002 provides detailed guidance to a sentencing judge when sentencing a youth.

There are guiding general principles, more specific principles enunciated with respect to the sentencing process, and clearly defined sections dealing with incarceration of youths. [ 10 ] It is important for society to recognize that when a young person commits a crime, he or she will be dealt with according to the Youth Criminal Justice Act . When an adult commits a crime, he or she will be dealt with according to the Criminal Code of Canada .

The intention of this separation is to reflect that young people often have a diminished culpability that exists as a result of their youth. I appreciate that when one considers Q.K.’s current behaviour in custody, along with the circumstances of the offences, it might be easy to see him more as a young adult deserving of much more significant penalty than is being sought by either counsel. However, I instruct myself that the following principles of law are paramount in the sentencing of Q.K. A. Declaration of Principle in Youth Criminal Justice Act Policy for Canada with respect to young persons 3

(1) The following principles apply in this Act: (

a) the youth criminal justice system is intended to protect the public by (

i) holding young persons accountable through measures that are proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the young person, (ii) promoting the rehabilitation and reintegration of young persons who have committed offences, and (iii) supporting the prevention of crime by referring young persons to programs or agencies in the community to address the circumstances underlying their offending behaviour; (

b) the criminal justice system for young persons must be separate from that of adults, must be based on the principle of diminished moral blameworthiness or culpability and must emphasize the following: (

i) rehabilitation and reintegration , (ii) fair and proportionate accountability that is consistent with the greater dependency of young persons and their reduced level of maturity, (iii) enhanced procedural protection to ensure that young persons are treated fairly and that their rights, including their right to privacy, are protected, (iv) timely intervention that reinforces the link between the offending behaviour and its consequences, and (

v) the promptness and speed with which persons responsible for enforcing this Act must act, given young persons’ perception of time; (

c) within the limits of fair and proportionate accountability, the measures taken against young persons who commit offences should (

i) reinforce respect for societal values, (ii) encourage the repair of harm done to victims and the community, (iii) be meaningful for the individual young person given his or her needs and level of development and, where appropriate, involve the parents, the extended family, the community and social or other agencies in the young person’s rehabilitation and reintegration, and (iv) respect gender, ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences and respond to the needs of aboriginal young persons and of young persons with special requirements; and (

d) special considerations apply in respect of proceedings against young persons and, in particular, (

i) young persons have rights and freedoms in their own right, such as a right to be heard in the course of and to participate in the processes, other than the decision to prosecute, that lead to decisions that affect them, and young persons have special guarantees of their rights and freedoms, (ii) victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect for their dignity and privacy and should suffer the minimum degree of inconvenience as a result of their involvement with the youth criminal justice system, (iii) victims should be provided with information about the proceedings and given an opportunity to participate and be heard, and (iv) parents should be informed of measures or proceedings involving their children and encouraged to support them in addressing their offending behaviour.

(2) This Act shall be liberally construed so as to ensure that young persons are dealt with in accordance with the principles set out in subsection (1). B. Sentencing - Purpose and Principles -

Section 38 Purpose and Principles 38

(1) The purpose of sentencing under

section 42 (youth sentences) is to hold a young person accountable for an offence through the imposition of just sanctions that have meaningful consequences for the young person and that promote his or her rehabilitation and reintegration into society, thereby contributing to the long-term protection of the public.

(2) A youth justice court that imposes a youth sentence on a young person shall determine the sentence in accordance with the principles set out in

section 3 and the following principles:

(

a) the sentence must not result in a punishment that is greater than the punishment that would be appropriate for an adult who has been convicted of the same offence committed in similar circumstances ; (

b) the sentence must be similar to the sentences imposed in the region on similar young persons found guilty of the same offence committed in similar circumstances; (

c) the sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the young person for that offence; (

d) all available sanctions other than custody that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all young persons, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal young persons; (

e) subject to paragraph (c), the sentence must (

i) be the least restrictive sentence that is capable of achieving the purpose set out in subsection (1), (ii) be the one that is most likely to rehabilitate the young person and reintegrate him or her into society, and (iii) promote a sense of responsibility in the young person, and an acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community; and (

f) subject to paragraph (c), the sentence may have the following objectives: (

i) to denounce unlawful conduct, and (ii) to deter the young person from committing offences.

