R. v. C.K.B. Date:, 2012 BCPC 482

Citation: R. v. C.K.B. Date: 20121214 2012 BCPC 0482 File No: 60040 Registry: Chilliwack IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. C.K.B. REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J. G. COHEN Counsel for the Crown: Mr. P. Blessin Counsel for the Defendant: Ms. S. Paterson Place of Hearing: Chilliwack , B.C. Dates of Hearing: October 31, November 23 and December 14, 2012 Date of Judgment: December 14, 2012

[ 1 ] On October 31, 2012, the defendant herein pleaded guilty to count 2, on Indictment number 60040–1, an offence commonly referred to as sexual interference with a young person by someone in a position of trust or authority, contrary to

Section 151 of the Criminal Code of Canada . [ 2 ] On that same date, he also pleaded guilty to two other charges. These are charges of having breached the conditions of his bail (contrary to Section 145(3) of the Criminal Code ) and are set out in Informations numbered 60040–2A and 60040–3A. [ 3 ] This court is now called upon to impose the appropriate sentence. [ 4 ] The defendant came before the court for his sentencing on a day that the court was also required to deal with many other people’s matters.

As this sentencing raised serious issues which required consideration, this matter was adjourned first for the taking of further submissions and then to today for the imposition of sentence.

FACTS [ 5 ] The defendant is the stepfather of the complainant in this matter. [ 6 ] He commenced living with the complainant’s mother when the complainant was about five years of age and he then married her mother when the complainant was about eight years old. [ 7 ] One day near the end of the summer of 2011, when the complainant was 13 years old, the defendant went into her bedroom and he lay down on her bed with her in what is described as a ‘spoon’ position. [ 8 ] Soon thereafter the actions of the defendant escalated to include kissing, fondling and eventually oral sex and vaginal intercourse.

Telling his stepdaughter that he had a vasectomy so he could not get her pregnant, he proceeded with this sexual contact with no condom. [ 9 ] In March of 2012, the complainant had an argument with her mother. During that argument, the mother made contact with the defendant by phone.

The complainant stomped out of the room but, in leaving, told the mother that she was sleeping with her husband, the defendant. [ 10 ] The defendant at first denied any wrong-doing and claimed that the complainant was lying. [ 11 ] Eventually the defendant said he would not admit anything over the phone but he agreed to meet with the mother and, in person, he admitted the sexual contact. [ 12 ] The only difference between the facts as alleged by the complainant and those acknowledged by the defendant is that the complainant stated that acts of oral sex were performed and that there were about 20 incidents of vaginal intercourse; the last one being just two days before she told her mother about them.

The defendant, on the other hand, stated that there was only one unsuccessful incident of oral sex and only four or five incidents of intercourse. [ 13 ] Once these offences were reported, the defendant was charged and placed on bail with conditions that he not attend at any public parks or school yards where persons under the age of 16 are present. [ 14 ] On the 4 th day of June 2012, he was found on the grounds of a private school clearly in breach of his bail condition.

On arrest, he provided the explanation that he was there to pick up a cousin. [ 15 ] He was again released on bail with a condition not to be found in any public parks or school yards where persons under the age of 16 are present. [ 16 ] On the 9 th day of September 2012, he was found in a park where children were present; next to a school where children were present in large numbers.

Once again he was arrested and this time he explained that he was there performing volunteer work. [ 17 ] He has been held in a detention centre since that date. [ 18 ] These events have had a substantial impact on the complainant: she has twice attempted suicide; she has lost trust and innocence; she has lost her home; and she has even lost her family. She is ashamed of her

part in these acts. She is depressed, on medication and in counseling. It is clear that she has been traumatized by the actions of the man she called ‘dad’. [ 19 ] This 32 year-old defendant comes before the court with a serious criminal record.

His first conviction was when he was 15 yeas old and he has since amassed a record with 33 entries on it including convictions for B & E, mischief, possession of stolen property, thefts and, as set out at page 7 of the pre-sentence report: “... two Assaults, four Robberies, and two convictions for Forcible Confinement.” That report continued: “He has also been convicted eight times for non-compliance type offences, such as Failure to Appear, Failure to Comply with probation order, and Driving while Disqualified.” [ 20 ] The defendant regularly served sentences measured in days and months through the 1990s.

