R. v. Anigbo, 2022 BCPC 207

Citation: R. v. Anigbo 2022 BCPC 207 Date: 20220926 File Nos: 263781-2C 263782-2C Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REX v. EKENE ANIGBO CORRIGENDUM TO THE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE R.P. HARRIS Counsel for the Crown: J. Hermanson Counsel for the Accused: D. Ferguson Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: August 12, 2022 Date of Judgment: September 26, 2022 A Corrigendum was released by the Court on October 12, 2022. The correction has been made to the text and the Corrigendum

is appended to this document. [ 1 ] On October 7, 2021, Mr. Anigbo was arrested and in his possession was a loaded semi-automatic rifle and a loaded semi- automatic handgun. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Anigbo was prohibited from possessing firearms and on probation with a condition prohibiting him from possessing a firearm. Mr. Anigbo was charged and he pled guilty to possessing a firearm and to breach of the prohibition order. The Crown seeks a sentence of 3-5 years less the time served. Counsel for Mr Anigbo seeks a sentence of 3 ½ years less the time served.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCE [ 2 ] On October 7, 2021, the police had Mr. Anigbo under surveillance and during the surveillance they witnessed him carrying several bags from a residence to a waiting taxi. He then took the taxi to a Richmond hotel and he was arrested as he stood in the lobby. [ 3 ] Shortly before his arrest, Mr. Anigbo placed one of his bags in an alcove adjacent to the main hotel desk. A P80 9 mm. semi- automatic handgun was located inside this bag. The handgun was loaded with an illegal extended magazine containing 30 rounds. [ 4 ] Inside a second bag held by Mr.

Anigbo, the police located a black Kel Tec semi-automatic rifle with a folding stock. The rifle was loaded with a magazine containing ten .22 calibre rounds. Also in the bag was an unloaded extended magazine. [ 5 ] At the time of his arrest, Mr. Anigbo was prohibited pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code from possessing firearms. He was also prohibited from possessing firearms by virtue of a probation order. MR. ANIGBO’S CIRCUMSTANCES [ 6 ] Mr. Anigbo is 23 years old. His mother, Ms. Point, is from the Musqueam Nation and his father was a first-generation immigrant of Nigerian decent. Mr.

Anigbo parents separated when he was an infant and shortly thereafter he moved with his mother to Kansas City in the United States. There, they lived with his mother’s new partner, Frank Reynolds. Mr. Reynolds treated Mr. Anigbo like his own child. Mr. Anigbo believed that Mr. Reynolds was his biological father and at the age of 6 or 7 he learned that this was not the case. [ 7 ] In 2005, Ms. Point learned that Mr. Reynolds was addicted to crack cocaine. With this in mind, Ms. Point, Mr. Anigbo and his stepsiblings returned to the Musqueam lands. Shortly thereafter, Mr.

Reynolds died from a drug over dose. [ 8 ] After Mr. Reynolds’ passing, Ms. Point spiralled out of control. According to Ms. Point, she shut down as a mother and threw herself into her work and when she was not working she was drinking. To Ms. Point’s credit, she recognized that she was unable to parent and she felt she was putting her children at risk. She therefore took the courageous and painful steps of notifying the Ministry of Children and Family Development and surrendering her children into Ministry care. [ 9 ] The Ministry responded by placing Mr. Anigbo and his siblings in a home in Richmond. Mr.

Anigbo had difficulty with the transition and he called his mother daily crying. After approximately 8 months, the children moved from Richmond and into Ms. Point’s father’s home. Eventually, the children returned to live with Ms. Point and according to her, she still struggled with her sobriety, however, and to her credit, she has now been sober for five years. [ 10 ] Mr. Anigbo’s moves resulted in him attending different schools. Although, he did not have difficulty with his schoolwork, his behaviour was challenging for school officials. According to Mr.