(3) In determining a youth sentence, the youth justice court shall take into account (

a) the degree of participation by the young person in the commission of the offence; (

b) the harm done to victims and whether it was intentional or reasonably foreseeable; (

c) any reparation made by the young person to the victim or the communit y; (

d) the time spent in detention by the young person as a result of the offence; (

e) the previous findings of guilt of the young person; and (

f) any other aggravating and mitigating circumstances related to the young person or the offence that are relevant to the purpose and principles set out in this section. C. Committal to Custody 39

(1) A youth justice court shall not commit a young person to custody under

section 42 (youth sentences) unless (

a) the young person has committed a violent offence; (

b) the young person has failed to comply with non-custodial sentences; (

c) the young person has committed an indictable offence for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years and has a history that indicates a pattern of either extrajudicial sanctions or of findings of guilt or of both under this Act or the Young Offenders Act ,

chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985; or (

d) in exceptional cases where the young person has committed an indictable offence, the aggravating circumstances of the offence are such that the imposition of a non-custodial sentence would be inconsistent with the purpose and principles set out in

section 38.

(2) If any of paragraphs (1)(

a) to (

c) apply, a youth justice court shall not impose a custodial sentence under

section 42 (youth sentences) unless the court has considered all alternatives to custody raised at the sentencing hearing that are reasonable in the circumstances, and determined that there is not a reasonable alternative, or combination of alternatives, that is in accordance with the purpose and principles set out in

section 38. (3 ) In determining whether there is a reasonable alternative to custody, a youth justice court shall consider submissions relating to (

a) the alternatives to custody that are available; (

b) the likelihood that the young person will comply with a non-custodial sentence, taking into account his or her compliance with previous non-custodial sentences; and (

c) the alternatives to custody that have been used in respect of young persons for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.

(4) The previous imposition of a particular non-custodial sentence on a young person does not preclude a youth justice court from imposing the same or any other non-custodial sentence for another offence.

(5) A youth justice court shall not use custody as a substitute for appropriate child protection, mental health or other social measures.

(6) Before imposing a custodial sentence under

section 42 (youth sentences), a youth justice court shall consider a pre-sentence reportand any sentencing proposal made by the young person or his or her counsel.

(7) A youth justice court may, with the consent of the prosecutor and the young person or his or her counsel, dispense with a pre-sentence report if the court is satisfied that the report is not necessary.

(8) In determining the length of a youth sentence that includes a custodial portion, a youth justice court shall be guided by the purposeand principles set out in

section 38, and shall not take into consideration the fact that the supervision portion of the sentence may not beserved in custody and that the sentence may be reviewed by the court under

section 94.

(9) If a youth justice court imposes a youth sentence that includes a custodial portion, the court shall state the reasons why it hasdetermined that a non-custodial sentence is not adequate to achieve the purpose set out in subsection 38(1), including, if applicable, thereasons why the case is an exceptional case under paragraph (1)(d). 4.

PROVINCIAL CROWN SENTENCING POSITION [11] Paragraph 2 of the Crown’s written submissions states: [2] In light of the circumstances of the offence, the circumstances of the offender and the principles of sentencing to be applied in casesof this nature, the Crown and defence counsel jointly submit that a global sentence of a 2-year custody and supervision order is a fit andappropriate sentence.

