R. v. Fisher Date:, 2017 BCPC 92

Citation: R. v. Fisher Date: 20170314 2017 BCPC 92 File No: 62214-2-KC Registry: North Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. LEONARD ALLEN FISHER ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J. CHALLENGER Counsel for the Crown: J.B. MacFarlane Counsel for the Defendant: M. Camley

Place of Hearing: North Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: March 14, 2017 Date of Judgment: March 14, 2017 [ 1 ] THE COURT: Leonard Allen Fisher pled guilty to one count of aggravated assault and one count of uttering threats. The offences arose on September 26, 2015, in North Vancouver. The victim is his wife. The aggravated assault is an indictable offence with a maximum sentence of 14 years' imprisonment. A conditional sentence is not available. His pleas were entered on July 13, 2016.

A presentence report, psychological assessment, and a Gladue report were before the court for consideration at the sentencing hearing which took place in First Nations Court on January 18, 2017. Circumstances of the Offence [ 2 ] Mr. Fisher went out for the evening. He had wanted the victim to accompany him, but she declined to do so. He returned home sometime around midnight. He was under the influence of alcohol and angry. He telephoned his son and had a lengthy conversation with him. He then attacked his wife because she made a comment he found demeaning. He began punching her in the face and head.

She went to the floor and he put his knee in her throat which obstructed her breathing and repeatedly punched her in the face while saying, "Tonight is the night when you are going to die." [ 3 ] The victim attempted to calm him and succeeded in getting him to stop. She had suffered significant injuries and was bleeding from her nose and a cut to her head. The offender allowed her to go to the washroom to clean up and got her some ice. They lay down and he told her he was sorry. Once he was asleep, she went to see her mother who lived with them and the police were contacted. Mr.

Fisher was asleep when they attended. He was cooperative when arrested. Victim Impact [ 4 ] The victim's entire face and her eyes were contused and swollen and she had a cut to her forehead. She suffered fractures to both orbital bones. The fracture to her right orbital bone was displaced and required a plate to stabilize it. She underwent surgery and was required to sleep sitting up for approximately six months. She was unable to work for seven months. She lived with the risk of vision damage throughout her recovery. She continues to have numbness on her face.

There is a slight deformity to her right eye which although not disfiguring, it is noticeable to her and is a constant reminder of the incident. The victim continues to experience symptoms of posttraumatic stress. [ 5 ] She and the offender had been together since 1999. According to Mr. Fisher, they had been experiencing issues in their relationship starting in 2012 and separated for a number of months at the end of 2013 and into 2014. Despite these issues, he had never been violent with her until the subject incident.

As a result, the attack upon her was utterly unexpected and, at the time it was occurring, she believed he was intending to kill her. The victim is fearful Mr. Fisher will return to her home and has developed a safety plan with her neighbours. She continues to have nightmares. Her mother is also experiencing the effects of the trauma and continues to have nightmares and be fearful. [ 6 ] The victim has required medication to deal with the emotional and psychological impact of the assault. Due to her extensive blood loss, the victim's home had to be professionally cleaned and many items had to be replaced.

She has had feelings of shame and has been subjected to threats of revenge by males in her community for reporting the crime to the police. The victim had obtained her MBA recent to the offence and was in the process of developing her own business. Due to the injuries she sustained, she was unable to earn income or grow her business during her long recovery. Antecedents of the Offender [ 7 ] Mr. Fisher is 53. Through his father, he is a member of the Tzeachten First Nation whose members are of the Stó:lō Peoples of the Fraser Valley. His mother is of Scottish and Italian heritage.

He and his mother now share a residence. His mother's family is in the Maritimes and he has had little contact with them over his life. He describes his mother as a kind, dedicated, and hard-working parent. He has a number of siblings who reside in the Lower Mainland and he is in contact with them. He has one son from a previous relationship who is an adult and works as a marine biologist. They share a close relationship. It is of note that no one in his family was contacted to provide collateral information for either the presentence report or the Gladue report. [ 8 ] Mr.

Fisher is currently employed as a brick mason. He obtained a Grade 12 education. As a young adult, he trained as a bicycle mechanic and as a brick mason as well as attending some general studies courses at college. He worked for 15 years as a lighting technician. He also obtained a certificate in radio communications and has contributed his skills to a number of indigenous radio programs and artists often at no charge. At the time of the offences, he was enrolled in a graphic design course.