Anigbo, and as recorded in a Gladue report prepared in April 2021, his mixed racial profile resulted in him being rejected as being “black” or “native”. Mr. Anigbo experienced racism and he frequently fought, resulting in him labelled as a behavioural problem. With this in mind, Mr. Anigbo stopped attending school when he reached grade 11. He hopes to complete his Dogwood requirements while in custody. [ 11 ] Mr. Anigbo has little to no employment history. This is attributable to his lifestyle and to his periods of incarceration.

Despite this, he has some experience working as a tree trimmer, wood chipper, and as a hand on a small fishing boat. [ 12 ] As for drugs and substances, Mr. Anigbo started using marijuana when he was in grade 7 and thereafter he experimented with drugs and now uses them recreationally. Mr. Anigbo started drinking in grade 9 and when he was 19, he identified that he had a drinking problem. In 2021, Mr. Anigbo expressed a willingness to take substance abuse counselling. [ 13 ] Mr. Anigbo has youth criminal convictions commencing when he was 15.

He also has adult convictions for assault, threatening, possessing a prohibited weapon and possessing a firearm without a licence. For the threatening and weapons offences, Mr. Anigbo received an effective 1-year sentence, probation for 3 years and lifetime firearm prohibition. [ 14 ] Sadly, Mr. Anigbo has experienced 5 major losses in his life. These include, his stepfather, 3 uncles and his grandfather who passed approximately 3 years ago. Mr. Anigbo, has a young child; however, and because of his time in custody, Mr. Anigbo has had limited contact with the child. Despite this, Mr.

Anigbo is eager to become an engaged father. [ 15 ] As indicated, Mr. Anigbo is Indigenous by virtue of his mother being from the Musqueam nation He is of mixed race status and this has resulted in him losing his Musqueam identity. [ 16 ] Significantly, and relevant to Mr. Anigbo, his maternal grandparents attended Indian Residential School. In this regard, his grandmother, Ester Sparrow, attended St. Mary’s Indian Residential School where she suffered sexual abuse, physical abuse, and separation from family, siblings, culture, and community support. To date, Ester Sparrow struggles with alcohol and trauma.

Clearly, the harm suffered by his grandparents is generational and it impacts Mr. Anigbo specifically and generally. [ 17 ] The court received letters from Mr. Anigbo’s mother and a, co-authored letter, from his aunt and uncle. In terms of the letters from Mr. Anigbo’s mother, in one she carefully sets out Mr. Anigbo’s family history, his upbringing and the challenges he has faced.

She also describes how Mr. Anigbo’s arrest and incarceration have hardened him. She explains how his current custodial situation hasdepressed him but that she has seen positive changes. In this regard, she recounted how he talks about wanting to be a good father, and apositive role model. [18] In her second letter, Ms. Point, describes how she has witnessed recent changes in her son. Notably, his knowledge of life andtrauma and what it means to be a generational survivor of Indian Residential School.

She also indicates that he is prepared to takecounselling and that he jumped at the prospect of living with his aunt and uncle. [19] In their letter, Mr. Anigbo’s aunt and uncle, Dave and Alison Point, (the Points) outline their connection to Mr. Anigbo and theydescribe their recollection of him as a youngster. They then describe that, in 2013, they moved from Abbotsford to Burwash Landing inthe Yukon. There, they have developed strong connections with the Indigenous community including participating in workshops forrattle making, drum making and medicine.

They also speak to the many programs that would assist Mr. Anigbo in his healing andlearning about his cultural identity. Lastly, and importantly, they offer a home and support for him. [20] In considering Mr. Anigbo’s circumstances, I take judicial notice of the impacts of colonization and the systemic mistreatment ofIndigenous persons.

Specifically, the many discriminatory acts and policies resulting in dislocation from traditional lands and territories,the loss of culture, language, and livelihood, the poverty, the violence, substance abuse, the lower education and how it translates in theover representation of Indigenous persons in the criminal justice system including custodial facilities. [21] I also note how Mr. Anigbo has been personally impacted. Specifically as an Indigenous person of mixed ancestry, he is and hasbeen challenged with many factors that affect Indigenous persons generally. He has experienced racism and discrimination.