In November of 1999, he was sentenced on a number of matters to some 28 months in jail and in February of 2000 he was sentenced on three other matters to another 8 months in jail on top of the sentence he was then serving. In March of 2001, he was sentenced on a robbery charge to four years in jail. [ 21 ] These are the facts of the case and the antecedents of the defendant as they were presented to me.

Other Material Considered [ 22 ] I was provided with nine letters of support from family and community members on behalf of the defendant. I have chosen to ignore seven of those letters of support because they contained statements blaming the 13 year-old complainant and suggesting that the 32 year-old adult offender was the victim. These letters should not have been presented to the court. [ 23 ] One letter read that the 13 year-old complainant “is promiscuous and knew exactly what she was doing when she put [defendant] in the position that she did. To only take into account her age would be a mistake.

There are many young ladies her age that know how to twist the situation and do what is necessary to get what they want. Indeed, she is a troubled girl and I pray you take that into account.” This of course ignores the fact that much of what the complainant learned about life was from this stepfather, and it also ignores the facts, as admitted by the defendant, that he went into the complainant’s bedroom and began abusing her in her own room.

She did not pursue him or make efforts to seduce him; rather, he came to her and took away her innocence. [ 24 ] Another of these letters purports to be from a pair of pastors. They state in their letter that “Obviously [complainant] saw what was going on and put her plans into motion and [defendant] fell for it.” It is my hope that these people are not allowed to minister to young people as they clearly have a complete misunderstanding of brain development in adolescents.

This letter of support also ignores the fact that it was the defendant who went to the complainant not the other way around. [ 25 ] To be clear, even if there were evidence that the complainant had made any sort of advances toward the defendant, this would likely not be accepted as a mitigating factor as the defendant is the adult of the pair, not the complainant. [ 26 ] The one thing that I take from these letters is that they are from people who excuse the defendant and place blame on the child. If these are his support people, then he does not have the support of good people around him.

Having good family and community support is often mentioned in the case law as grounds for imposing a lesser sentence and therefore could have been a mitigating factor in sentencing.

Instead, these letters tend to prove that the defendant has the sort of support that excuses this sort of criminal behaviour. [ 27 ] I have considered the two other letters of support which were submitted on the defendant’s behalf, one by the director of the Step-Up Program and the other from the interfaith chaplain at the North Fraser detention centre. [ 28 ] I have also read and considered the victim impact statements prepared and filed by the complainant, her mother and her biological father.

Submissions of Counsel The Joint Submission [ 29 ] Counsel for the crown and counsel for the defense made a joint submission that the appropriate sentence should be ‘time served’ of 51 days (to October 31, 2012) for the two charges of failing to comply with his bail conditions.

They also urged the court to impose a sentence of exactly 2 years on the sexual interference charge followed by three years of probation. [ 30 ] This was argued to be the best possible available sentence as it was the only sentence that would permit the defendant to be under the control of the justice system for a full 5 years; other than a jail sentence of that length or more. [ 31 ] If the court were to impose any sentence greater than 2 years, then no probation order would be possible under our law.

As most prisoners earn some form of early release for good behaviour, it was argued by counsel before me that anything greater than 2 years but less than 5 years in jail would, in reality, be less beneficial to our community as it would provide a shorter period of time that the defendant would be subject to justice system control. [ 32 ] Counsel for the defense argued that the defendant is young and can still make personal changes.

Effect of Joint a Submission [ 33 ] As the sentencing judge, it falls to me to ensure that any sentence imposed is not clearly contrary to the public interest and would not, if accepted, bring the administration of justice into disrepute. This remains the case, even in the face of a joint submission. [ 34 ] In R. v. Peters , 2008 BCCA 446 , Chief Justice Finch (Levine and Frankel JJA concurring) indicated at paragraph 40: “ In the Court below, the Crown in this case never resiled from the original joint submission recommending a long-term offender designation. Mr.

Peters acknowledges that the sentencing judge was not bound by the joint submission, but correctly submits that a joint submission should only be rejected if it is clearly contrary to the public interest and would if accepted bring the administration of justice into disrepute.” [ 35 ] The Doctrine of Comity requires that similar sentences should be imposed on offenders of similar background who commit similar offences. Therefore a court looks at the case law to see what other judges have imposed as sentences in like cases.

