R. v. B.S.Q. Date:, 2013 BCPC 332

Citation: R. v. B.S.Q. Date: 20131113 2013 BCPC 0332 File No: 58486-3-C Registry: North Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Ban on publication pursuant to s.486.4(2) of the CCC REGINA v. B.S.Q. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE CHALLENGER Counsel for the Crown: L. Falloon Counsel for the Defendant: D. Walsoff, Duty Counsel (as Agent for H. Chambers) Place of Hearing: North Vancouver , B.C. Date of Judgment: November 13, 2013 [ 1 ] THE COURT: B.S.Q. pled guilty to one count of sexually touching of a person under the age of 14 years, contrary to s. 151 of

the Criminal Code . The incidents occurred over the years 2002 to 2008, and involved J.K.-D., born [DOB]. The earlier incidents occurred on Vancouver Island and the later incidents occurred in Squamish. [ 2 ] The Crown also alleged incidents involving P.K.-D., born [DOB], who was also under 14 years of age. [ 3 ] The information was laid on August 28, 2012. The offender did not confirm his guilty plea until the day before the trial of the matter was set to commence on June 11, 2013. [ 4 ] The victims were the children of the offender's then partner. There were four siblings.

P.K.-D. was the oldest, followed by J.K.-D., followed by a brother born June 14, 1998, and a sister who was two years younger (no date of birth was provided). [ 5 ] Their biological father was a fisher and had little contact with them. [ 6 ] B.S.Q. and the children's mother were involved in a lifestyle which involved significant substance abuse, in particular crack cocaine. The home they lived in often had no power or other necessities. The children were exposed to the unsavoury and dangerous world of drug use and dealing. They were also isolated with few supports in the community.

Circumstances Involving J.K.-D. [ 7 ] The abuse began when J.K.-D. was six or seven years of age. B.S.Q. undressed her, put her into bed, and touched her on her body, spread her legs, and touched her vaginal area. She believes the incident took half an hour. This behaviour was repeated when her mother was out of the home working, four to five times a week, over approximately a year. Thereafter, B.S.Q. continued to sexually interfere with her in a similar manner.

It included touching her sexually while bathing her, until she insisted that her old sister, P.K.-D., be in the bathroom. [ 8 ] Over time, B.S.Q. came to refer to her as "my special girl". B.S.Q. often used the pretext of watching a movie to explain why he took her into his bedroom. She attempted to resist him, but he would become angry, and so she would comply. [ 9 ] The abuse occurred with sufficient frequency that at times she would go directly to his room at night, rather than have him come to get her.

It also occurred during the day. [ 10 ] B.S.Q. told her what he was doing was a secret and she should not tell anyone. She trusted him when he told her what he was doing was not wrong. She was also afraid of him, as he would become angry and violent when consuming alcohol. [ 11 ] In an effort to have the abuse stop, she began to overeat, in the hopes that if she became overweight he would stop. Photographs were filed which show a significant increase in her weight over one year. [ 12 ] In 2005, the children were taken into care by the Director of Child Protection.

Their mother went through rehabilitation and a year later they were returned to her care. Unfortunately, Mother relapsed and resumed her relationship with the offender. The family relocated to Squamish at this time. The children were again neglected and unprotected. [ 13 ] After the family relocated to Squamish, B.S.Q. resumed his offending behaviour with J.K.-D. He began masturbating and ejaculating on her. He also encouraged her to masturbate him, but she refused to do so.

She was subjected to his abuse four or five times a week. [ 14 ] The abuse continued until 2008, when all four children were again taken into care and placed with their aunt. In 2012, a discussion between J.K.-D. and P.K.-D. resulted in their reporting the offences to the police. Circumstances Involving P.K.-D. [ 15 ] When P.K.-D. was 11, there were two incidents which occurred during power outages where the children slept together in the living room for warmth. On each occasion, B.S.Q. lay down behind her and fondled her breasts and touched her vaginal area. She resisted and he ceased his efforts and left.

Corroborating Evidence [ 16 ] On one occasion in early March of 2005, their aunt came to the home and, after knocking loudly at the door, entered the home and found J.K.-D. naked in bed with B.S.Q., whose penis was semi-erect.