He feelsseparated from his community. He was in foster care. He and his family have been affected by substance abuse. He has no job skills; hehas limited employment, and limited education. He has suffered losses in his life and he has experienced violence. POSITION OF THE PARTIES [22] The Crown argues that a fit sentence would be a custodial sentence between 3 and 5 years less time that Mr. Anigbo has spent incustody. In support, the Crown points to the sentencing ranges and highlights that a 30 months sentence is at the low end for firearmoffences and that sentences of 3 – 5 years have been upheld on review.

The Crown also points out, that Mr. Anigbo has a previousfirearm conviction and stresses that were it not for his early guilty plea and Mr. Anigbo’s relative youth combined with the Gladuefactors that a fit sentence would be in the range of 6 to 9 years. The Crown relies on the following: R. v. Holt, 2015 BCCA 302, R. v.Prince, [2020] OJ No. 4373, R. v. Kachuol, 2017 BCCA 292, R. v. Guha, 2012 BCCA 423, R. v. Mills, [2021] BCJ No. 361, R. v. Nur,2015 SCC 15 , [2015] SCJ No. 15, and R. v. Ball, 2014 BCCA 120. [23] Counsel for Mr. Anigbo, points to Mr.

Anigbo’s youth, his early guilty plea and how his status as an Indigenous person reduceshis culpability thus justifying a three and a half year sentence less the time that Mr. Anigbo has served in custody. Defence relies on thefollowing cases: R. v. Sellars, 2018 BCCA 195, R. v. Kachoul, 2017 BCCA 292, R. v. Padda, 2019 BCCA 351, R. v. S.L.W., 2018ABCA 235, R. v. Peeace, 2021 BCPC 256, R .v. Berry, 2021 BCPC 165, and R. v. McKay, 2020 BCPC 139.

PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING [24] A court tasked with imposing a sentence must consider the purposes and principles of sentencing as set out in s. 718 to s. 718.2(f)of the Criminal Code.

Section 718 – sentencing objectives [25] Pursuant to s. 718, the purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful andsafe society by imposing a sentence that is focused on one or more sentencing objective. [26] In my view, and after considering Mr. Anigbo’s personal circumstances and the circumstances of his offence, I conclude that theprimary sentencing objectives are denunciation and deterrence with some consideration directed at Mr.

Anigbo’s rehabilitation. [27] The pressing need for denunciation and deterrence is found in the need to protect society from the pandemic of gun violence andthe illegal possession of guns. In support, I reference Justice Dickson Kachuol at paras. 25-26 where the justice observed: [25] In recent years, Canadian courts have become increasingly concerned by the proliferation of handguns, gun violence and thedire consequences for our society. Guns are inherently, often lethally, dangerous, all the more so when they are possessed for an illicitpurpose.

As a result, their possession and use is highly regulated and, if unlawful, criminalized to ensure public safety, express society’scondemnation and punish offenders.

To the extent possible, courts strive to achieve these goals when imposing sentences for firearms-related offences by prioritizing deterrence and denunciation, following customary sentencing ranges in all but exceptional cases and fullyaccounting for aggravating factors where they exist. [26] As Madam Justice Smith recognised in Guha at para. 30, when an offender possesses a firearm, particularly a handgun, for anillicit purpose, that purpose can only be to threaten or inflict serious bodily harm or death, if and when considered necessary.

Commonsense and human experience suggest no other reasonable explanation or lesser risk posed by possession of this sort. As Crown counselaptly put it, most unlawful possession of loaded firearms represents nothing short of “tragedy in gestation”. By criminalizing suchconduct via s. 95(1), the law intervenes before someone is actually harmed or some other crime actually committed.