It is not up to the trial or sentencing courts to diverge widely from the acceptable range of sentences without Court of Appeal intervention. In R. v. Sipes , 2009 BCSC 285 , Smart J referred to the sound policy reasons behind the comity principle when he stated: “10. The approach advocated in Re Hansard Spruce Mills is not a rule of law; rather, it is a wise and prudent prescription for the exercise of judicial discretion. It will almost always be in the interests of justice for a judge to follow the decision of another judge of the same court on a question of law.

Consistency, certainty, and judicial comity are all sound reasons why this is so. It is for the Court of Appeal to decide whether a judge of this Court has erred, not another judge of the Court.”

The Case Law Provided by Counsel on October 31, 2012 [36] In support of this sentencing submission, counsel provided the following cases: R. v. Hall, 2005 BCCA 566; R. v. W.E.G., 2006BCPC 151; R. v. R.S.H., 2004 BCSC 927; R. v. J.R.L., 2006 BCPC 472; & R. v. S.K.A., 2004 BCPC 586. [37] As this matter came before the court on a day with many other matters, I had little time to review the case law passed up or todo my own research but even a quick review of the material suggested that a more significant jail sentence should be considered. Irelayed that information to counsel.

I then adjourned the imposition of sentence in order to receive a pre-sentence report and to receivefurther jurisprudence from counsel. Case Law Provided by Counsel on November 23, 2012 [38] I had not conducted any further research before the matter came back on for hearing but I had thoroughly reviewed the case lawthat had earlier been provided. As will be explained below, the case law which had been provided on October 31 included cases withsimilar facts but they were not cases in which the defendants had similar antecedents.

I was therefore expecting a different series of casesto be presented at the November 23 hearing. [39] However, when the matter came back before me, counsel provided only one more case; the reasons in the matter of R. v.D.A.C., (BC CA), [1998] B.C.J. No 196. [40] When I pointed out that R. v. Chaput (1996), 84 B.C.A.C. 281 was mentioned in that case, counsel then provided me with acopy of that decision. Analysis of the Case Law

Part 1 – Case Law Provided by Counsel [41] The case of R. v. Hall (BCCA) and the case R. v. R.S.H. (BCSC) (both supra) are trial and appeal decisions in the same matter. That was a case in which there were three events of sexual abuse (fewer than in the case before me) which took place while the childwas aged seven (younger than the complainant in the case before me). The defendant in that matter was sentenced to 22 months in jailtaking into consideration two months of time served. He was 62 years of age and had no criminal record. Further, he was described asmore of an uncle figure than a stepfather.

These differing facts and Mr. Hall’s lack of a criminal record distinguish that case from theone before me. [42] R. v. W.E.G. (supra) is a case of similar facts (the child was a stepdaughter aged 13 when sexual intercourse began) but it isdifferent from the case before me in that, once again, the defendant in that matter had no criminal record. A sentence of 30 months wasimposed. This case is not supportive of the joint submission on sentencing in that it supports a longer sentence on similar facts when thedefendant comes before the court with no criminal record. [43] The 2006 case of R. v.

J.R.L. (supra) was one in which a younger child (aged seven) was assaulted by her stepfather on a singleoccasion for which he was sentenced to two years in jail. The defendant had a record for a prior conviction from 1985 for sexual assaultof a child aged three, during which assault the child was given a sexually transmitted disease. He was also sentenced to 2 years in jail in1985 for that earlier offence. [44] In 2006, the defendant in the J.R.L. matter had only a dated record; even if it was a related one.

Further, he was then beingsentenced for one act of a sexual nature which did not include intercourse and which seems to have been attributable to addiction andsubstance abuse (described as almost an accidental occurrence while the defendant’s abilities were substance impaired). That case is notcomparable to the one before me. [45] In the case of R. v. S.K.A. (supra) the defendant was sentenced to two years less one day in prison plus three years probation.

Itwas a case of historical sexual abuse in that it was a 2004 decision dealing with events against two of S.K.A.’s victims that had takenplace in the early to mid 1980s and against a third victim some ten years later. The three victims were “either stepchildren or biologicalchildren” (paragraph 1).

Although the defendant in that matter perpetrated many forms of sexual abuse against these children, there wasbut one attempted act of intercourse during which penetration did not occur. [46] The facts which make that case more serious than the one before me are that there were more children harmed; they wereyounger than the complainant before me; and the defendant shared a blood relationship with at least one of his victims. The facts whichmake that case less serious are that the sexual abuse of the victims did not include any acts of sexual intercourse.