P.K.-D. also recalled this incident and said that at the time she had been too afraid to answer the door, as she thought it might be a drug dealer. [ 17 ] P.K.-D. noted J.K.-D. to be absent from the living room where all the children had been sleeping, and later saw her running down the hall naked. [ 18 ] During the relevant times, the brother observed the offender to take his sister, J.K.-D., into his room and shut the door. She was frequently kept home from school or was already home when the other children got home.

The offender often told him to go outside and not come into the home, leaving the offender alone inside with J.K.-D. J.K.-D. was bathed by the offender, but he was not, even though he was younger than she was. Victim Impact [ 19 ] J.K.-D. filed a victim impact statement in which she describes the devastating effect the abuse has had on her well-being from the time she was a child to the present. She continues to experience low self-esteem, fear, anxiety, and emotional pain. She lost the innocence of her childhood years.

She has difficulty in her relationships with others. [ 20 ] All of what she described is consistent with what we now know to the profound harm done to those who are the victims of

sexual interference and abuse. [ 21 ] P.K.-D. provided information which echoes that of her younger sister. In particular, she spoke about not being able to visit with her family on the reserve because the offender continued to live there. [ 22 ] Both victims spoke about their feelings of desperation while the abuse was taking place, as they were unable to make the abuse stop and had no one to go to for protection. [ 23 ] Both victims attended and participated in the First Nations court sentencing proceeding.

Antecedents of the Offender [ 24 ] A pre-sentence report with a Gladue component and a psychological component was before the court. [ 25 ] B.S.Q. is now 41. He is of First Nations ancestry from the Weiwaikum Band of the Laich-Kwil-Tach Nation in the Campbell River area. His mother is a residential school survivor who had 19 children. He is the only child from her relationship with his biological father. He has never had a relationship with his father. [ 26 ] His upbringing was unstable due to alcoholism in his immediate family.

Although he was sent to live with his grandmother at age three, his circumstances did not appear to improve in her home, where he also lacked guidance and discipline. He was sexually abused, by a number of adult males, from ages five to 10. [ 27 ] In 2011, he suffered the loss of his grandmother, mother, and an uncle. He has not received any grief counselling and has not yet processed these losses. He reports feeling lonely, which is seen as likely related to some level of depression. [ 28 ] B.S.Q. has a criminal history which commences in 1990 with a drug possession charge.

There is a gap until 1995, but during that year there were a number of convictions for property offences. Thereafter his record reflects nine convictions for theft-under offences up to 2009. There is one conviction for possession of a weapon in 2011, for which he received 30 days' custody, and one conviction for a theft-under charge.

There are also two convictions for drug-related matters from 1996 and 2011. [ 29 ] On May 2, 2013, he received a total sentence of nine months' custody for two theft-under matters and has been in custody since that time, serving that sentence, and is therefore not entitled to any credit for pre-trial custody. [ 30 ] He is single and has no dependants. He has a Grade 11 education and some job skill certificates. He has worked from time to time for brief periods in forestry, landscaping, roofing, construction, and commercial fishing.

He was receiving social assistance before being taken into custody. [ 31 ] The offender has longstanding substance abuse issues with street drugs and alcohol. His drug abuse is described as chronic and involves both cocaine and heroin. He has had some periods where he has received methadone treatment. He has otherwise not pursued any form of treatment.

He now expresses a desire to seek residential treatment in a First Nations oriented facility; however, a drug and alcohol counsellor with his band reports the offender has been resistant to engaging in treatment. [ 32 ] He is noted to have had difficulties with complying with court orders. [ 33 ] The pre-sentence report indicates that, although he has not been banished, he is not welcome in his home community.

According to the psychological report, he has few supportive persons in his life. [ 34 ] His plans are to move to a new community, get a job, and cease contact with the people connected to his addictions and criminal activity. [ 35 ] In the pre-sentence report, B.S.Q. is described as minimizing his responsibility for his offending behaviour. He reported that he committed the offences because he was in a "drug haze".

However, he was unable to explain why he repeatedly engaged in the sexual abuse of his victim over many years. [ 36 ] The psychological report indicates that he had no recollection of his offending behaviour due to his abuse of drugs, but acknowledged that it may have occurred. He also reported not having had any sexual attraction to children, which was seen as questionable given the nature of the offending behaviour. [ 37 ] The report finds that he remains a moderate risk to offend sexually. The psychological testing suggests he has an antisocial personality disorder.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors [ 38 ] The aggravating circumstances are that the offender was in a position of trust and the victims were children.