By imposing severeexemplary sentences for possession simpliciter, courts support and advance the goals of this intervention. [28] In further support justifying a strong need for denunciation and deterrence, I rely on the numerous public gang shootings, theaccidental killing of 15-year-old Alfred Wong, the mistaken identity shooting of Paul Bennett and cases involving firearms such as;Brown, Peeace, R. v. Robinson, 2020, BCPC 137, and R. v. Olson, 2021 BCSC 61 as but a few tragic examples. [29] As for Mr. Anigbo’s rehabilitation, I remain cautiously optimistic. On a positive note, Mr. Anigbo’s youth and his recent

expressions of wanting to live with the Points and wanting to heal indicates promise. The hope for Mr. Anigbo’s rehabilitation is tempered by observing in the April 2021 Gladue report, the writer observed at page 9; Ekene wishes to take steps to address his childhood traumas and substance misuse. He recognizes the harm he has caused and wants to make permanent changes in his life. … Ekene has reported an understanding of the issues in his life and stated that he is willing to take steps to address them.

Over the course of preparing this report, Ekene reported that he is willing to address the underlying factors that have contributed to the matters before the Court. [ 30 ] Yet and despite Mr. Anigbo’s expressions of wanting to change in 2021, and despite having family support, there is nothing to suggest that he took any steps to follow through on his stated desire to change. In fact, within 6 months of the report, he committed the offences before this Court. PROPORTIONALITY [ 31 ]

Section 718.1 establishes that a fundamental principle of sentencing is proportionality. Proportionality is a cardinal principle of sentencing and it demands that any sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and to the offender’s degree of responsibility. Accordingly, a heavier sentence will result in circumstances where the crime is serious and the offender has a high degree of responsibility: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 . [ 32 ] I find Mr. Anigbo’s offence serious. In this regard, I note the maximum available penalty of 10 years.

I also note the circumstances of the offence in that Mr. Anigbo did not have a licence to possess firearms, the firearms were loaded, one of the firearms had an illegal sized magazine and finally the public location where the offence occurred. [ 33 ] As Mr. Anigbo’s moral culpability, I recognize the link between colonialism, the historical mistreatment of Indigenous persons and how these combine to reduce an Indigenous person’s degree of moral culpability: R. v.

Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13 . [ 34 ] With the above in mind, I conclude that Mr Anigbo’s moral culpability is attenuated by his Indigenous background, specifically, the affects, directly and indirectly, that the historical mistreatment of Indigenous persons have had on Mr. Anigbo. OTHER SENTENCING PRINCIPLES [ 35 ]

Section 718.2 outlines other principles that a court shall take into account before imposing sentence. Below, I discuss the principles relevant to Mr. Anigbo.

Section 718.2 (a) – the sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any aggravating or mitigating circumstances related to the offence or offender. [ 36 ] I find the circumstances of Mr. Anigbo’s offence to be aggravating. He possessed two loaded guns in a public setting while bound by prohibition and probation orders that prohibited him from possessing firearms. His criminal record is also aggravating. In this regard, he has a related firearms conviction. [ 37 ] In terms of mitigation, I find Mr. Anigbo’s guilty plea to be mitigating. The principle behind this finding is discussed in, R. v.

SLW , 2018 ABCA 235 at paras. 32 and 35 : [32 ] Courts treat guilty pleas as mitigating because they are “a genuine demonstration of remorse and a positive step towards rehabilitation”: R v Gaya , 2010 ONSC 434 at para 53 , 255 CCC (3d) 419 ; see also R v Burback , 2012 ABCA 30 at para 21 , 522 AR 352 [ Burback ] . A guilty plea also mitigates because it saves judicial resources and it eliminates the uncertainties inherent in the trial process: R v Edgar , 2010 ONCA 529 at para 111 , 269 OAC 171 ; Burback at para 21 .

In the Court below, the Crown itself acknowledged the mitigating effect of a guilty plea: Transcript, 21/33-34. … [35] On a more practical level, guilty pleas have always served the utilitarian function of conserving scarce court and prosecution resources. Particularly in the post- Jordan era, we would be reluctant to adopt any principle that is a disincentive to accused persons taking responsibility for their actions and instead, perversely, operates as an incentive to “roll the dice” at trial because a guilty plea offers little mitigation when the Crown’s case is strong. [ 38 ] Mr.

