) Ms. J. Dalmyn ) for the Crown HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) ) Mr. T. Bourcier - v. -, 2014 MBPC 28

R. v. Peters , 2014 MBPC 28 THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: ) Ms. J. Dalmyn ) for the Crown HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) ) Mr. T. Bourcier - and - ) for the Accused ) STEVEN CRAIG PETERS, ) ) Sentence delivered Accused. ) May 21, 2014 _____ PRESTON, P.J. (Orally) I am sentencing Steven Craig Peters, a 30-year-old aboriginal man, on a number of charges all committed on November 19th of 2011: an aggravated assault on a male, an assault on a female, an assault with a baseball bat on a second female, mischief (damage to a police cruiser) and an assault on a peace officer. These are indictable proceedings.

The maximum sentence for aggravated assault is 14 years. The issue for the court is a fit and proper sentence for these violent crimes. I heard evidence about these charges from two civilian victims during a preliminary hearing which was held on June 10th of 2013. After hearing their testimony, Mr. Peters entered his guilty pleas. Mr. Peters is a member and resident of the Long Plain First Nation. Back on November 19th, 2011 Mr. Peters' girlfriend had wanted to help him celebrate his birthday.

The kids of the union were being looked after in another home on the First Nation so he and his girlfriend travelled to Winnipeg to celebrate his birthday. They returned home early in the morning. Mr. Peters' girlfriend wanted to continue celebrating so she organized a party which lasted well into the early morning hours. During the party, Mr. Peters drank alcohol and, I'm told, used some cocaine. At some point he was exhausted and he became frustrated. He wanted everybody out of the house. The first unwitting victim, Mr. Meeches, was passed out at the kitchen table. As far as Mr. Peters was concerned, Mr.

Meeches was taking too long to respond to his demand that everybody leave the house, so Mr. Peters shoved him around in the house and then chased him out of the house. Mr. Meeches slipped on ice. Mr. Peters caught up to him and started to punch and kick him into unconsciousness. As Mr. Meeches lay unconscious on the ground, Mr. Peters stomped on his head. One female tried to assist and protect the unconscious Mr. Meeches and Mr. Peters started hitting her. Mr. Peters' violent outburst outside his residence unfortunately went on for some minutes. During that time, the victim, Mr. Meeches' father and Mr.

Meeches' brother had been alerted about the assaults. They had time to arrive at the scene to try to intervene. Unfortunately, Mr. Meeches' brother was carrying a baseball bat and a struggle ensued. Mr. Peters was able to wrench the baseball from the brother. Now, Mr. Peters was armed with a weapon. He used the baseball bat to threaten a second female complainant and started smashing the windows of the Meeches truck with the baseball bat. At this point, Mr. Peters' girlfriend drove up to Mr. Peters to shepherd him away from the scene. Mr.

Peters and his girlfriend and cousin began to drive away but a police officer had driven to the scene by this time. The officer activated his emergency equipment and stopped his vehicle. The officer was under the very mistaken impression that the people in that vehicle attempting to escape the scene were the victims of the assaults. Mr. Peters now, still armed with the baseball bat, leapt out of the vehicle, smashed out the windows of the police cruiser, shouting, “Shoot me! Shoot me!” and then moved towards the police officer who ordered Mr. Peters to stop and put down his weapon. Mr.

Peters kept advancing towards the officer wielding the baseball bat, screaming, “Shoot, shoot, shoot!” Unfortunately, Mr. Peters

had literally backed the officer into a ditch, so the officer had no means of escaping the bat-wielding Mr. Peters. He warned Mr. Peters in no uncertain terms to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. Mr. Peters ignored the command and moved towards the officer. The officer did shoot at Mr. Peters once with no effect. He shot a second time and struck Mr. Peters in the abdomen. Mr. Peters was, at this point, subdued. The first victim, Mr. Meeches, meanwhile, was medevaced to Winnipeg.

He testified at the preliminary hearing that he recalled waking up in the hospital with a broken jaw, a collapsed lung, a broken wrist and a bruised body. He also suffered fractured ribs. His jaw required plastic surgery and he is left now with what he calls “clicks” in his jaw. The second victim, the female who Mr. Peters assaulted, suffered a swollen leg, head and ear and both victims told me that the end of the party, they described the end of the party as sudden and the violence as unexpected. It is important for the court to examine Mr. Peters' personal background as an indigenous person.

His father, who hails from the Sakimay First Nation, has had a distant relationship with him. His mother, on the other hand, has been a good support. She, too, lives on the Long Plain First Nation. His grandparents attended residential school. He describes his upbringing as perfect: no drugs, no alcohol, no violence or abuse in the home. He is close to his nine siblings who range in age from 14 to 37. He has a grade seven education, but he has always been able to hold down a job and he has received lots of job training over the years. Unfortunately, he was the victim of racism as a young boy growing up.

As I said, he is now 30 years old. His lengthy criminal record dates back to age 15. It includes a history of breaching court orders and crimes of domestic violence. He has been jailed often and he has often acted out while he was in custody. In 2005 he received four months in jail and 18 months of supervised probation for a breach of a court order and assault with a weapon. In 2006 he received six months in jail for assaulting a peace officer, uttering a threat and obstruction of justice.