He offended against J.K.-D. almost daily for a year or more when she was very young, and resumed a more serious pattern of abuse later, which carried on for a significant period. [ 39 ] Although the offender expresses remorse and admitted to committing these offences, I find on all the evidence before me that he does not take responsibility for or have insight into his offending behaviour. [ 40 ] The mitigating factors are, to a limited extent, his guilty plea at the commencement of trial, and his lack of prior similar convictions. His background and experiences as an aboriginal person are also mitigating.

Positions of Crown and Defence

[41] The Crown proceeded by indictment in this matter. The maximum sentence at the time of the offence was 10 years. Theminimum at the time of the offence was 45 days and is now one year. [42] Crown counsel submits that a sentence of two years less a day followed by three years' probation should be imposed. They alsoask the court to order that Mr.

Q have no contact with the victims pursuant to s. 743.21; be prohibited for life from attending to placeswhere children may be present or from engaging in any employment which may involve contact with children pursuant to s. 161; that heprovide a sample of his DNA pursuant to s. 487.051, as a primary designated offence; and comply with the Sex Offender InformationRegistry for a period of 20 years, pursuant to s. 490.013(2)(b). [43] B.S.Q. submitted through his counsel that a sentence in the range of 12 to 18 months, followed by probation, should beconsidered as appropriate. The Principles of Sentence [44]

Section 718.01 directs that when sentencing an offender for an offence involving the abuse of a child, the court must giveprimary consideration to the principles of denunciation and deterrence. [45] I have also considered the purpose and principles of sentence as set out in s. 718, the principle of proportionality set out in718.1, and the other principles set out in 718.2, specifically that the offence is aggravated as the victims were under age 18, and that theoffender was in a position of trust in relation to them. [46] I have also considered s. 718.2(

e) which provides that all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in thecircumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders. [47] In this regard, I have considered R. v. Gladue, (SCC), [1999] S.C.J. No. 19, R. v. Wells, 2000 SCC 10, and R.v. Ipeelee and Ladue, 2012 SCC 13. [48] In R. v.

R.S.H., 2005 BCSC 927, the court recognized that the principles of sentence to be accorded the greatest weight inoffences involving sexual abuse of children by persons in positions of authority or trust are denunciation and general deterrence. MadamJustice Wedge canvassed the principles of sentence relating to the sexual abuse of children. At paragraphs 38 and 41 the court said: [38] The Supreme Court of Canada has, in several recent decisions, observed that the principle of denunciation is of particularimportance in cases of offences committed against young children by adults in positions of authority: see R. v.

W.(L.F.), 2000 SCC 6 . . .[other cites following] R. v. S.(R.N.), 2000 SCC 7. . . . [41] The comments of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. D.(D.) (ON CA), (2002) [other cites following] . . .are particularly relevant to the discussion here. The Court held that in cases of sexual offences against children, the principles ofdenunciation and deterrence must be the primary considerations. At paras. 34-36, the Court explained why that is so: Adult sexual predators who would put the lives of innocent children at risk to satisfy their deviant sexual needs must know that they willpay a heavy price.

In cases such as this, absent exceptional circumstances, the objectives of sentencing proclaimed by Parliament in s.718(a), (

b) and (

c) of the Criminal Code, commonly referred to as denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and the need to separateoffenders from society, must take precedence over the other recognized objectives of sentencing. We as a society owe it to our children to protect them from the harm caused by offenders like the appellant. Our children are at once ourmost valued and our most vulnerable assets. Throughout their formative years, they are manifestly incapable of defending themselvesagainst predators like the appellant and as such, they make easy prey.

People like the appellant know this only too well and they exploitit to achieve their selfish ends, heedless of the dire consequences that can and often do follow. In this respect, while there may have been a time, years ago, when offenders like the appellant could take refuge in the fact that little wasknown about the nature or extent of the damage caused by sexual abuse, that time has long since passed. Today, that excuse no longholds sway. The horrific consequences of child sexual abuse are only too well known. [49] Madam Justice Abella, as she then was, in R. v.