Anigbo’s family support, his history and his relative youth are also mitigating.

Section 718.2 (b) – a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences. [ 39 ] Counsel presented a number of authorities that assist with the general principles and provide some guidance regarding the sentences that have been impose. Despite this, I recognize that sentencing is an individualized exercise and that ranges are simply guidelines and they do not represent inflexible boundaries.

Lastly, and always, any sentence imposed must be proportionate. [ 40 ] In Holt , the Crown’s appeal of an 18-month sentence imposed for one count of possessing a loaded restricted handgun was allowed and the sentence was increased to 40 months. The offender was charged after the police stopped him and searched his vehicle. During the search, the police located a backpack containing a firearm and ammunition. The offender was 66, he had no criminal record, he was unemployed and he had a drug problem. [ 41 ] In Prince, the offender received an 8 year sentence for possessing a firearm.

The offender was charged after the police entered his apartment and arrested him while he was holding a handgun. Located in the apartment was a quantity of drugs. The offender was 40, he had a grade 10 education, he was in a relationship and he had a young child. As for his criminal record, he had 38 convictions including convictions for drugs and 3 convictions for possessing loaded firearms. At the time of the offence, the offender was bound by

8 mandatory prohibition orders. As a Black man the offender suffered racism and he experienced physical abuse from his mother. [42] In Kachuol, the Crown’s appeal of a 23 month conditional sentence order was successful, with the Court substituting a 3 year jailsentence. The offender was charged after the police stopped him, searched his vehicle and located a loaded handgun. At the time of theoffence, the offender was prohibited from possessing firearms.

The offender was 23, he had community support, he was helping hismother and shortly before sentencing, he was attacked resulting in traumatic brain injury and weakness to his arm and leg. In consideringthe matter, the Court of Appeal concluded the sentencing judge erred by not characterizing the offender’s conduct as a true crime. Inconsidering an appropriate sentence, Justice Dickson confirmed public safety necessitates that denunciation and deterrence be theprimary sentencing objectives for offences involving firearms.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the sentence imposed departedmarkedly from the sentencing range and resulted in a sentence that was inadequate and unfit. [43] In Guha, the Crown’s appeal of a global sentence of 3 years for possessing a loaded restricted weapon, possessing an oversizedmagazine, and carrying a concealed weapon was allowed and the court imposed a global sentence of 7 years 3 ½ months. The offenderwas charged after the police stopped him for a traffic violation and during the interaction the police searched the offender and theylocated a loaded handgun in his waistband.

The offender was 27, he had drug convictions, a weapons prohibition and he was on bail atthe time of the offence. Ultimately, the court concluded the sentence imposed was unfit. [44] In Mills, the court upheld a 6-year sentence. The offender was charged after the police stopped him and located a loaded handgununder the driver’s seat of his vehicle. The offender was 63, he had a long criminal record with convictions for kidnapping and aggravatedassault. At the time of the offence the offender was prohibited from possessing firearms.

In considering the matter, the court concludedthat a 6-year sentence reflected the ‘mid-point’ and was appropriate given the offender’s record. [45] In Nur, the offender’s 40-month sentence for possessing a firearm was held to be appropriate. The offender was charged after hethrew a gun away while being chased by the police. The gun was a .22 calibre semi-automatic handgun with an oversized magazine. Theoffender was 19, he had family support, he did not have a criminal record, he was attending school and he was described as anexceptional young man.

The Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that the sentence was appropriate. [46] In Sellers, the Crown’s appeal of a suspended sentence was allowed and the court imposed a 2-year conditional sentence order.The offender was charged after the police located a handgun in a vehicle that he was riding in. The offender was 26, Indigenous, and hehad made rehabilitative strides.

In allowing the appeal, the court concluded that the sentencing judge committed an error bymischaracterizing the gravity of the offence thus failing to give adequate weight to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence. [47] In Padda, the offender’s appeal of a 30-month custodial sentence was dismissed. The offender was charged after he waved aprohibited handgun at employees while intoxicated and under the influence of drugs. The offender was a model citizen who contributedgreatly to his community.