This sentence is the maximum allowable sentence available … [12] The Crown also seeks a DNA order pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code, a weapons prohibition pursuant to s. 51 ofthe Youth Criminal Justice Act and a non-communication order pursuant to

section 743.21 of the Criminal Code. Each of these threeorders are granted. [13] The Crown submits that the fact that the victim was kidnapped at gun point from a school yard, where innocent members of thepublic are, is highly aggravating. I agree. [14] The Crown argues the use of the imitation firearm is aggravating. As well, the Crown submits that this crime took place withinthe context of collecting on a drug debt to be aggravating. I also agree.

I find it highly aggravating that a person who is trying to breakfree from the drug trade gets kidnapped and pistol whipped. [15] I find the accused’s moral culpability to be extremely high. He essentially was trying to use brutal force in order to get moneyfrom someone trying to live a law-abiding existence. [16] On the topic of maximum sentences, in the midst of the sentencing process it was realized by counsel that the maximumsentence for this crime is actually three years custody and supervision.

For whatever reason, perhaps as a gesture of good faith pleanegotiations, the Crown stands by their original position that two years is appropriate. A. Joint Submission [17] I accept the joint submission that two years is an appropriate sentence for the provincial crimes pled to. I acknowledge that tosome a two-year sentence might be considered to be on the lower end of the appropriate range. However, I instruct myself that theaccused is not being sentenced as an adult.

As such, the principles that I have outlined above are the guiding principles in the sentencingof a youth. [18] I find great guidance in the Honourable Judge Skilnick’s decision in R. v. Corbett, 2017 BCPC 314 wherein he writes on thetopic of ‘joint submissions’ that: [2] The Crown and Defence counsel have agreed on what the appropriate sentence for this offence should be and have joined together inrecommending what is known as a “joint submission” for a two month conditional sentence order.

The court is not forced to accept ajoint submission and at one time, a sentencing judge could reject a joint submission if it was unfit and not in the public interest. Morerecently, in a case known as R. v. Anthony-Cook 2016 SCC 43 , the Supreme Court of Canada clarified how a court shouldaddress a joint submission. [3] The Supreme Court said that, for the most part, the trial judge should approach the joint submission on an “as-is” basis.

Some give-and-take is necessary to confront the volume of criminal charges, and unreasonable micromanaging by trial judges will only serve to bogdown the system and send more cases to trial, taking up more time, utilizing more resources and inconveniencing witnesses. Whereexperienced counsel are involved, integrity and sound judgement should be presumed and the court is generally entitled to presume thatthere are good reasons for the consensus that has been reached. [4] There will be times however when the sentencing judge believes that the joint submission is unduly harsh or unduly lenient.

Just asCrown and Defence counsel do, the sentencing judge plays an important role in the system of checks and balances and it is not his or herfunction to “rubber stamp” joint submissions if something doesn’t smell right. It is at this point that the Supreme Court of Canada hassaid that the court must apply what is known as the “public interest test”.

Under this test, judges “should not depart from a jointsubmission unless the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, or is otherwise not in the publicinterest. [5] One former Supreme Court of Canada Justice has said that “a reasonable joint submission cannot be said to ‘bring the administrationof justice into disrepute’.

An unreasonable joint submission, on the other hand, is surely ‘contrary to the public interest’.” While this maysound like circular logic, that judge went on to explain that if “the sentence jointly proposed falls within the acceptable range and theplea is warranted by the facts admitted” then it is a reasonable joint submission. The public interest test presumes fair and reasonablepublic sentiment that is not based purely on vengeful or inflamed sentiment, one that balances a desire for the rehabilitation of offenders

with the need to make amends to those who have been the victims of crime. [6] The Supreme Court said that the sentencing judge may inquire about the circumstances leading to the joint submission, and, in particular, any benefits obtained by the Crown or concessions made by the accused. This recognizes that where an accused has given up his right to a trial in reliance that a joint submission will be respected, such a consideration must not be discarded lightly.

