R. v. Timmins, 2024 BCPC 15

Citation: R. v. Timmins 2024 BCPC 15 Date: 20240110 File No: 74085-1 Registry: Prince George IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal Court REX v. GARTH CLARENCE GOODKEY DEREK CHARLES MACNICOL TIMMINS DANIEL DAVID WILSON REASONS FOR SENTENCE RE ACCUSED TIMMINS OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE K. ARTHUR-LEUNG Counsel for the Crown: D. Hartney Defence Counsel appearing by videoconference: J. LeBlond, KC Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Date of Hearing: January 10, 2024

Date of Judgment: January 10, 2024 [ 1 ] Derek Charles Macnicol Timmins is appearing before me today for the purposes of sentencing after entering a guilty plea in the fall of 2023 to Count 8 of this information wherein he has admitted that from October 3, 2020, to January 13, 2021, inclusive, at or near the City of Prince George, in the Province of British Columbia, did unlawfully traffic in a controlled substance, to wit, cocaine, contrary to s. 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act . [ 2 ] Exhibit 1 in the sentencing is a jointly-filed-materials-at-sentencing book.

Exhibit 1, Tab 2, contains the criminal convictions entry record for Mr. Timmins wherein he was convicted in 1992 in Prince George for possession of property obtained by crime and, in 2006, in the City of Vancouver, was convicted for trafficking weapons.

Exhibit 1, Tab 3, is the detailed statement of facts that both counsel admit and was read into the court record on today's date for the purposes of sentencing. [ 3 ] Briefly, in 2018, CFSEU of British Columbia, that being the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit, commenced in the North District Office an extremely lengthy and thorough investigation involving Mr. Timmins and other persons when this task force was entitled Project E-Don't-Notice. An agent was engaged in this investigation who formed a relationship with Mr. Timmins and when Mr.

Timmins over the course of time sold significant quantities of cocaine to this agent. From January 2020 to February 2021, a total of 39 ounces of cocaine, 10 pounds of marihuana, and 4.8 grams of MDMA was purchased by the agent from Mr. Timmins who sold it to the agent. [ 4 ] Recorded conversations between the agent and Mr. Timmins were obtained in the course of the investigation detailing the length of the operation and the structure and how the operation avoided police detection and the use of a valid marihuana grow licence to produce and illegally distribute the cannabis.

This operation was extremely sophisticated and involved significant purities of the cocaine. Buys on February 20, 2020, ranged from 76 percent to 92 percent purity in this operation. [ 5 ] Buys were in large quantities, including a buy on October 17, 2020, of 10 ounces of cocaine at $2,800 per ounce for one buy totalling $28,000. On November 17, 2020, Mr. Timmins sold 15 ounces of cocaine with a pre-agreed-upon price of $2,700 per ounce and a buy of $42,000 was conducted between Mr.

Timmins and the agent. [ 6 ] At the time of the execution of the search warrants on a property on Latrobe Crescent in Prince George and on Kluskus in Vanderhoof, a number of items were seized. There was a separate standalone forfeiture order. However, items seized included a functioning scale, cellphones, garbage bags of prepackaged cannabis, and large amounts of cash. [ 7 ] This is a joint submission and I acknowledge the Supreme Court of Canada's decision of R. v.

Anthony-Cook , at 2016 SCC 43 , and the principles and importance of a joint submission as well as how and when a judge is permitted to deviate from a joint submission. From the outset, I acknowledge that I am familiar with the Anthony-Cook decision and I find the joint submission before me satisfies those considerations and I will be accepting it today. [ 8 ] The caselaw that both counsel relied upon are the following. R. v. Allen and Levasseur , 2014 BCSC 1024 , wherein Mr. Allen was 29 years of age at the time of the offence, had no criminal record, and was convicted of trafficking 21 ounces of cocaine.

The sentence imposed was two-and-a-half years. [ 9 ] R. v. Chamberlain and Rawn , 2016 BCSC 379 , wherein Ms. Chamberlain was 34 years of age, had an abusive lifestyle, and no criminal record. The Chamberlain decision is key and I rely upon paragraphs 42 to 46 which state as follows: [42] It seems to me that a critical consideration is the scope and sophistication of the enterprise at issue. In the realm of drug offences and in the cases I have been provided, there is a broad spectrum of such activities, ranging from minor and isolated to persistent, sophisticated, and serious.

Where a particular case is situated on that scale will quite substantially impact how the court will decide the appropriate sentence. The ranges that emerge from the [caselaw] show that to be so. [43] More serious and substantial circumstances, more sophisticated operations, will attract a sentence with a greater emphasis on denunciation and deterrence.

In terms of range, to the extent that concept is useful, the authorities relied upon by the Crown leave me to conclude that, for a serious, sustained, and relatively sophisticated operation, sentences are typically between a low of two years and range up through six years and sometimes beyond. Where any specific offender may fall on that scale will, of course, be impacted by the individual's attributes and particulars. [44] There is, of course, a different category of such offences.

Those tend to be more in the nature of persons with lesser roles such as couriers, low-level street dealers, and so-called dial-a-dope dealers. The authorities that defence counsel has filed in his case are predominantly of that type. [45] More particularly, the decisions in those cases frequently involve offenders who have become engaged in drug dealing because of their own addictions.