The court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate and observed that the sentence was at thebottom of the conventional range and significantly reduced by virtue of the mitigating factors. [48] In Peeace, the offender received a global 30-month sentence after pleading guilty to possession of a loaded saw off rifle. Theoffender was Indigenous, 39, and he had a lengthy criminal record. He struggled with substances and he had mental health challenges. [49] In McKay, the offender received a 21-month conditional sentence after the offender pled guilty to possessing a firearm andassault causing bodily harm.

This case is highly distinguishable from the instant case because the sentence was based on a finding ofexceptional circumstances. [50] In Ball, the court dealt with sentences imposed for breaching prohibition orders and concluded that these offences are “generallyalthough not necessarily” consecutive to other sentences and will they be in the range between 6 and 12 months.

Section 718.2 (e) – particular attention must be given to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. [51]

Section 718.2 (

e) of the Code mandates that all available sanctions that are reasonable should be considered with particularattention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. Justice DeWitt-Van Oosten, in R. v. Billing, 2017 BCSC 1107, commented on theapplication at s. 718.2(

e) at paras. 46 to 53 stated: [46]

Section 718.2(

e) of the Code provides that when imposing sentence, all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that arereasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community, should be considered, with particularattention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. [47] In R. v. Ipeelee; Ladue, 2012 SCC 13, the Supreme Court re-affirmed that s. 718.2(

e) is a "remedial provision designed toameliorate the serious problem of overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in Canadian prisons, and to encourage sentencing judges tohave recourse to a restorative approach to sentencing": at para. 59, citing R. v. Gladue, (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688. [48] In sentencing an Aboriginal offender, the Court must consider: (

a) the unique systemic or background factors which may haveplayed a

part in bringing the particular Aboriginal offender before the courts; and (

b) the types of sentencing procedures and sanctionswhich may be appropriate in the circumstances for the offender because of his or her particular Aboriginal heritage orconnection: Ipeelee, at para. 59. [49] When considering "unique systemic or background factors", the Court must take judicial notice of: [60] … such matters as the history of colonialism, displacement, and residential schools and how that history continues to translateinto lower educational attainment, lower incomes, higher unemployment, higher rates of substance abuse and suicide, and of course highlevels of incarceration for Aboriginal peoples: Ipeelee, at para. 60. [50] The Court must also consider any "individualized information" about the accused person as an Aboriginal offender: Ipeelee, atpara. 60.

[51] Paying close attention to both systemic and individualized factors allows the Court to better achieve a sentence that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. "Many Aboriginal offenders find themselves in situations of social and economic deprivation with a lack of opportunities and limited option for positive development … the reality is that their constrained circumstances may diminish their moral culpability": Ipeelee , at para. 73 . [52] It is not necessary that the offender establish a "causal link" between these background factors and the index offence before the remedial impact of s. 718.2 (

e) is brought to bear: Ipeelee , at para. 81 . This is true even for "serious or violence offences": Ipeelee , at para. 84 . "Systemic and background factors do not operate as an excuse or justification for the criminal conduct. Rather, they provide the necessary context to enable a judge to determine an appropriate sentence": Ipeelee , at para. 83 . [53] Sentencing judges have a positive duty to apply s. 718.2 (

e) in all cases: Ipeelee , at para. 85 . [ 52 ] I acknowledge the historic mistreatment of Indigenous persons and how systemic and background factors have played a

part in Mr. Anigbo’s offending and how these factors reduced his culpability. I have read the Gladue report and I acknowledge the various sentencing options and programs. DISPOSITION [ 53 ] Mr. Anigbo’s conduct represented a clear danger to the lives of others. Specifically, he carried two loaded semi-automatic firearms into a hotel lobby; and without explanation, the only rational inference is the firearms were intended to cause death, harm and fear. Additionally, it cannot be ignored that there is a significant rise in public gun violence with resultant injury, death and fear throughout our communities.