Stuckless (1998), (ON CA), 41 O.R. (3d) 103 (Ontario Courtof Appeal), observed with respect to the nature of sexual abuse that: Sexual abuse [of children] is

an act of violence. When committed against children, the violence is both physical and profoundlypsychological. It is coercive and exploitative conduct, and represents the use of compulsion against someone who is defenceless.

[50] With respect to the application of the principles of sentence for the sexual exploitation or assault of children when the offenderis an aboriginal person, the Crown cited R. v. R.R.M, 2009 BCCA 578, where the court said: [22] In R. v. S.G.N., 1999 BCCA 738 [other cites following] . . . a 12-year global sentence was reduced to 9 years for twocounts of sexual intercourse with a female under the age 14, and two counts of sexual assault that were committed 20 years earlier by anAboriginal offender. In concurring reasons, Lambert J.A. observed at para. 41: I agree with Mr.

Justice Braidwood that it is particularly important that all the protections of the criminal law be extended to FirstNations women and that this new provision in the Criminal Code [s. 718.2(e)] should not be permitted to do anything towards lesseningthe protection that they must be accorded. [23] I would extend those remarks to First Nations children. All children have the right to be safe from sexual exploitation. [24] The sentencing of Aboriginal offenders for serious sexual assaults, where there is evidence that they have suffered from historicaland systemic abuses, is not an easy task.

This Court has observed that in sentencing Aboriginal offenders, while judges must be"sensitive to the conditions, needs and understandings of Aboriginal offenders and communities, this does not mean that sentences forsuch offenders will necessarily focus solely on restorative objectives or give less weight to conventional sentencing objectives such asdeterrence and denunciation." See R. v. Morris, 2004 BCCA 305 [other cites following] . . .

Chief Justice Finch further noted at para. 53that Gladue made clear that it was not the principles of sentence that varied in sentencing Aboriginal offenders but the application ofthose principles to a particular case. In Gladue (at para. 80), the Court further stated that: As with all sentencing decisions, the sentencing of aboriginal offenders must proceed on an individual (or case-by-case) basis: for thisoffence, committed by this offender, harming this victim, in this community, what is the appropriate sanction under the Criminal Code? [51] In R. v.

Wells, supra, the Supreme Court addressed the application of s. 718.2(

e) when dealing with serious offences where theparamount principles of sentence are denunciation and general deterrence: 40 However, the scope of s. 718.2(e), as it applies to all offenders, restricts the adoption of alternatives to incarceration to thosesanctions that are "reasonable in the circumstances". Again, as was expressly stated in Gladue, the Court in no way intended to suggestthat as a general rule, the greatest weight is to be given to principles of restorative justice, and less weight accorded to goals such asdenunciation and deterrence.

Indeed, such a general rule would contradict the individual or case-by-case nature of the sentencingprocess, which proceeds on the basis of inquiring whether, given the particular facts of the offence, the offender, the victim and thecommunity, the sentence is fit in the circumstances. 41 I should take this opportunity to stress that the guidelines as set out in Gladue, and reiterated in the present appeal, are notintended to provide a single test for a sentencing judge to apply in determining a reasonable sentence in the circumstances. Section718.2(

e) imposes an affirmative duty on the sentencing judge to take into account the surrounding circumstances of the offender,including the nature of the offence, the victims and the community. 42 Notwithstanding what may well be different approaches to sentencing as between aboriginal and non-aboriginal conceptions ofsentencing, it is reasonable to assume that for some aboriginal offenders, and depending upon the nature of the offence, the goals ofdenunciation and deterrence are fundamentally relevant to the offender's community.

As held in Gladue, at para. 79, to the extent thatgeneralizations may be made, the more violent and serious the offence, the more likely as a practical matter that the appropriate sentencewill not differ as between aboriginal and non-aboriginal offenders, given that in these circumstances, the goals of denunciation anddeterrence are accorded increasing significance. [52] I have also considered the oft-quoted passage from R. v.

M.(C.A.), (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at paragraph81, respecting the concepts of retribution and denunciation as principles of sentence: Retribution, as well, should be conceptually distinguished from its legitimate sibling, denunciation. Retribution requires that a judicialsentence properly reflect the moral blameworthiness of that particular offender. The objective of denunciation mandates that a sentenceshould also communicate society's condemnation of that particular offender's conduct.