In addition to his studies, he was also working as a volunteer for several candidates running in the federal election. [ 9 ] Mr. Fisher does not have any physical or diagnosed mental health issues either currently or historically. A year prior to commencing his relationship with the victim, he experienced the loss of a partner which deeply affected him. He reported he was experiencing ongoing stress, anxiety, and depression prior to committing these offences and was periodically self-medicating with alcohol to deal with these issues. A lack of income contributed to the stress he was experiencing at the time. Mr.

Fisher does not have a day-to-day issue with alcohol abuse, but does have a history of overconsumption which has led to acting out violently. [ 10 ] Mr. Fisher has a dated criminal history. In 1993, there is a conviction for mischief which related to breaking the door to the residence of the mother of his son. In 1994, he was convicted for an assault which resulted in a suspended sentence for two years. In 1997, he was convicted for an assault causing bodily harm which resulted in a fine and probation. There was one conviction for breach of probation for failure to report in relation to the 1997 conviction.

The last conviction is in 1999 for spousal assault for which he

received a jail sentence of three months and probation for two years. The latter two convictions for assault were alcohol-related. [ 11 ] Mr. Fisher has not consumed alcohol since the night of the offences. He attended Round Lake in the spring of 2016, but completed only two weeks of the program. He has begun to practice Buddhism and attended a 10-day silent retreat in November of 2016. He finds his meditation practice to be of assistance in addressing his emotional issues. He has also been attending counselling. Gladue Considerations [ 12 ] Mr. Fisher identifies primarily with his Indigenous heritage. Mr.

Fisher's paternal grandmother and her extended family are residential school survivors. He spent a great deal of time as a child and young person with his paternal grandparents who involved him in Stó:lō cultural practices including the smokehouse and the Shaker Church. [ 13 ] His grandmother became pregnant with Mr. Fisher's father after being sexually assaulted and his father felt stigmatized by this fact. His grandfather resented his father's paternity and frequently beat him. Mr. Fisher's father abused alcohol during his upbringing.

At times, his parents separated for lengthy periods due to his father's infidelity. [ 14 ] Mr. Fisher was not physically abused, but describes his father as a "hard man" who had been in the merchant marine. He endured repeated tirades when his father would come home in the middle of the night intoxicated. His father lectured him about the existence of bigotry against Indigenous Peoples and the injustices which have been inflicted on them. His father instilled in him a belief that he needed to be better than any white man in order to succeed. He also forced him to do push-ups to toughen him up.

His father did not speak to him about these issues when he was sober. His father passed in 2012 and Mr. Fisher reports he feels he has unresolved issues concerning his relationship with him. [ 15 ] Over his life, Mr. Fisher has faced the widespread prejudice against Indigenous people which permeates mainstream culture in Canada. Mr. Fisher also experienced the effects of intergenerational trauma around him in the Stó:lō community and the Squamish Nation community. Attitude and Understanding [ 16 ] The probation officer reports that Mr. Fisher is sincerely remorseful and deeply ashamed of his conduct.

He is willing to comply with any conditions of probation imposed including participating in any counselling or programming to assist in his rehabilitation. This is consistent with the findings in the psychological assessment, the Gladue report, and Mr. Fisher's comments during the proceedings. He also wishes to engage in culturally-related healing and reconciliation practices. [ 17 ] The presentence report reflects that historically Mr. Fisher had difficulties while on community supervision.

On one occasion while on bail for these offences, he was agitated and disrespectful to his bail supervisor. [ 18 ] The psychological assessment states Mr. Fisher presents: ... a low to moderate risk for violence. He generally appears to be a well-socialized individual who lives a non-criminal lifestyle. He struggles with high expectations and hypersensitivity to the perceptions of others because of his First Nations heritage and indoctrination of his father about being able to rise above cultural and racial stereotypes.

He appears to be very sensitive to slights and insults and his anger is most likely to be evident in such circumstances. [ 19 ] It also observes that: Aggression is most likely to occur as a result of over-controlling his emotions until they are too intense to manage. Acts of violence are most likely to take place in times of extreme stress when he is triggered by issues of personal esteem and disinhibited by alcohol. [ 20 ] Mr. Fisher did not advise the psychologist that two of his previous convictions for assault involved his intimate partners or that the mischief related to the mother of his son.

He also stated he did not know what charges he had pled guilty to. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors [ 21 ] This offence is deemed aggravated by statute as it was committed against the offender's spouse. An offence of violence against a family member is a breach of an intimate and trusting relationship. The assault was prolonged and brutal. It resulted in significant and lasting injury, physically and mentally, to the victim and traumatized her elderly mother. All of the blows were to the victim's face and head. Mr.