The decision in thatcase does not clearly set out the extent of the defendant’s criminal record and indeed seems to suggest that he may have had only oneadult conviction for an alcohol driving matter. Even if one accepted that the facts of the S.K.A. case are more serious than the factsbefore me, the S.K.A. case would remain distinguishable when one compares the antecedents of that defendant to those of the defendantbefore me. [47] In the case of R. v. D.A.C., (BC CA), [1998] BCJ No. 196 (BCCA) the defendant was sentenced to serve atotal of one year for three convictions involving two youths.

He was convicted of ‘gross indecency’ and of ‘sexual assault of a femaleunder the age of 14’ for offending against his stepdaughter while she was between the ages of six and 13. He was also convicted of aseparate charge of sexual assault on a 17 year-old person who was not related to him. He offended against his stepdaughter between theyears of 1975 and 1982 and he offended against the 17 year old (the niece of his common law spouse) in 1985. The sexual abuse of hisstepdaughter progressed from touching to one act of intercourse by the time she was 12 years of age.

Ten years later he attempted toforce himself on the 17 year-old person but she successfully fought him off. He was sentenced in 1995 after a trial in 1994. Thatsentence was appealed and the appeal was decided in 1998.

[ 48 ] Once again I find that case to be of little assistance as the defendant in that matter had but one entry on his criminal record which dated back to when he was 25 years old. He was 58 when he faced the sexual assault sentencing. In discussing that dated criminal record, the court stated: "9. These sexual assault cases often present difficult sentencing issues because in many cases, aside from these transgressions, the individuals involved are not persons with any significant criminal record.

For instance in this case, although when he was aged about 25, the respondent here was involved in an attempted theft or robbery, aside from these incidents, he has been without any conviction in the intervening years. In this case, the previous record is not something that I see as having any relevance to the disposition of the present matter." [ 49 ] Even though the defendant in the D.A.C. matter had no criminal record of any relevance and the Court of Appeal still held that the sentence of one year in prison for the three convictions was not a fit sentence.

The court ordered that the one year sentence be increased to two years less one day and stated (at paragraph 16) “Even then, on the facts of this case, such a sentence is at the lower end of the usual spectrum.” [ 50 ] Once again I find this case to be of little assistance in crafting an appropriate sentence in the matter before me, due to the significant difference between the criminal record of the defendant before me and that of the defendant in the D.A.C. case. [ 51 ] We looked at R. v. Chaput ( supra ), because it was mentioned in the D.A.C. case.

Chaput is a case in which the Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of six years for a 63 year-old man convicted of indecently assaulting his stepdaughter between the years of 1960 and 1966 (beginning when the stepdaughter was aged eight and lasting until she was aged 11 or 12). In that case, the offences were described as ‘shocking and aggravated’ and the facts of that case certainly support the use of those descriptive terms. Mr.

Chaput forced his sexual advances on his child on one occasion, he used threats to extort consent from the child on another occasion and he started to force himself on the child on another occasion but the child fought back by putting her own hand in a wringer in order to stop the imminent abuse. The facts of the Chaput case are clearly more serious than those before me but they resulted in a six year jail sentence. [ 52 ] There is an important direction found at paragraph 7 of that case: "7.

This court has, time and time again, said that offences of this type must be severely punished in order to protect children and especially daughters and step-daughters, and to express the community’s concern and condemnation for this type of behavior."

Part 2 – The Court’s Own Research [ 53 ] My review of the cases provided by counsel convinced me that I was not provided with any cases that directly supported the joint submission on sentence. I therefore conducted further research and then provided the names of 10 randomly selected cases (obtained from a basic computer database search) to counsel in advance of imposing sentence. An eleventh case was also provided. [ 54 ] Of the 10 randomly selected cases, the cases of R. v. R.E.M ., 2004 BCPC 387 , R. v. P.H., 2003 BCPC 498 , R. v. T.G.D. , 2012 BCPC 397 , R. v.

R.A.J. , 2010 BCCA 304 were all to distinguishable and irrelevant. [ 55 ] R. v. R.O.A ., 2007 BCSC 525 wherein a sentence of three years was imposed for sexually abusing against a stepdaughter across an 18 month period which resulted in her pregnancy. The abuse was continuous but the defendant had no criminal record. This case is helpful in that the facts are very similar (except for the pregnancy) but, again, the lack of a criminal record remains a significant difference between that case and the one before me. [ 56 ] R. v.