In short, a sentence with a denunciatory elementrepresents a symbolic, collective statement that the offender's conduct should be punished for encroaching on our society's basic code ofvalues as enshrined within our substantive criminal law. As Lord Justice Lawton stated in R. v. Sargeant (1974), 60 Cr. App. R. 74, at p.77: "society, through the courts, must show its abhorrence of particular types of crime, and the only way in which the courts can showthis is by the sentences they pass".

The relevance of both retribution and denunciation as goals of sentencing underscores that ourcriminal justice system is not simply a vast system of negative penalties designed to prevent objectively harmful conduct by increasingthe cost the offender must bear in committing an enumerated offence. Our criminal law is also a system of values. A sentence which

expresses denunciation is simply the means by which these values are communicated. In short, in addition to attaching negativeconsequences to undesirable behaviour, judicial sentences should also be imposed in a manner which positively instills the basic set ofcommunal values shared by all Canadians as expressed by the Criminal Code. Range of Sentence [53] Crown counsel provided a number of authorities, many of which contain summaries of other cases. They are: R. v. O.C.M.,[2012] B.C.J. No. 2924; R. v. R.R.M., 2009 BCCA 578; R. v. R.S.H., 2005 BCSC 927; R. v. Goff, 2009 BCSC 1621; R. v.

Dawson,(unreported) Vancouver Provincial Court, File 208165-2-KC; R. v. O.M., 2009 BCCA 287; and R. v. Williams, 2011 BCCA 194. [54] Counsel for the offender provided the court with R. v. D.A.C., (BC CA), 101 B.C.A.C. 147. [55] The sentences imposed varied in length from 20 months to five years.

There are, of course, many distinctions including thenature or repetition of the offending behaviour, how recently the behaviour occurred, the age of the victims, the number of victims, theage of the offender, and the presence of a criminal history generally or for similar offences. [56] Except for O.C.M., Goff, and D.A.C., all were aboriginal offenders and, except for R.S.H., their experiences as aboriginal peoplewere found to reduce their moral culpability.

In each case, having given consideration to all of the circumstances, the sentencing judgesconcluded that the principles of general deterrence and denunciation should be given significant weight and jail penalties needed to beimposed, despite the often tragic backgrounds of the offenders, many of whom themselves were victims of sexual abuse as children. Analysis and Conclusion [57] This offender sexually abused two children who should have been able to look to him for protection and care. He exploitedthose children for his own perverse sexual pleasure.

He caused each of them indescribable harm in doing so. [58] The ongoing pattern of abuse with respect to J.K.-D. elevates the seriousness of this matter. I do not accept that he does nothave any recollection of perpetrating these offences. I do not accept that his offending behaviours were due to the use of drugs oralcohol. [59] B.S.Q. was also a victim of sexual exploitation as a child and has now gone on to perpetrate the same harm upon anothergeneration. Our mainstream societal values and the values of our First Nations people demand that such conduct be condemned in thestrongest of terms.

I must conclude that this remains the case, even when committed by someone such as this offender whose ownupbringing was characterized by the devastating effects of colonization and the cruel policies of assimilation. [60] I find that a sentence of two years less a day with probation for three years is an appropriate penalty which gives weight to themitigating factors, as balanced against the aggravating factors and all of the principles of sentence. [61] Mr. Q, if you will stand.

The sentence is two years less one day to be followed by probation for three years. [62] We are going to now address some ancillary orders and the terms of probation, so you can be seated. [63] First of all, with respect to the terms of probation, they will be that you are to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, andappear before the court when required to do so by the court. You must report in person within 72 hours of your release from custody to aprobation officer, and this says Campbell River. Will that be your intention, sir, to return to Campbell River? [64] THE ACCUSED: Yeah. [65] THE COURT: Okay.

