R. v. Williams Date:, 2014 BCPC 57

Citation: R. v. Williams Date: 20140317 2014 BCPC 0057 File No: 58433-1 Registry: RICHMOND IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. ROBERT JAMES WILLIAMS REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE JANZEN Counsel for the Crown: A. Netting Counsel for the Defendant: B. Anderson

Place of Hearing: Richmond , B.C. Date of Sentence: March 17, 2014 [ 1 ] THE COURT : Robert James Williams, you have pleaded guilty to three counts of robbery in contravention of s. 344 (

b) of the Criminal Code . [ 2 ] On May 25th, 2012, you attended at a branch of the TD Bank in Richmond, demanded $2500 in cash from a teller, and told her that you had a gun. She provided you with a plastic bag containing $200 cash in a dye pack. [ 3 ] On May 27th, 2012, you attended another branch of the TD Bank in Richmond. Again you demanded $2500 in cash, insisting that it be provided without a decoy or a dye pack. You also indicated that you had a weapon.

You fled before obtaining any money. [ 4 ] On May 28th, 2012, you attended at a branch of Coast Capital Savings Credit Union where you told the teller that this was a robbery and that the teller should provide you with money quickly and quietly. The teller gave you a Ziploc bag containing $500. You insisted on more money, but while the teller waited for cash at the automated teller machine, you fled with the $500. There was no evidence to support that you in fact had a gun or a weapon of any kind. [ 5 ] A few days later you were identified and interviewed, but you were not charged until June 2013.

In June 2012, you moved to Nova Scotia. Between June 18th and 22nd, 2012, you committed six offences in Nova Scotia. On January 11th, 2013, you were convicted and sentenced for the Nova Scotia offences.

Prior to the disposition of the Nova Scotia charges, you attempted to have the B.C. offences dealt with at the same time, but as of January 2013, no charges had been laid. [ 6 ] The six Nova Scotia offences and their respective sentences are as follows: One count of robbery, two years; a second count of robbery, three years consecutive; obstruction, one year concurrent; escape from lawful custody, one year concurrent; dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, one year concurrent; assault with a weapon, one year consecutive. [ 7 ] You have a significant adult criminal record that predates these offences and includes a 1998 conviction for robbery, 20 months in custody and a period of probation of two years; a 2001 conviction for uttering a forged document, six days; a 2002 conviction for obstructing a police officer, $200; a 2004 conviction for manslaughter, 11 years; a 2010 conviction for escaping lawful custody, 45 days; and a 2011 conviction for possession of a scheduled substance, seven days.

Any breaks in your record are primarily attributable to your time in custody. [ 8 ] Your lawyer indicated that you became addicted to heroin as a teenager and that when you committed the three robbery offences in Richmond in 2012, you were desperately drug addicted and seeking cash to buy drugs. You are 34 years old. Although to date you have been continuously involved with the criminal justice system, you are still young enough to change.

During your most recent period of incarceration, you have sought assistance for your addiction and have attended the ICPM drug program for half days every day. [ 9 ] This is the first time that you have recognized that your addiction underlies your criminal activity and you have made a commitment to quitting drugs. You are also working on obtaining your Grade 12 equivalency.

Your commitment to making a change has been your response to the recent death of your 60-year-old father and you have concerns for the wellbeing of your widowed mother. [ 10 ] Your lawyer indicated that an appropriate sentence in this case was three-and-a-half years, but that it should be served concurrently as it formed part of a drug-induced crime spree that occurred between May 25th, 2012 and June 22nd, 2012.

He pointed out that you had done your best to have the B.C. offences dealt with at the same time as the Nova Scotia offences and if that had happened, a concurrent sentence would have been a very possible result.

He asserted that the delay in charging and disposing of these offences was the fault of the police, not you, and you should not be prejudiced by their failure to investigate and prosecute without delay. [ 11 ] In the alternative, he argued that if I did not see the three B.C. offences as sufficiently linked to the Nova Scotia offences as to justify a concurrent sentence, at the very least I should see the three B.C. offences as one transaction involving a drug-induced robbery spree.

If additional time was to be served, the totality principle supported that additional time of two to three years, as advocated by the Crown, over the six years you are already serving, was too harsh. If consecutive, the sentence should be no greater than a year. [ 12 ] Crown counsel argued that an appropriate sentence in this case was in the range of two to three years and that it should be served consecutive to your current sentence. She relied on the B.C. Court of Appeal decision of R. v.