R.E.L. , 2012 BCCA 493 was, to quote from the head-note, an: “Appeal by the accused from his sentence of five years' imprisonment for sexual assault. The accused sexually abused his stepdaughter f or about six years. The assaults began when the victim was six years of age and continued until she was 12. The assaults included fondling, oral sex and attempted intercourse. The accused pleaded guilty. He had no prior record, expressed remorse and had sought treatment.” [ 57 ] The facts of that case included fondling, oral sex and attempted intercourse.

These facts are more serious only in that the abuse continued for years but less serious in that intercourse did not occur and, again, the offender had no criminal record. This case is important, however, in that, while the court upholds the five year sentence, it reminds the courts that s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code places the sentencing goals of denunciation and deterrence ahead of rehabilitation in these sorts of cases. To quote from paragraph 10 of that appeal: “ 10.

The harm to young children that results from sexual assaults is well known, and recognized by the requirement that denunciation and deterrence must be a primary sentencing consideration pursuant to s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code . Such assaults not only violate the child's physical integrity, but erode the child's ability to develop emotional trust, and create the sort of profound and long-lasting consequences that are evident in the appellant's victim.” [ 58 ] R. v.

O.M. , 2009 BCCA 287 is a case in which the Court of Appeal increased a sentence of two years less one day plus three years probation imposed by the trial judge. In that case the defendant offended against his natural daughter for 13 years from age two or three to age 15. He had a prior related conviction. On appeal, the sentence was increased to five years. This case involves more prolonged abuse against a biological daughter. It is more serious than the one before me. [ 59 ] The next case I found was R. v. Pappas , 2005 BCSC 1431 .

The facts of this case are that the accused abused his stepdaughter commencing when she was aged 11 or 12 which abuse progressed from touching and oral sex to sexual intercourse by the time the child was aged 14. The abuse continued until the complainant was aged 17. After reviewing the case law, the court in that matter imposed a five year sentence on facts that were more prolonged and equally as serious as in the case before me but it did so while dealing with a defendant with less serious antecedents or, as the court put it (paragraph 7), “an adult record of relatively minor and unrelated charges.”

[ 60 ] R. v. Lewis , 2006 BCSC 1603 was a case in which a sentence of four years was imposed on a 65 year-old defendant who came before the court with no criminal record, a wife of 40 years, a 40 year long employment history and a supportive family. He had offended against his stepdaughter for years. This was a case of historical abuse and was governed by a prior version of the Criminal Code such that the defendant in that matter was convicted of ‘Rape’ of his stepdaughter. This case has more serious facts but the defendant had no criminal record. There was no early guilty plea. [ 61 ] R. v.

D.E.L., 2006 BCPC 79 is a case with similar facts to the case before me. The defendant in that matter lived with the mother of his 13 year-old stepdaughter. The abuse included touching, masturbation, intercourse and digital penetration across six months. The defendant had a significant criminal record (far less serious than the one of the defendant before me) but it was a record which included a history of non-compliance with community corrections but he suffered from extensive addiction and a traumatic brain injury. He was sentenced to four years in jail after a trial. [ 62 ] R. v.

D.R.W. , 2011 BCPC 462 is a case in which the defendant was sentenced to four years in jail for offending against his stepdaughter. The abuse started just before the complainant’s 14 th birthday and went on for about 20 months. The defendant pleaded guilty but denied that he had intercourse with his victim. That issue was the subject of evidence being called (so it is unlikely that the court granted him any benefit for the early guilty plea). The court accepted that intercourse occurred and sentenced him on that basis. He had a minimal unrelated record.

One further aggravating factor of that case is that the defendant therein used threats and pressure against his victim; something which was not present on the facts before me. Conclusion on the Joint Submission [ 63 ] After reviewing all of the cases provided by counsel and the cases, I found I came to be of the opinion that the joint submission missed the appropriate range of sentencing by about half.

In other words the joint submission was for a sentence that was only about half of what the case law suggested it should be. [ 64 ] I find that a joint submission that misses the mark by that much is one that is contrary to the public interest and would, if accepted, bring the administration of justice into disrepute . [ 65 ] I then considered if there were any factors about this defendant that would justify such a departure from the norm.

I considered the fact that he was abused as a youth but heard little else that would justify any reduction in sentence let alone a significant one. [ 66 ] I therefore decline to follow the joint submission. Analysis [ 67 ] As stated, I am of the opinion that the jointly submitted sentence of two years plus three years probation is not a fit sentence.