In a number of instances, some time has passed between the offending and the sentencing and the offender has taken real steps to change and to rehabilitate. [46] In such situations, courts have sometime seen fit to impose what I would characterize as lenient sentences, non-custodial sentences, notwithstanding that the usual range of sentence for such offences is ordinarily a jail term of 6 to 18 months, again, depending upon particular circumstances. [ 10 ] The operation before me was sophisticated and at a high level. Mr. Timmins was no mere street dial-a-dope dealer.

These buys were large and in significant purity.

[ 11 ] R. v. Davidson , 2014 BCSC 269 , wherein Mr. Davidson entered a guilty plea, however, only after trial. In the matter before me, Mr. Timmins has entered a guilty plea and I am mindful of that. Mr. Davidson was 42 years of age at the time of the offence, had one entry on a dated criminal conviction

summary, and approximately 26 to 28 ounces was seized. The court imposed a three-year period of incarceration. [ 12 ] R. v. Harris , 2017 BCSC 1552 , is a decision involving approximately 39 ounces located in a vehicle, and a lot of cash and scales. Mr. Harris was 30 years of age at the time of the offence and had no criminal record. A three-year sentence was imposed. [ 13 ] R. v. Mackay , 2019 BCSC 1112 , involved a total of 26 ounces of drugs seized. Mr.

Mackay was 29 years of age at the time of the offence, had no criminal record, and a sentence of 32 months was imposed. [ 14 ] Finally, I am mindful and rely upon the decision of R. v. Singh , 2023 BCPC 70 , wherein the principles of sentencing was thoroughly reviewed as well as caselaw in addressing drug trafficking in fentanyl and cocaine. A period of incarceration of three years was imposed as to the trafficking of cocaine.

This decision thoroughly reviews the principles of sentencing as it pertains to trafficking and the direct impact and current impact that trafficking has upon every British Columbian. [ 15 ] I acknowledge the principles of sentencing in s. 718 of the Criminal Code of Canada . Mr. Timmins is not Indigenous. I note the guilty plea thus avoiding an extremely long trial and potential protracted Charter arguments. [ 16 ] Mr. Timmins has a dated and limited criminal record. He is currently 51 years of age, has a grade 10 education, has been with his spouse for 22 years and married the past 12 years.

His spouse is employed at a local hospital in Prince George and they have three adult children. Defence counsel on behalf of Mr. Timmins submits that he is remorseful. Mr. Timmins has a number of health challenges, including diabetes, ulcers on his feet, high blood pressure, and arthritis, all of which require a medication regime. [ 17 ] Drug overdoses and deaths are at all-time highs in this province. It is not limited to street persons. Persons across this province, regardless of ones race, income, and residence, are not immune to the ravages of illicit drugs in this province. That would have been known to Mr.

Timmins and, despite such, he actively engaged in a sophisticated drug trafficking and large-scale operation. The number of deaths due to drug overdoses has prompted the British Columbia Provincial Health Officer to declare a public health emergency and the number of overdoses and deaths has exponentially increased year after year in this province.

Not only have those who have died and overdosed become statistics of this province, there is also the toll these actions take upon family members and what is often forgotten and understated is the huge physical, emotional, and financial toll upon first responders such as drug crisis workers, firefighters, police, EHS, nurses, and doctors in this province seeing and responding to such horrific tragedies day in and day out. [ 18 ] The sales conducted by Mr. Timmins were large-scale and far beyond what would be a personal-consumption sale.

His actions had a huge impact upon the persons in the community of Prince George and this province. [ 19 ] Defence counsel respectfully submits that Mr. Timmins struggled at the time with the passing of both his parents and turned to personal use of illicit substances in 2020 and 2021. I acknowledge such, however, note that these sales were of a significant amount and were far beyond a drug addict fuelling an uncontrolled addiction. This was a commercial enterprise and operation. [ 20 ] In addition, defence counsel notes that the agent was a friend of Mr. Timmins and, when the agent approached Mr.

Timmins for transactions, Mr. Timmins believed that he was helping a friend. I respectfully reject such notion. These large-scale financial transactions were of significant purity and were far beyond the mere simplistic helping of a friend. [ 21 ] Mr. Timmins is no stranger to a hard-work ethic. He has historically been employed at a car rental agency, as a foreman in a logging operation, and operated his own excavating business since 2007. It is extremely disappointing that he turned to the sale and trafficking of illicit substances.

This police investigation was long and drew upon significant policing resources in the course of the undercover operations in the community of Prince George. The impact of Mr. Timmins' commercial enterprise upon the residents of this province is immeasurable and inexcusable. [ 22 ] Mr.

Timmins, if you will please stand up. [ 23 ] I will accede to the joint submission and impose a period of incarceration of three years. [ 24 ] There will be a separate standalone s. 109 of the Criminal Code firearms order for lifetime; there will be a DNA order; and the forfeiture order as set out in the draft before me shall be granted. [ 25 ] Thank you. [DISCUSSION RE OUTSTANDING COUNTS] [ 26 ] THE CLERK: And the victim surcharge, please, Your Honour? [ 27 ] THE COURT: The victim surcharge fine applies, 12 months' time to pay. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)