Brogan , 1999 BCCA 278 , that surmised that sentences for robbery with violence fell within the range of two to nine years. [ 13 ] In considering a fit sentence in this case, I must consider the nature of the offences and your role in them. While these offences were premeditated to some degree, they were neither sophisticated nor well-planned. Although you indicated that you had a weapon, there is no evidence to support that you in fact had a weapon.

The offences did not involve any type of assault, and the conduct of the three tellers in reaction to the robberies suggests that they were alarmed but not traumatized. The amount of money that was taken was less than $1,000. The three offences occurred within three days of each other in the same city and you used an almost identical modus operandi for all three of them. In my view, they are properly characterized as a spree, deserving of sentences to be served concurrently. [ 14 ] I do not agree, however, that that sentence should be served concurrently with the Nova Scotia sentences.

The B.C. offences are separated from the Nova Scotia offences by many thousands of kilometres and a period of a number of weeks. Additionally, the Nova Scotia offences include entirely different offences from the B.C. offences, such as escaping from custody, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and assault with a weapon.

[ 15 ] A significant aggravating factor in this case is your record. Mitigating factors include the persistent efforts you have made to deal quickly with these offences by being forthright about them, acknowledging your guilt and being prepared to dispose of them as soon as possible. [ 16 ] Since your recent incarceration, you have taken significant steps towards your rehabilitation. I agree that rehabilitation is a relevant sentencing objective, but that denunciation, deterrence and protection of the public are also important objectives in this case.

This case is unusual in that between the time when you committed the offences and now, when you are to be sentenced for them, you committed and were sentenced for other offences. [ 17 ] In my view, it is inappropriate to take the Nova Scotia offences and the sentences you received for them into account in considering a fit sentence for the three robberies that you committed in B.C. in May 2012.

While your lawyer has argued that you have been prejudiced by the failure to prosecute these offences in a timely way so that you did not get the benefit of a global sentence for all of the 2012 offences, it is my view that this prejudice is properly cured by sentencing you without taking into account the Nova Scotia offences at all. [ 18 ] When I consider your record prior to May 2012, your early guilty plea, the nature and circumstances of the three offences and your efforts at rehabilitation, I have concluded that a fit and appropriate sentence for each count of robbery is 18 months to be followed by a year of probation to assist you with your efforts at rehabilitation.

These sentences are to be served concurrently, but consecutive to the sentence that you are currently serving. [ 19 ] If I am wrong in not taking into account your lost opportunity to be sentenced for these offences at the same time as for the Nova Scotia offences, I have also considered whether a global sentence of seven-and-a-half years, followed by a year of probation, is excessive and concluded that it is not. [ 20 ] Stand up, Mr. Williams.

Your sentence will be 18 months' incarceration on each of the three robbery charges to be served concurrently, but consecutive to the term you are already serving, followed by a term of probation of one year. [ 21 ] The term of probation is to include the following terms. [ 22 ] You are to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. [ 23 ] You are to report to a probation officer at suite 210 - 7577 Elmbridge Way, Richmond, British Columbia, within 72 hours of your release and thereafter when and in the manner directed by your probation officer. [ 24 ] You are to provide your residential address and telephone number to your probation officer and not change either without the prior written consent of your probation officer. [ 25 ] You are to take such treatment, counselling and programs as directed by your probation officer, to include drug treatment, and complete such counselling, programs or treatment to the satisfaction of your probation officer. [ 26 ] You are to not attend at any branch of the TD Bank or Coast Capital Savings Credit Union within the Province of British Columbia. [ 27 ] You are not to be in possession of weapons of any kind, including knives, except for the immediate preparation and consumption of food. [ 28 ] Other issues: DNA order, and also the firearms, crossbows provision? (SUBMISSIONS) [ 29 ] THE COURT: There will be a DNA order then, and I will make a lifetime ban with respect to firearms, et cetera.

I will waive the victim fine surcharge in light of the fact that because he is, at this point, incarcerated and will be further as a result of this decision, he really will not have any ability to pay. [ 30 ] MS. NETTING: Your Honour, Crown is directing a stay of proceedings to Count 4. [ 31 ] THE COURT: Okay, thank you. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)