Often a joint submission is reached because of weaknesses in the Crown case, difficulty with witnesses, or in order not to inconvenience those witnesses or force them to relive the offences. [7] If, after consideration of these factors, the sentencing judge still has concerns that the joint submission does not satisfy the public interest test, he or she should notify counsel of any concerns and invite further submissions on those concerns. If the trial judge’s concerns are not alleviated, the Supreme Court of Canada has said that the judge may allow the accused to withdraw his or her guilty plea.

The practical result of this change in the law is that now, rejection of a joint submission with (sic) most often send the matter back to trial. B. Conclusion Regarding Provincial Offence [ 19 ] I do not find the proposed sentence unduly harsh or unduly lenient. Nor do I think the sentence of two years custody to be contrary to the public interest.

As such, I impose a two-year custodial sentence for the provincial matters. [ 20 ] Having accepted that two years custody and supervision is the appropriate sentence for the Criminal Code offences, that means that this court is able to draw on a maximum of 12 months by way of additional ‘time’ for the remaining offences as any combined sentence cannot exceed three years. [ 21 ] The twelve months can be a mixture of further custody, deferred custody, probation, intensive supervision orders or even community service work or fines. The range is wide.

The question is: what is the appropriate use of these twelve months, assuming further court sanctions are even required? 5. FEDERAL CROWN SENTENCING POSITION [ 22 ] The Crown argues that this may be one of the first youth dial-a-dope in fentanyl cases in Canada. I am aware of one youth recently sentenced in Surrey court for his trafficking heroin and fentanyl mixtures. He was 15 years old, had a supportive family, no record, completely changed his ways, and had no bail breaches.

He received an intensive support and supervision order for six months. [ 23 ] The Crown has been thorough and meticulous in their sentencing submissions. I readily accept the law as presented by Mr. Lépine acting for the Federal Crown. [ 24 ] The Crown submits that a jail sentence is the appropriate sentence for the drug offences. A. The Gateway [ 25 ] The Crown submits that section 39(1)(

d) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act is the appropriate

section for the court to refer to if I find a period of custody is warranted for the drug offences. [ 26 ] The question that I may consider is whether the criteria of this

section have been met. The charges are indictable, which is a consideration. However, are the aggravating circumstances of this case so exceptional as to make a finding that the imposition of a non- custodial sentence would be inconsistent with the purpose and principles set out in

section 38? To put it in simple terms, this youth has no record and no pattern of breaches that would otherwise open up a possibility of a custodial disposition, but section 39(1)(

d) provides a different gateway to custody for some cases. B. The Aggravating Circumstances of this Drug Case [ 27 ] Q.K. began a trial for being in possession for the purpose of trafficking for 17 packages of cocaine, heroin and fentanyl. This is not an early guilty plea. Thus, while not aggravating that he exercised his right to a fair trial, he does not get credit for an early guilty plea. [ 28 ] While on bail for this offence, the accused was observed participating in a dial-a-dope operation.

Upon his arrest he was found to have 29 bags of a heroin and fentanyl mixture weighing 3.86 grams; 38 bags of crack, approximately 6.87 grams; and approximately .086 grams of cocaine located in two bags. [ 29 ] Clearly aggravating is that this young person possessed so many different types of substances. [ 30 ] It is also aggravating that he was in possession of so many baggies of drugs that contained a fentanyl mixture. [ 31 ] It is also aggravating that he committed these offences while on bail for the offence dealt with above.

I note that the kidnapping and use of the imitation weapon was linked to the drug trade. He is linked to the street level drug culture. He has played a role as an enforcer. I find that his moral culpability is extremely high. [ 32 ] Defence submits that the offences occurred during a time period when we as a community were not yet aware of the lethalness of fentanyl. I agree. This youth at the time of the offence would not have known that there was to be a public health crisis arising in British Columbia shortly after his arrest. I also agree that Q.K. was not the creator of this dial-a-dope enterprise.

He was, however, a street level dealer of hard drugs. [ 33 ] It is my conclusion that the above aggravating factors are more than sufficient to find that the aggravating circumstances of the offence are such that the imposition of a non-custodial sentence would be inconsistent with the purpose and principles set out in

section 38.

