2022 QCCQ 3219, 2022 QCCQ 3219

R. c. Young 2022 QCCQ 3219 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF JOLIETTE CITY OF JOLIETTE Criminal Division N°: 705-01-109145-195 DATE: February 28, 2022 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING THE HONOURABLE BRUNO LECLERC, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ Her Majesty the Queen Prosecutrix v. Richard Brent Young Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ SENTENCING JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mr.

Young has pleaded guilty to illegally producing marijuana. [ 2 ] On April 16, 2019, armed with a search warrant, the police discovered a sophisticated cannabis-growing operation. Lamps, transformers, heat pumps, timers, and filters had been installed for the sole purpose of producing the prohibited substance. [ 3 ] The electricity was stolen. [ 4 ] Police seized 436 cannabis plants at various stages of growth, ranging from two-to three- inch clones to six-to seven-foot tall mother plants, including plants one to two feet tall and others four to five feet tall. [ 5 ] Mr.

Young at first told the police that he was growing marijuana to make an analgesic cream for back pain. [ 6 ] No equipment to make cream was found on the premises, leaving the police dubious about the accused’s statement. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES: [ 7 ] Given the sophisticated operation and the number of plants, and based on the case law, the criminal and penal prosecutor recommends 12 months' incarceration followed by one year’s probation, along with the mandatory orders set out in the Criminal Code . [ 8 ] Counsel for Mr.

Young notes that the prosecution has not established that the production at issue was for the purpose of trafficking marijuana and argues that a 7-month custodial sentence is appropriate. He agrees with the prosecution’s request for probation. THE LAW: [ 9 ] The fundamental sentencing principle is found in s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code , which states: 718.1 A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [ 10 ] The accused has pleaded guilty to a serious crime. [ 11 ] Objectively, the crime is punishable by a maximum of 14 years’ imprisonment.

Other than life imprisonment, it is one of the harshest punishments prescribed by law, which proves how serious Parliament considers it to be. [ 12 ] The crime is also subjectively serious. The sophistication and organization of the operation and the diversion of electricity establish the level of preparation and premeditation that went into the illegal act.

The number of plants, the presence of mother plants, and the various stages of plant maturity show that the offence occurred over a period of time and that the illegal operation was meant to continue for a little longer, at least until the seized clones matured. [ 13 ] Mr. Young bears full criminal responsibility in this case. [ 14 ] The sentencing objectives are set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code .

718 The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (

a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct; (

b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (

c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (

d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (

e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (

f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community; [ 15 ] The two first objectives are important in cases involving drugs.

Without losing sight of the other sentencing objectives, the Court must insist that the scourge represented by drugs, including cannabis, in our society cannot be tolerated. [ 16 ] Like both parties, the Court finds that a custodial sentence is required in this case given the seriousness of the offence. [ 17 ] The Court believes, as do the prosecutor and counsel for the defence, that probation will definitely help the accused’s rehabilitation, which at this point is quite embryonic. [ 18 ] The two last sentencing objectives are important in this case.

The accused must realize the magnitude of the drug problem and marijuana use in our society. The Court is concerned with the accused’s statement to the probation officer that marijuana is not a drug. [ 19 ] The courthouse is a daily witness to marijuana-related cases, involving people who commit crimes under its influence, people who cannot do without marijuana and commit crimes to get it, school absenteeism and dropping out due to cannabis use, work absenteeism, etc. Not to mention all the criminality related to the illegal production or sale of marijuana.

Violent theft of cannabis- growing operations and violent crimes related to territorial wars often occur. [ 20 ] A person would have to be completely oblivious to believe that marijuana is not a drug, as Mr.

Young claims. [ 21 ] The Court’s sentence must ensure that the accused realizes all of this, so that he understands the harm marijuana causes to our society. [ 22 ] The Court must consider the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in this case to render justice. [ 23 ] The Court considers the number of plants and the sophistication of the operation, as well as the facts that the plants were at various stages of maturity, the electricity was stolen, the house was rented, and the operation lasted one year, as aggravating circumstances. [ 24 ] As mitigating circumstances, the Court accepts that the accused is an asset to society and that he pleaded guilty, a first step toward rehabilitation. [ 25 ] The Court notes that there is no evidence that the marijuana was produced for the purpose of trafficking.

This aggravating circumstance simply does not exist here. [ 26 ] The police doubted Mr. Young’s intention to make an analgesic cream with the harvested plants. The probation officer who prepared the pre-sentence report also shares these doubts. [ 27 ] The Court recalls that the burden is on the prosecution to prove the aggravating circumstances it intends to raise beyond a reasonable doubt. The only evidence in this case on the accused’s purpose in producing marijuana is that he wanted to make an analgesic cream. As counsel for Mr.

Young notes, there is no evidence of any intent to traffic. [ 28 ] Similarly, many judgments state that the purpose of making money from a marijuana-growing operation is an aggravating circumstance, which has convinced a good many judges to impose harsher prison sentences on marijuana growers, especially in the judicial district of Joliette. [ 29 ] There is no evidence in this case that Mr. Young intended to make money from the operation. For this reason, the Court will not adopt the prosecutor’s recommendation. FOR ALL THESE REASONS: The Court sentences the accused to 9 months’ imprisonment.

This sentence will be followed by one year’s probation with the compulsory conditions set out in the Criminal Code , that is, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, to appear in court when required to do so and to notify the Court or his probation officer of any change of address, name, employment, or occupation. As optional conditions, the accused must therefore report to a probation officer within seven days of being released, and thereafter in the manner directed by the probation officer with respect to the time, place, and form.

Throughout the year of his probation, the accused must follow all recommendations, directives, and suggestions of his probation officer relating to any drug therapy or any information session on the harm caused by drugs, more specifically cannabis, or any other session deemed useful by the probation officer on any

subject. Under s. 109, the Court must make an order prohibiting the possession of firearms, ammunition, or explosive substances, all of which will be listed in the order. For weapons without any particular authorization, the prohibition is for 10 years and for restricted or prohibited weapons, the prohibition is for life. ________________________________________ BRUNO LECLERC, J.C.Q. Mtre Sabrina Gesualdi-Gilbert For the prosecutrix Mtre Alan Guttman For the accused Date of hearing: October 15, 2021