Fisher has a prior criminal history for assault, two of which were against intimate partners. [ 22 ] In mitigation, Mr. Fisher entered a guilty plea. There is a long hiatus between his prior criminal history and this offence. He is remorseful and accepts full responsibility for his criminal conduct. He took meaningful steps prior to the sentencing hearing to address his rehabilitation. He is willing to pursue further treatment and counselling to address his low to moderate risk for future violence. His prospects for achieving his rehabilitation are strong.

He is otherwise prosocial and has the support of his family, friends, and his home Indigenous community. [ 23 ] Mr. Fisher lost his wife and his marriage and his home. He has entered into a voluntary banishment from the lands of the Squamish Nation. His reputation has been damaged in the community at large and with his family and his son. He has been bound by strict terms of judicial interim release and has abided by those terms since his release. Positions of Counsel [ 24 ] Counsel for the Crown submits that an appropriate sentence is two years less a day to be followed by a lengthy period of probation.

They also seek a DNA order as the aggravated assault is a primary designated offence. A 10-year weapons prohibition under s. 109 is mandatory.

[25] Counsel for Mr. Fisher submits that a custodial sentence should not be imposed because the principles of sentence, in particular,the provisions of s. 718.2(e), can be met through a suspended sentence with the maximum allowable terms of probation of three years. The defence submits that due to the reduced moral culpability of the offender arising from the factors addressed in R. v. Gladue, (SCC), [1999] S.C.J. No. 19; R. v. Wells, 2000 SCC 10; and R. v.

Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, and taking into account his effortsat rehabilitation, his demonstrated remorse, and acceptance of responsibility, this would be an innovative and appropriate sentence. Principles and Range of Sentence [26] The range of sentence for offences of aggravated assault against an intimate partner is broad and, as in all sentencingdeterminations, the appropriate sentence depends on the specific circumstances of each offender and offence. In R. v.

Craig, 2005BCCA 484, at paragraph 10, the court found that the range of sentence for aggravated assault in similar circumstances and for similaroffenders was in the range of 16 months to six years. The nature and extent of the violence perpetrated is an important consideration. Where an assault is particularly brutal or prolonged and/or when weapons are used and significant and lasting injury is inflicted, this willgenerally result in a custodial sentence toward the upper end of the range.

In such circumstances, a prior criminal history for violenceand, in my view, especially that involving an intimate partner, will further mitigate in favour of a lengthy sentence. Sentences at the lowrange involve altercations which escalate and result in serious injury. [27] It is open to the court to impose a suspended sentence and R. v. Peters, 2010 ONCA 30, is relied upon by the defence to supportthis proposition. Ms. Peters was in her mid-20s and was Aboriginal. The victim was an acquaintance. The offender and the victim wereintoxicated and arguing in a bar. They were separated by the offender's boyfriend.

Ms. Peters picked up a beer bottle, lunged past themale, and struck the bottle across the victim's head breaking it. She followed through with her swing down across the victim's facecausing serious lacerations. The victim required stitches, had significant scarring and ongoing facial pain, headaches, eye spasm, andfacial asymmetry. [28] Ms. Peters was raised in a home characterized by violence and alcohol abuse. She was suspected to have foetal alcohol effects. She was abused by many of the adults in her life from the time she was a toddler. She went on to abuse alcohol and had difficultiesmanaging her anger.

She had two convictions as a youth for assault. In one, she punched a former boyfriend in the head and the otherinvolved her mother. After the aggravated assault offence, she took steps to turn her life around and had done so by the sentencinghearing and continued to flourish up to the hearing of the appeal. [29] I find the Peters case to be distinguishable on several grounds. First, the victim was not the offender's spouse. The accusedwas still relatively young. She had been seriously impacted by the ongoing consequences of the assimilation policies andintergenerational trauma.

She had a less serious criminal history and her efforts at rehabilitation were herculean. [30] Counsel for Mr. Fisher also relied on R. v. Jacko, 2010 ONCA 452, which concerned a male of Aboriginal heritage with a youthhistory for violence who participated in a violent home invasion at the age of 19. He was granted a conditional sentence of two yearsless a day. The offender was 23 by the time the appeal was heard and had turned his life completely around.