For these reasons, the objective of the sentence imposed must deter Mr. Anigbo and others and it must also denounce Mr. Anigbo’s conduct. With this in mind, I acknowledge Mr. Anigbo’s age and his current expression of wanting to change. [ 54 ] In terms of proportionality, the offences are serious and Mr.

Anigbo’s culpability is reduced by virtue of the historical mistreatment of Indigenous persons and how the mistreatment translates into Indigenous persons being over represented within our justice system. [ 55 ] I have considered the aggravating and mitigating factors and were it not for the mitigating factors, I would be inclined to impose a longer sentence. I also remind myself that I must exercise restraint and impose the least restrictive sentence that is appropriate in all of the circumstances. Lastly, I have given careful consideration to Mr.

Anigbo’s Indigenous status. [ 56 ] With the above in mind, I cannot accede to the sentence recommended by defense counsel. In my view, the disposition would not be fit. I acknowledge that Mr. Anigbo’s culpability is attenuated, and the mitigating factors mentioned; however, his conduct posed a danger to the community and he did so at a time when gun violence and gun possession appears to be rampant. Additionally, and although the plan to move in with his aunt and uncle is laudable, he has not taken any steps toward his rehabilitation. Moreover, I observe Mr.

Anigbo has made previous unfulfilled statements regarding his rehabilitation. In sum, the public needs protection from the conduct displayed, and to some extent, from Mr. Anigbo. [ 57 ] As for the Crown’s position, the range is somewhat low, and this should not be taken as a criticism of the Crown. I recognize much goes into plea discussions and that sentencing positions are usually a reflection of such discussions. Nevertheless, and after considering all of the relevant information, I find that a fit sentence is custody for 4 years. From this I subtract the time that Mr.

Anigbo has already served in custody which is 445 days and credited at 1.5 days for each day already served his total pre-trial custody credit is 14.5 months. Accordingly, Mr. Anigbo must serve a balance of 33 ½ months. [ 58 ] As for the offence of breaching the prohibition order, I recognize the range is 6-12 months and when I consider the circumstances, I sentence Mr. Anigbo to 10 months custody.

In my view, general deterrence, specific deterrence and denunciation combined with the circumstances of the offence justify a sentence at the higher end of the range. [ 59 ] I turn to consider if the sentences should be concurrent or consecutive. Collectively the sentences imposed is 4 years 10 months, and in my view, such a sentence would serve to pro-long Mr. Anigbo’s separation from his family and his nation, additionally, it would delay any hope of realizing on his aunt and uncle’s offer of assistance.

For these reasons, and to minimize the impact of a collectively long sentence, the sentences will be served concurrently. ANCILORY ORDERS DNA [ 60 ] Pursuant to s. 487.051, I authorize the taking of a bodily substance from Mr. Anigbo for the purpose of the national DNA databank. Firearm Prohibition [ 61 ] Pursuant to s. 109(3) of the Code , Mr. Anigbo is prohibited from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, ammunition or explosive substance for life. Victim Fine Surcharge [ 62 ] Mr. Anigbo has been in custody for over a year. He does not have any assets.

Accordingly, I conclude that the imposition of a victim fine surcharge would cause undue hardship and it is waived.

_____________________________ The Honourable Judge R.P. Harris Provincial Court of British Columbia CORRIGENDUM - Released October 12, 2022 In the Reasons for Judgment dated September 26, 2022, the following changes have been made: [ 63 ] Paragraph 9 should read: The Ministry responded by placing Mr. Anigbo and his siblings in a home in Richmond. Mr. Anigbo had difficulty with the transition and he called his mother daily crying. After approximately 8 months, the children moved from Richmond and into Ms. Point’s father’s home. Eventually, the children returned to live with Ms.

Point and according to her, she still struggled with her sobriety, however, and to her credit, she has now been sober for five years. _____________________________ The Honourable Judge R.P. Harris Provincial Court of British Columbia