At Campbell River Community Corrections office at 128, 1180 Ironwood Road, Campbell River, BritishColumbia, and thereafter as and when directed by the probation officer. [66] You must reside as directed by your probation officer and not change that residence without the prior written permission of theprobation officer. [67] You will attend for, accept, and complete, to the satisfaction of your probation officer, any substance abuse counselling or coreprogram. [68] You will attend for, accept, and complete any residential treatment or recovery program as directed by your probation officer,and complete that programming to the satisfaction of your probation officer. [69] When residing at any residential treatment or recovery centre, you must obey all the rules and regulations, including any curfew. [70] You are to abstain absolutely from the possession or consumption of alcohol or any drugs or substances scheduled in theControlled Drugs and Substances Act, save and except according to a medical prescription, and then only according to the dosageprescribed. [71] You will participate in and complete to the satisfaction of your probation officer any sexual offender treatment program. [72] You will attend for and participate in any psychiatric or psychological assessments, counselling, treatment, or educationalprogram at any Forensic Psychiatric outpatient clinic as may be directed and to the satisfaction of your probation officer. [73] You must have no contact, direct or indirect, with P.K.-D. or J.K.-D.

[ 74 ] You must not attend any residence, place of employment, or educational facility where P.K.-D. or J.K.-D. may be present. [ 75 ] You must have no contact with any children under the age of 16, unless accompanied and supervised by a designated adult approved of by the probation officer. [ 76 ] You are not to engage in any activities and/or employment and/or volunteer work that would bring you into contact with children under the age of 16 without the prior written authorization of your probation officer. [ 77 ] You are not to enter into any romantic relationship with any person who has children under the age of 16, until such time as you have advised your probation officer of the name and contact information for that person. [ 78 ] Do you have any other comments or concerns about the terms? [ 79 ] MS.

FALLOON: No, that covered everything, but I was going to ask if the court would consider, in terms of the no contact with children under 16, that the designated adult be approved of in writing by the probation officer. [ 80 ] THE COURT: Thank you, okay. By a person designated and approved of in advance in writing by the probation officer. Now - - [ 81 ] MR. WALSOFF: Sorry, Your Honour, if I might just have one moment? [ 82 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 83 ] MR. WALSOFF: Thank you, Your Honour. [ 84 ] THE COURT: All right.

Pursuant to s. 743.21, you are prohibited from communicating, directly or indirectly, with J.K.-D. or P.K.-D. for the term of your custodial sentence. [ 85 ] Pursuant to s. 487.051, as this is a primary designated offence, you will provide a sample of your DNA. [ 86 ] You will also be bound by the Sex Offender Information Registration Act terms for a period of 20 years. [ 87 ] Pursuant to s. 161(1)(b), you are prohibited from attending any public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of 16 years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or a daycare centre, schoolground, playground, or community centre, from seeking, obtaining, or continuing any employment, whether or not the employment is remunerated, or becoming or being a volunteer in a capacity that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of 16 years.

Those were the two sections that you wanted covered for that? [ 88 ] MS. FALLOON: (

a) and (b), Your Honour. [ 89 ] THE COURT: Yes. All right, and I think that then takes care of all the ancillary orders as well. [ 90 ] MS. FALLOON: My friend is just inquiring about DNA, I don't remember what the -- [ 91 ] MR. WALSOFF: I think when they're in custody, I think, I'm just looking to the sheriffs -- [ 92 ] THE COURT: It is just going to happen -- [ 93 ] MR. WALSOFF: It is done forthwith, right? [ 94 ] THE COURT: Yes, it is, I think it will be done either by the sheriffs immediately or as soon as he is taken into custody. [ 95 ] THE SHERIFF: That is correct. [ 96 ] THE COURT: Good luck, Mr.

Q. [ 97 ] MR. WALSOFF: The victim fine surcharge, Your Honour? [ 98 ] THE COURT: Oh, yes, I suppose we are still in a position on this matter where that can be waived. [DISCUSSION RE TRANSCRIPTS AT 11:51:43 TO 11:52:31] [ 99 ] MS. FALLOON: Count 1 was amended to include the time period within 1 and 2, correct? Okay, I am directing a stay of proceedings on Counts 2 and 3. [ 100 ] MR. WALSOFF: Okay, what he's -- sorry, he's just asked me a point, that he has advised that Your Honour, in your reasons, commented that he had -- was serving a sentence.

Apparently the sentence expired in September. [ 101 ] THE ACCUSED: September 1st. [ 102 ] MR. WALSOFF: In September, I don't know if that was brought to Your Honour's attention. [ 103 ] THE COURT: No, it was not, but it would not have made a difference with respect to the sentence in any event, Mr. Q. (REASONS CONCLUDED)