[ 34 ] To be clear, the Crown is not submitting that in all cases of a dial-a-dope operation to do with fentanyl a custodial sentence will be warranted. I would not accept such a proposition. Each case must be assessed according to its own set of unique circumstances. However, in this case, being in possession for the purpose of trafficking, released on bail, and then to remain in the drug trade by actively participating in a dial-a-dope operation is highly aggravating.

Getting further entrenched into the drug trade by trying to enforce a drug subculture ‘fine’ makes this case even more aggravating. [ 35 ] With respect to the nature of the substances, in making the above determination, I only take into consideration that he had any number of substances on his person. He was involved with hard drugs. [ 36 ] The fact that some contained fentanyl only makes his situation worse. [ 37 ] I find the criteria of section 39(1) have been met. Thus, to be consistent with the principles in

section 38, a custodial period needs to be ordered. Considering that he is already receiving a custodial sentence of two years, how long should the sentence be? 6. YOUNG PERSON’S BACKGROUND [ 38 ] A pre-sentence report was prepared by a youth worker. [ 39 ] This young man was born in Vancouver. His parents are from Fiji. There is a history of problems in the home. While denied by his mother, it appears there have been numerous attendances by the police to the family home where domestic violence is alleged to have occurred.

Sometimes this was in the presence of Q.K. [ 40 ] When Q.K. was thirteen the police had to attend because he was threatening his mother and sister with a baton. [ 41 ] There have been significant issues revolving around the use of marijuana.

In 2015, his father requested the support of the Ministry of Children and Family Services indicating that Q.K. “is smoking marijuana almost daily and is verbally abusive towards his family and does not follow family rules.” Eventually Q.K. was sent to a safe house and supervised by a social worker due to his behaviour. [ 42 ] In 2017, Q.K. moved out of Surrey as he had acquired an outstanding drug debt and feared for his and his family’s safety. [ 43 ] As for school, Q.K. advises that he was asked to leave due to “misbehaving, missing classes, always smelt like marijuana and I was sometimes high in class.” Independent sources confirm that he was also suspended for bringing a BB gun to a fight and hiding it in someone else’s locker.

Q.K. has almost finished high school and wants to complete his grade twelve, and eventually open up his own garage as a mechanic. [ 44 ] He has been stabbed in the knee over drugs and has a drug debt. He will not disclose how much the debt is for. [ 45 ] The report indicates that from his first contact with the criminal justice system he has been non-compliant. His behaviour in custody has been so non-compliant that since being remanded to the Burnaby Youth Custody Centre in October 2017 he has had to be transferred to the Prince George Youth Custody facility.

There have been at least twenty-two reported incidents of bad behaviour. For example, in February 2018 he barricaded himself in a room until the RCMP were able to diffuse the situation. [ 46 ] He was then transferred to the Kamloops Regional Correctional Centre as a result of threats towards two female staff in Prince George.

As I understand his situation, charges are still pending. [ 47 ] As for safety of the community, the report author writes, “After consultation on February 2, 2018 with the Surrey Gang Enforcement Team it was confirmed Q.K. is a safety threat to people around him in the community.” [ 48 ] Most disturbing is this young person’s attitude regarding the victim of the kidnapping.

He was asked if there was a victim, to which he responded “No I do not think there is… he should have paid us back - then there would be no problems.” When asked if he thought what he had done was wrong he stated, “I guess so, cause I’m sitting in jail for something like this and it’s no fun.” He indicated that he is “not interested in apologizing to that goof.” [ 49 ] The victim was able to provide information to the author of the pre-sentencing report. He reports that he is out of pocket money, on anti-anxiety drugs, still has flashbacks and large scars on his back from being pistol whipped.