I came to be of that opinion for at least three reasons. [ 68 ] The first reason is that the accused before me has a record the likes of which are not reflected in the cases which counsel relied upon when they made their joint submission. [ 69 ] The second reason is that the sentence jointly proposed by crown and defense counsel seems to ignore s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code due to its emphasis on the rehabilitation of the defendant.

The Criminal Code directs the court to place emphasis on denunciation and deterrence rather than rehabilitation when the victims of crimes of abuse are under the age of 18, as in this case. [ 70 ] The third reason is that the accused has a demonstrated lack of ability to follow through with court orders.

Therefore it would be unsafe to consider the three year probation portion of the suggested sentence as creating any true control over the accused and/or any true protection for society. [ 71 ] I find that a sentence of two to three years in jail is within the appropriate range of sentences for this offence when the offender has no criminal record. However, such a sentence is not appropriate when that same offender charged with the same offence comes before the court with a lengthy criminal record. Mitigating Factors [ 72 ] I have considered the rehabilitation of the defendant.

I understand from reading the pre-sentence report that the federal institutions have better and more intense sexual deviation treatment programs. I understand that the defendant sees his incarceration in a federal institution as a positive as it will allow him access to those programs. [ 73 ] I have heard the defendant’s apparently heartfelt apology to the complainant in open court.

I have considered that apology in the context of the information set out in the pre-sentence report (especially at page 10) where it states that the defendant believed that the complainant consented to the abuse and where it also states that he minimizes the impact of his actions on the complainant. [ 74 ] I consider the early guilty plea, the lack of violence, the apology, and the support he provided to his family before the sexual offending commenced as mitigating factors.

I also note that, although the defendant has what can only be described as an horrendous criminal record, until he started to offend against his stepdaughter he was doing much better than his criminal history would have suggested possible. I have taken this into account.

Aggravating Factors [ 75 ] I consider the young age of the complainant, the length of time that abuse continued, the fact that the abuse included unprotected intercourse, the fact that it occurred in the home where the young person is supposed to feel safe, the fact that the accused was in a position of authority over the complainant, the fact that significant emotional trauma was caused and the defendant’s lengthy criminal record as aggravating factors.

The Sentence [ 76 ] Having considered the facts of this case, the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the Criminal Code directions on sentencing and the case law mentioned, I have concluded that a fit and proper sentence is a four year term of imprisonment and I do hereby sentence you on count two of indictment 60040–1 to serve four years in prison without any credit for time served. [ 77 ] I find that the joint submission on sentence regarding the two breach charges of 51 days time served was suggested because of its convenient fit with the joint submission for sentence as it bore no relation to prior sentences this defendant has served for like offences.

In the past, the Defendant served up to 60 days for prior breaches and apparently did not learn well. Further, he was given two chances to obey the orders in this matter and breached both times. However, the defendant has already been in jail awaiting his sentencing since his arrest in September (95 days).

Compared to his prior sentences, the 95 days of time served is a more appropriate submission. [ 78 ] On the first breach charge, Information number 60040–2A, I would likely have ordered you to serve a term of 35 days. [ 79 ] On the second breach charge, Information 60040–3A, I would likely have ordered you to serve a term of 60 days. [ 80 ] Considering the time you have spent in jail while awaiting sentence, instead of serving any further time for those matters, I order that your record show time served of 95 days as a global sentence on informations 60040–2A and 60040–3A. [ 81 ] There will also be a DNA order pursuant to s. 487.051, and I direct that the sample be taken by the RCMP, by the methods set out in the Criminal Code , within 14 days and that the results of that sample are to be included in the DNA database. [ 82 ] There will be a weapons prohibition pursuant to s.109(2)(a)(ii) for 10 years for the weapons in that section, and for life for the weapons set out in s.109(2)(b). [ 83 ] There will be a 20 year term of sex offender registration pursuant to s.490.012. [ 84 ] Finally, the court will also make orders under s.161, both (

a) and (b), for a period of ten years prohibiting you from attending locations or seeking or obtaining employment where people under the age of 16 may be found. [ 85 ] I also make an order under s.743.21 banning the defendant for the period of his incarceration, from contacting, either directly or indirectly, the complainant. ________________________________ The Honourable Judge J.G. Cohen Provincial Court of British Columbia