He was sober, prosocial,married with two children, and self-supporting. [31] I have also considered all the provisions of ss. 718, 718.1, and 718.2 of the Criminal Code and, in particular, 718.2(

e) as it hasbeen interpreted and applied in Gladue, Wells, and Ipeelee. I have given specific attention to the guidance provided in these cases andthose relied on by counsel concerning the application of the law to offences of serious violence committed by Aboriginal offenders. Thenature of this offence requires that the court give significant weight to the principles of denunciation and general deterrence and I haveweighed these principles carefully against the Gladue considerations which impact this offender. [32] I have again considered the oft-cited passages from the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v.

M.(C.A.), (SCC),[1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at paragraph 79 to 81 which bear repetition here, citations omitted: 79 Retribution, as an objective of sentencing, represents nothing less than the hallowed principle that criminal punishment, inaddition to advancing utilitarian considerations related to deterrence and rehabilitation, should also be imposed to sanction the moralculpability of the offender. In my view, retribution is integrally woven into the existing principles of sentencing in Canadian law throughthe fundamental requirement that a sentence imposed be "just and appropriate" under the circumstances.

Indeed, it is my profound beliefthat retribution represents an important unifying principle of our penal law by offering an essential conceptual link between theattribution of criminal liability and the imposition of criminal sanctions. With regard to the attribution of criminal liability, I haverepeatedly held that it is a principle of "fundamental justice" under s. 7 of the Charter that criminal liability may only be imposed if anaccused possesses a minimum "culpable mental state" in respect of the ingredients of the alleged offence. ...

It is this mental state whichgives rise to the "moral blameworthiness" which justifies the state in imposing the stigma and punishment associated with a criminalsentence. ... I submit that it is this same element of "moral blameworthiness" which animates the determination of the appropriatequantum of punishment for a convicted offender as a "just sanction".

As I noted in Martineau in discussing the sentencing scheme formanslaughter under the Code, it is a recognized principle of our justice system that "punishment be meted out with regard to the level ofmoral blameworthiness of the offender" ... 80 However, the meaning of retribution is deserving of some clarification. The legitimacy of retribution as a principle of sentencinghas often been questioned as a result of its unfortunate association with "vengeance" in common parlance. ...

But it should be clear frommy foregoing discussion that retribution bears little relation to vengeance, and I attribute much of the criticism of retribution as aprinciple to this confusion. As both academic and judicial commentators have noted, vengeance has no role to play in a civilized systemof sentencing. ... Vengeance, as I understand it, represents an uncalibrated act of harm upon another, frequently motivated by emotionand anger, as a reprisal for harm inflicted upon oneself by that person.

Retribution in a criminal context, by contrast, represents anobjective, reasoned and measured determination of an appropriate punishment which properly reflects the moral culpability of theoffender, having regard to the intentional risk-taking of the offender, the consequential harm caused by the offender, and the normativecharacter of the offender's conduct. Furthermore, unlike vengeance, retribution incorporates a principle of restraint; retribution requiresthe imposition of a just and appropriate punishment, and nothing more. As R. Cross has noted in The English Sentencing System ...

"Theretributivist insists that the punishment must not be disproportionate to the offender's deserts."

81 Retribution, as well, should be conceptually distinguished from its legitimate sibling, denunciation. Retribution requires that a judicial sentence properly reflect the moral blameworthiness of that particular offender. The objective of denunciation mandates that a sentence should also communicate society's condemnation of that particular offender's conduct. In short, a sentence with a denunciatory element represents a symbolic, collective statement that the offender's conduct should be punished for encroaching on our society's basic code of values as enshrined within our substantive criminal law.

As Lord Justice Lawton stated in R. v. Sargeant ... "society, through the courts, must show its abhorrence of particular types of crime, and the only way in which the courts can show this is by the sentences they pass". The relevance of both retribution and denunciation as goals of sentencing underscores that our criminal justice system is not simply a vast system of negative penalties designed to prevent objectively harmful conduct by increasing the 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 negative consequences to undesirable behaviour, judicial sentences should also be imposed in a manner which positively instills the basic set of communal values shared by all Canadians as expressed by the Criminal Code . Analysis [ 33 ] Mr. Fisher has clearly demonstrated his acceptance of responsibility and remorse by the steps he has taken to address his rehabilitation and by his efforts to develop an understanding of the factors which contributed to his criminal conduct.