In May of 2011, he received a sentence of five months' time in custody for assaulting another peace officer, two months on top of that five months for assault, two months concurrent for mischief and two months consecutive for court breaches, followed by two years of supervised probation. So by my calculation, he was still on probation at the time he committed these offences. To assist in sentencing, the court ordered a pre-sentence and Gladue report, which was completed back in November of 2013. Frankly, the attitude portrayed by Mr. Peters in the report back then is less than stellar.

He told the probation officer that he, Mr. Peters, was the victim. He also said that Mr. Meeches got what he deserved. He blames his fractured work history on alcohol and unhealthy common-law relationships. Of late, he hasn't had much of a hand in the raising of six children from his recent common-law relationships. He has struggled with alcohol and drugs. In the report, he tells the probation officer that he doesn't think he has a problem with drinking because, for instance, he's not at the point of selling his property to support his drinking habit. He's never received counselling for substance abuse.

He is, in fact, pending on some drug charges in Saskatchewan but that is not the subject of this sentencing hearing. The probation officer described his criminal attitude as “deeply entrenched” and assessed him as having a “very high risk to re- offend”. Numerous letters of reference, however, refer to Mr. Peters as caring, a person with a big heart, kind, understanding, family-oriented, compassionate, respectful. He's described as proud to be working towards becoming a first responder volunteer firefighter. The Sakimay First Nation registry administrator describes Mr.

Peters as respectful of his elders, someone who's cut wood for the elders' sweats. Noella Peters, who is the employment and training administrative assistant, has worked with him and describes him as punctual and dedicated. One of his long-time friends describes him as like a brother to her. He has volunteered for significant community events, burials, fires, floods. He has worked hard, according to the reference letters, on his sobriety and also on getting access to two of his daughters who reside in Saskatchewan who are in child care. So clearly, Mr. Peters has support in his communities.

This is the information that I received from the probation officer late last year. Mr. Bourcier on his behalf explained, or tried to explain, the context of the crimes from Mr. Peters' perspective. Mr. Peters, who blames exhaustion as a possible explanation for some of this, claims he used the bat against the father and the brother because he was afraid they may have had a gun. I didn't hear any evidence of that. Mr. Peters himself, not surprisingly, was hospitalized and remained so until February 29th of 2012. A shattered bullet was removed from his spine.

His recovery from his injuries was complicated by secondary infections as a result of an earlier 2004 leukemia diagnosis. He sustained spinal cord damage and has lost the feeling in his left leg. He was arrested upon his release from hospital and he's been in custody since that date. While in custody, he didn't have any access to physiotherapy and I'm told he spent twenty-three and a half out of twenty-four hours in the medical ward. He was given a wheelchair and then crutches and spent a year in the Winnipeg Remand Centre in a great deal of pain.

At the time of the making of the report back in November of last year, he told the probation officer he felt like he was watching his life instead of living it. Now, Mr. Bourcier, on his behalf, maintained that notwithstanding what Mr. Peters told the probation officer in the fall of last year, Mr. Peters has since provided voluminous materials to Mr. Bourcier outlining a substantial change in his attitude through this process. He analogizes drinking to a loaded gun. He doesn't want to take that risk. He says he has a new outlook on life, doesn't take it for granted and wants to spend time with his kids.

He is going to be working on his high school diploma, because he will struggle with manual labour. He wants to complete his grade 12. While in custody, he has done some educational programs. In fact, the Crown confirmed that this time around Mr. Peters has been, in her words, a model prisoner. He now concedes that it was his fault that he got shot and he offers apologies to everyone, especially the

officer. He plans to live in Winnipeg with his girlfriend and he's already been in contact with the Paraplegic Association of Manitoba regarding job training and he recognizes he needs counselling. The Crown asked the court for time in custody to be assessed at the rate of 1.5 and that be assessed for the assault peace officer and mischief charges and time in custody being followed by one day plus three years of supervised probation. And with respect to the aggravated assault, she recommends three years consecutive and a concurrent sentence, so the equivalent of a six-year sentence plus three years probation.

Defence counsel recommends time in custody concurrent on everything, including the aggravated assault assessed at a 1.5 rate with various concurrent sentences for the various charges and three years of probation. And defence counsel frames the incidents as one continuous act meriting concurrent custody. I'm afraid I can't agree with that contention. In the court's assessment of these crimes, they constitute two distinct events: the first event at the party, and the second event at the cruiser car. There are many aggravating factors. Mr. Peters' victims were innocent.

Each of the civilian victims was invited to be at Mr. Peters' house. None of them did much other than to try to protect themselves or each other. The violence used against Mr. Meeches was vicious and sustained. The injuries to Mr. Meeches were substantial and lasting. A weapon was used both against persons and property. Mr. Peters cornered a police officer in lawful execution of his duty, forced that officer to make a momentous and difficult decision to use his weapon to protect him from being badly hurt or worse by Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters was solely responsible for the harm he suffered.