He said he “experiences constant fear for his safety in the community.” His own sister and mother rarely meet him due to concern over their safety when they are around him. The family has changed cars and moved from their home in an attempt to not be found by the accused and his associates. CONCLUSION [ 50 ] I appreciate that the sentencing process has been split between the Provincial Crown and the Federal Crown. I also appreciate the concept that there are two distinct types of offences. In theory, the sentences imposed for the offences will also be separate.

However, I must keep in mind the overall purpose of the Youth Criminal Justice Act as outlined above. [ 51 ] This young accused is going to be in custody for a significant period of time as a result of the joint submission on the provincial matter. [ 52 ] Once more, to confirm my comments earlier, I impose two years custody and supervision for the provincial offences. [ 53 ] It is difficult to imagine how a young person, now a young adult at the age of 20, being so entrenched in the drug subculture will be rehabilitated. He has been a long time drug user. He is a street level trafficker.

He has alienated himself from his family supports. He has acted like an enforcer, with very little regard to his victims. He casually uses drug culture language such as ‘fines’ and ‘goof’.

[ 54 ] However, he is still young. He was a youth at the time of the offences. While protection of the public is a paramount consideration, Q.K.’s rehabilitation and integration back into society is equally important. [ 55 ] In imposing the following sentences I have considered whether there are less restrictive sentences available other than custody. I also take into account the role he has played in these offences, the significant harm caused to society as a result of the drug trade, and the victim in the kidnapping matter.

I further consider Q.K.’s lack of empathy and understanding of the harm he has caused to his victim. Lastly, I appreciate that Q.K. has no criminal record and is young. I have also had the benefit of a detailed pre-sentencing report that reminds me that this young man has goals in life that he would like to achieve that do not include being a drug dealer. [ 56 ] For the possession for the purpose of trafficking charge on July 28, 2016, I impose a six-month probation order. As to the order of the offences, this charge would have been first in time. He would have been a first time offender before the courts.

The conditions of probation are as follows and, in doing so, I am duplicating the pre-sentencing report suggestions as to conditions found on pages 10 and 11 of the report: 1. You shall report forthwith upon your release from custody, to a Youth Worker at 1545 88 Avenue, Surrey, B.C., and thereafter as and when and where directed. 2. You shall reside where directed by your Youth Worker and not change your residence without prior written permission of your Youth Worker; obey the rules and regulations of that residence. 3.

You shall have no contact either directly or indirectly and not attend at any place of residence, school, employment or place of worship of G.N. or any member of his family, A.B., J.B., M.E. and H.D. 4. You shall abstain from the possession of controlled drugs and substances as defined by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act . 5. You shall seek and maintain employment to the satisfaction of your Youth Worker. 6. You shall not be outside your place of residence between the hours of 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. daily, and remain in your residence during those hours except with the written permission of your Youth Worker.

Such permission must be carried on your person and presented upon request to a peace officer, or a Youth Worker or his/her designate. 7. You shall not have in your possession any cell phones, pagers, or telecommunication devices except for one device registered in your name. You shall provide your Youth Worker with a copy of your monthly billing statements for the said device. 8. You shall attend any assessment or counselling as directed by your Youth Worker. 9.

You must not have in your possession any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code of Canada , nor any imitations of weapons or firearms, including BB guns and Pellet guns. 10. You are not to possess any knives except while preparing or consuming food. 11. You are not to possess any bear spray, pepper spray, mace, or other forms of oleoresin capsicum. [ 57 ] For the more aggravating crime of unlawfully possessing substances that included a fentanyl mixture on September 8, 2016, I note that you were on bail for the first drug charge at the time of the offence.

I also note that this possession had elements of a dial-a- dope enterprise. I find these to be extremely aggravating features. I also find to be aggravating that fentanyl was one of these substances. As such, I sentence you to a further period of six months custody and supervision. This sentence is to be consecutive to the provincial sentence. [ 58 ] In

summary, you will serve 24 months for the provincial offence on Information Number 20260, six months consecutive on Information Number 19148, and six months probation on Information Number 20057. The Honourable Judge A.M. Wolf Provincial Court of British Columbia