In my view, he continues to minimize his abuse of alcohol and must dedicate himself to maintaining his sobriety in the long term. I find his level of intoxication on the night in question does not mitigate the offence nor does it reduce his moral blameworthiness; see Craig at paragraph 15 . [ 34 ] Mr. Fisher also needs to continue to address the psychological and emotional issues identified in the assessment to gain a better understanding of what factors contribute to his inability to manage his insecurity and anger.

I find he is willing and able to remain sober, to continue counselling, and to develop his spirituality. By following this path, his risk to reoffend will be very low. The principles of specific deterrence and the need to separate this offender to protect the public are not in issue. [ 35 ] I find Mr. Fisher's moral culpability is reduced due to his Indigenous background and experience. However, Mr. Fisher had the benefit of a generally good upbringing which was not characterized by neglect and violence or chronic substance abuse.

He succeeded in his education and has been able to maintain employment throughout his adult life. His life circumstances are unlike so many Indigenous persons such as the offenders in the Peters and Jacko cases referred to above who managed to recover from longstanding addictions, address and come to terms with their profound developmental trauma, pursue education, and lift themselves out of poverty.

It is often appropriate to impose an innovative and exceptional sentence for offenders with these life circumstances. [ 36 ] The victim is from a prominent family and is herself a prominent member of the Squamish Nation. She is deeply involved in her culture and speaks the Squamish language. She is also well known and highly regarded on the national level due to her efforts to achieve recognition of Indigenous rights and culture. Mr. Fisher reported feeling like an outsider or second-class citizen in the victim's family and community.

He has lifelong feelings of inadequacy concerning both his identity as an Indigenous person and his frustration at being unable to meet his expectations with respect to contributing meaningfully to the betterment of the conditions of his people. [ 37 ] The victim attended and participated in the sentencing proceeding. She impressed the court as being a very positive and healthy person. I accept she contributes substantially to her community, to all Indigenous Peoples, and to Canadian society as a whole. [ 38 ] Based on all the materials and submissions, I find Mr.

Fisher resented the victim's stature and felt diminished by it. He also felt unappreciated in his home life. The offences occurred because Mr. Fisher's entrenched feelings of inadequacy and insecurity in combination with his longstanding envy and resentment of the victim's position of prestige and influence, in particular with respect to the federal election campaign, erupted in uncontrollable rage. He was disinhibited by the overconsumption of alcohol and exhaustion.

He engaged in a vicious and prolonged assault which I infer was intended at the time to disfigure the victim's face. [ 39 ] In First Nations Court proceedings, the direct victims of offences, their family members, friends, or community representatives are encouraged to attend to speak to the impact of the offence and often speak to the circumstances in the context of the effects of colonization and the assimilation policies.

Their presence and contributions to the proceeding often constitute both victim or community impact statements and serve as a means to achieve reconciliation between the offender and victims and their community.

It also serves to assist the court in developing a better understanding of the perceptions and points of view of the Indigenous persons or Indigenous communities impacted by the offences. [ 40 ] In order to facilitate meaningful participation, it is important that those who wish to speak either to the impact of the offence or to the circumstances of the offender are not encumbered or intimidated by the complicated rules of evidence and relevance which properly apply in any sentencing proceeding.

The use to which victim or community impact may be put in determining an appropriate sentence is difficult for many laypeople to fully understand.

It falls to the court to consider only that which is appropriate at law and not to consider or give weight to those matters which fall outside the legal parameters. [ 41 ] Due to the nature of the some of the comments made in this manner, I wish to make clear I have taken care to consider only those matters which I am legally permitted to consider and I hope these reasons are transparent in that regard. [ 42 ] There is one issue I feel the need to address in more detail. It was suggested by a lay participant that the court should impose a more punitive sentence against Mr.

Fisher due to the very positive attributes of the victim which I have set out above. These have been addressed in my judgment solely for the purpose of illustrating the psychological dynamic which I believe contributed to Mr. Fisher's criminal conduct. [ 43 ] Under Canadian law, it is not appropriate to impose a sentence which takes into account some notion of the "relative worth" of a victim as a member of our society. It is not an aggravating factor that, in the eyes of some, the victim is highly regarded or exceptionally prosocial.

This can best be illustrated by considering the repugnancy of the opposite proposition. If we assume the same circumstances of the offence and offender, it would not be appropriate for the court to impose a less punitive sentence because the victim is not educated, unemployed, and socially isolated. It cannot be a mitigating factor that the victim is "not an important person" in the eyes of

some. [ 44 ] In all the circumstances of this offender and this offence, I find I must impose a sentence which will clearly communicate society's condemnation of Mr. Fisher's conduct. I find his vicious and explicable attack on his wife with the intent to disfigure her face encroaches on our shared values in a fundamentally harmful manner. A strong message must be sent that such conduct in the context of marital or familial relationship will be met with significant consequences for people of all backgrounds. I find the need for denunciation and general deterrence outweighs the Gladue considerations related to Mr.