On the continuum of the use of force that a police officer is trained to employ, the discharge of a gun is at the highest end of the use of force continuum and only to be used in exigent circumstances. I can only conclude that the officer would be shaken by this incident long after it was over. Mr. Peters' criminal record doesn't entitle him to leniency. He has a recent and related criminal record. In fact, he was on probation. Until very recently, he displayed no remorse and expressed little, if any, victim empathy. On the other hand, there are mitigating features.

The injury he sustained at the scene represents a huge immediate consequence and the court accepts thoroughly that he's had a very difficult journey recuperating. He's made a recent change of attitude and is focused on a concrete plan for himself. He has community support. Those current community supports as a resident of Long Plain First Nation bode well for him. A guilty plea, even late in the day, after putting the complainants through the strain of testifying about this incident, is an expression of remorse and he's finally given everyone an apology.

He has a troubled history of substance abuse and unhealthy relationship. His family has been touched by the legacy of residential schools. As a school boy he suffered racist slurs, he struggled with substance abuse. For an aboriginal offender such as Mr. Peters, the court must examine the viability of a restorative sentence. In these circumstances the Gladue factors only marginally reduce his moral blameworthiness. Even given that his behaviour was fueled by alcohol and cocaine, he was responsible for the unnecessary outburst of anger and violence.

The primary sentencing principles for this type of event are denunciation and deterrence. The more violent the offence, notwithstanding Gladue factors, the more likely a reality that imprisonment will result. The sentence has to send a clear message to Mr. Peters and the community that this type of violent injurious outburst won't be tolerated. Sentence must also attempt to be meaningful to Mr. Peters and the Long Plain First Nation community by serving to try to prevent these crimes, while also attempting to try to support the plan for his healthy journey forward.

He's now spent almost 27 months, by my calculation, in pretrial detention. Am I right, counsel? MS. DALMYN: Yes, Your Honour. Last time we were here it was 26 months. THE COURT: Yes. He's spent almost 27 months now. MS. DALMYN: So the equivalent of 40 months at the one to one point five credit. THE COURT: I'm prepared to assess the time he's already served on a time-and-a-half basis, firstly due to the lost early-release privileges and also due to the difficult time he's experienced during his incarceration due to his injuries. The time in custody today I calculate as the equivalent of forty-and-a-half months.

So firstly, on the aggravated assault, taking all the factors I've tried to articulate into consideration, an appropriate sentence is three years in jail, which is the equivalent of one to one point five of thirty-six months of the forty-and-a-half months assessed by my calculation. So the sentence will be shown as, it will be two years of time in custody at the rate of one point five, which is thirty-six months of time spent in custody plus one day, today's date. On the assault with weapon and the assault, there will be six months of concurrent time in custody plus one day concurrent on each of those charges.

Now moving to the second set of charges. On the assault on the police officer, Mr. Peters, I have to say to you, sir, that it's fortunate that you're alive today. The same goes for the officer. Mr. Peters has a prior record for assaulting peace officers. In my estimate, a fair sentence would be 15 months consecutive, but the principle of totality applies here to reduce the total sentence to the equivalent of 12 months on the assault on the peace officer, which is four-and-a-half months of remaining time in custody plus seven-and-a-half months going forward.

In other words, this sentence is consecutive to the first set of charges: On the mischief charges, six months of time going forward concurrent is the appropriate sentence. A community-based sanction will be part of this overall sentence. Following his release on the assault police officer charge, Mr. Peters will be placed on probation for three years to address the restorative aspect of this sentence to assist him in his planned rehabilitation and to further bind him to good behaviour, thereby protecting the public.

The probation order is as follows: 1) To keep the peace and be of good behaviour. 2) Attend court if and when required. 3) Within 24 hours of his release from custody, he is to make his first appointment with his probation officer and report thereafter as required. 4) He is to attend, participate and complete such counselling, programming or assessments as may be directed by Probation Services. 5) He is to have no contact directly or indirectly with Robert Meeches, Melanie Meeches, Paula Daniels, Kerry Meeches, Kyle Meeches and Leanne, and he is not to attend anywhere where they are living, going to school, worshipping or working.

Lastly, he is to not possess or carry or own any weapons. There are two other orders I am making, they are mandatory. The first is with respect, and it can be tied to, the aggravated assault. It’s a

Section 109 firearms prohibition for 10 years from his release from custody. He is prohibited from owning or possessing any firearms, ammunitions, explosives, and also, separately, there will be an order within the next 30 days that he submit a sample of his DNA for entry into the forensic data bank. So, sir, you will remain in custody, just to explain it, when all is said and done, for the next seven-and-a-half months. You know how that works. Following that, you will be on probation for three years. Now, these are charges where I can waive the costs and surcharge and I am persuaded that I'm going to do that.

He has been in custody for a lengthy period of time and he will remain in custody. Are there any questions from counsel? MS. DALMYN: I just want to confirm with my learned friend that Mr. Peters has not yet been sentenced on his drug charges. MR. ZURBUCHEN: That is my understanding, yes. MS. DALMYN: Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. All right, thank you everyone for being here. Thank you, Mr. Peters. I wish you luck on your journey. _____