Fisher's Aboriginal background, his rehabilitative interests, and any prospects for reparation. [ 45 ] In considering the length of the term of incarceration which must be imposed, I have again considered s. 718.2 (

e) as it has been interpreted and applied. I cannot find that a sentence at the lowest end of the range is appropriate. [ 46 ] Mr. Fisher, if you will stand. [ 47 ] Mr. Fisher, I am imposing a sentence of incarceration for two years less a day to be followed by probation for two years. [ 48 ] You may be seated. [ 49 ] Before turning to the terms of probation, I will address some of the ancillary orders.

First, under s. 743.21, you must have no contact direct or indirect with Sheryl Fisher during your term of custody. [ 50 ] You must provide a sample of your DNA on a primary ground basis and, pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code , you will be subject to a 10-year mandatory firearm prohibition.

However, given your criminal history, I am imposing that prohibition for life on a discretionary basis. [ 51 ] With respect to the terms of probation, you will keep the peace and be of good behaviour, and appear before the court when required to do so by the court. [ 52 ] You must report to a probation officer at 100, 233 West 1st Street in North Vancouver within 72 hours of your release from custody and report thereafter as and when directed. [ 53 ] You must provide your current residential address to the probation officer and not change that without their prior written permission. [ 54 ] You will have no contact direct or indirect with Sheryl Rivers (Fisher) or her mother Audrey Rivers. [ 55 ] You are not to attend to any residence, place of employment or place of education at which you know Sheryl Rivers (Fisher), and/or Audrey Rivers to reside, work or attend. [ 56 ] You must abstain absolutely from the possession or consumption of alcohol or any drugs or substances scheduled in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , save and except according to a medical prescription and then only according to the dosage prescribed. [ 57 ] You must attend for, accept, and complete to the satisfaction of your probation officer any counselling, to include but not limited to respectful relationships counselling, anger management counselling, or substance abuse management counselling. [ 58 ] You are not to be found in possession of any weapons or imitation weapons as defined by the Criminal Code of Canada. [ 59 ] You are not to possess any knives except for the immediate preparation or consumption of food or such knives as are necessary to carry out the duties of your employment at your place of employment. [ 60 ] Are there any other terms of probation?

I note they are not addressed in the presentence report. [ 61 ] MR. MACFARLANE: Just as I am rising, the non-communication order, both under 743.21 and then the probation order should have an exception through counsel. There are probably going to be divorce proceedings -- [ 62 ] THE COURT: Oh, I see, okay. [ 63 ] MR. MACFARLANE: -- ongoing, so both the 743.21 and on the probation order. [ 64 ] THE COURT: Yes, okay. [ 65 ] MR. MACFARLANE: Beyond -- [ 66 ] THE COURT: Except through legal counsel. [ 67 ] MR. MACFARLANE: Beyond that, no. [ 68 ] MS. CAMLEY: And, Your Honour, Mr. Fisher has some possessions at Ms.

Rivers' home that he would -- we have been -- have been in contact with my friend about making those arrangements, so an exception to the no-contact to make arrangements to have those picked up and -- [ 69 ] MR. MACFARLANE: There are third parties agreed -- [ 70 ] MS. CAMLEY: Yes.

[ 71 ] MR. MACFARLANE: -- on by both parties -- [ 72 ] THE COURT: Oh, okay. [ 73 ] MR. MACFARLANE: -- by Ms. Rivers and through counsel. So I do not think that a specific order needs to be -- [ 74 ] THE COURT: No, I think if we said, "Through counsel," that should -- [ 75 ] MR. MACFARLANE: Okay. [ 76 ] THE COURT: -- cover that. [ 77 ] MS. CAMLEY: Thank you. [ 78 ] THE COURT: Those are all the necessary ancillary orders, as well, in this matter? [ 79 ] MR. MACFARLANE: 109, DNA, 743, made those. That is it. [ 80 ] THE COURT: Okay, thank you.

Madam Clerk, we will just stand down briefly while -- [ 81 ] THE CLERK: With respect to Count 2? [ 82 ] MR. MACFARLANE: Stay of proceedings. [REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED]