R. v. Wycotte Date:, 2010 BCPC 463

Citation: R. v. Wycotte Date: 20101201 2010 BCPC 0463 File Nos.: 30279-1, 30369-1, 30557-1, 30677-1 Registry: Williams Lake IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. BARBARA ANNE-MAY WYCOTTE REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE R. D. MORGAN Counsel for the Crown: J. M. M. Dufour Counsel for the Defendant: W. J. Herdy Place of Hearing: Williams Lake , B.C. Date of Hearing: December 1, 2010 Date of Judgment: December 1, 2010

[ 1 ] THE COURT: Ms. Wycotte has entered guilty pleas to the following charges on File 30369-1: the one count of impaired driving causing bodily harm to Roderick Sandy and to one count of impaired driving causing bodily harm to Michael Gentles. Both Mr. Sandy and Mr. Gentles were passengers in a motor vehicle driven by Ms. Wycotte on June 18, 2009. On File 30279, she has entered a guilty plea to one count of refusing to provide a breath sample on August 19, 2009. On File 30557-1, to one count of driving while prohibited under the Motor Vehicle Act . That charge arose on November 7, 2009.

And on File 30677-1, to one count of driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level on March 4, 2010. [ 2 ] Filed as exhibits in these sentencing proceedings were a pre-sentence report, a Gladue sentence report, and three letters from the Three Corners Health Services Society. The Circumstances of the Offence [ 3 ] On June 18, 2009, after an afternoon of drinking where Ms. Wycotte is reported to have consumed one two-litre bottle of wine cooler and a half a mickey of vodka, Ms. Wycotte drove a vehicle with Mr. Gentles and Mr.

Sandy as passengers toward the 150 Mile House liquor store for the purpose of obtaining more alcohol. Her driving was described as erratic. She would stray across the line into oncoming traffic. One of the passengers was frightened and asked her to slow down. Witnesses report the vehicle travelling at excessive speed and swerving into the oncoming lane before hitting a cement wall and going into a spin. Mr. Sandy was ejected from the vehicle. When the police and emergency services arrived, Ms. Wycotte said Mr. Gentles was the person who had been driving. [ 4 ] All three occupants were taken to the hospital. Mr.

Sandy was taken from the hospital to Vancouver by air ambulance. Mr. Sandy had severe head injuries. Mr. Gentles had a broken collarbone. [ 5 ] Blood samples were taken from Ms. Wycotte, showing her to have a blood-alcohol content of between 324 and 329 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of her blood. [ 6 ] On August 19, 2009, only two months after the accident, the Williams Lake police received a complaint of an intoxicated driver at the drive-thru in the local McDonald's restaurant. Police arrived to find Ms. Wycotte operating a pickup truck. She exhibited signs of intoxication.

She admitted consuming alcohol and admitted that she had been drinking all day. [ 7 ] At the detachment, she was determined to be refusing to provide a breath sample after many failed attempts. [ 8 ] On November 7, 2009, the Williams Lake police received a report of a minor collision. Ms. Wycotte drove a vehicle in front of another vehicle, requiring the driver of that vehicle to stop to avoid a collision. She then drove alongside that vehicle asking the driver if he had any beer. The driver of the second vehicle said no. Ms.

Wycotte then proceeded to drive away, but because her wheels were still turned toward the second vehicle, as she did so she drove her vehicle into the rear of the second vehicle, causing damage. [ 9 ] The complainant said Ms. Wycotte was intoxicated. However, he did not report the matter to the police until later in the day. She admitted the incident to the police and was charged with driving while prohibited. [ 10 ] On March 4, 2010, the 100 Mile House police received a complaint of an intoxicated female trying to get a ride because she could not start her vehicle.

The complainant who stopped to assist noticed a male passed out in the vehicle front seat. When the police arrived, Ms. Wycotte exited the driver's seat. She was grossly intoxicated. The male passenger remained passed out. There were open liquor containers in the vehicle. Ms. Wycotte became belligerent and uncooperative. She gave breath samples registering 230 and 200 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. [ 11 ] The Crown filed three different notices to seek greater punishment related to the drink-driving files. The Circumstances of the Offender [ 12 ] Ms. Wycotte is 42 years old. She is aboriginal.

Both her parents were required to attend residential school. Ms. Wycotte also attended residential school for seven years. Her childhood was marred with violence and alcohol abuse and is described by a probation officer in her pre-sentence report filed as Exhibit 1 in these proceedings as "horrific." Ms. Wycotte recalls being left at a very young age in a motel room with her younger brother to fend for themselves while her mother was out drinking. Her mother admits to abusing alcohol while pregnant with Ms. Wycotte. [ 13 ] In a Gladue pre-sentence report, it is stated Ms. Wycotte has fetal alcohol affects.

However, given the degree of success Ms. Wycotte has otherwise achieved in her life when not drinking, and given that I had the benefit of hearing from her in court today and find her to be intelligent and articulate, I find that she appears not to be as severely affected as many others who come before this court. [ 14 ] Ms. Wycotte was raised by her grandmother and taught many traditional ways by her, including gathering medicines and food and making baskets. However, her grandmother was also, like her mother and her father, an alcoholic and had also attended residential school. [ 15 ] Ms.

Wycotte obtained a grade 11 and part grade 12 education at high school and in 2007 enrolled herself in courses at Alkali Lake Adult Learning Centre. Those courses included Biology 11, Math 11, and English 12. In 2007, she also started the Early Childhood Education program at Thompson Rivers University; however, she quit that program. [ 16 ] In April 2010, she enrolled in two night courses at Thompson Rivers University and has a goal of pursuing education and perhaps opening her own business. [ 17 ] Ms. Wycotte has two adult children aged 23 and 17.

She also has two younger sons aged 14 and 11 who are the product of a 13-year common-law relationship that ended in 2008. The two boys live with their father in the Alkali Lake First Nations community. [ 18 ] According to the pre-sentence report, Ms. Wycotte and her ex-common-law spouse were, at least at the time of the writing of

the report, considering reconciliation. According to the author of the pre-sentence report, Ms. Wycotte's ex-spouse says the boys need her in their lives; however, he is apprehensive about having her return home due to past alcohol issues. [ 19 ] In the Gladue report, Ms. Wycotte is reported to have worked for the Cariboo Tribal Council in fisheries as a seasonal worker from 1993 to 1998. It is also reported she worked for a time as Band Manager for the Alkali Lake Band.

I emphasize that that is what is reported in the Gladue report because that is a little bit inconsistent with what she told me directly today, and where the inconsistency lies, I accept her testimony. [ 20 ] In the pre-sentence report, it is reported that she worked from November 2009 for the Cariboo Chilcotin Aboriginal Training Employment Centre until February 2010 when she was dismissed. In the past, she also worked part-time at a Super 8 Motel and also assisted her ex-common-law with the paperwork for his small forestry business prior to it shutting down in February 2009. [ 21 ] Ms.

Wycotte, in her testimony today, clarified some of her employment history and said she worked for six to seven years at the Alkali Band office as the band fisheries manager and employment coordinator. That was an important and respected job - I find - that had a large administrative component to it, including applying for funding to both levels of government, submitting quarterly reports, and speaking for the Band and Council, something that after hearing her speak today I think that she would be very good at. [ 22 ] In 2009, Ms.

Wycotte received a lump sum payment as compensation and settlement with respect to her experiences while in residential school. According to counsellor Lynn Dunford, the receipt of this money had a significant negative effect on Ms.

Wycotte, something that she echoes in her testimony to me today. [ 23 ] It was the meeting with the residential school claims adjudicator and the requirement to re-live through the telling of her experiences at the residential school, which included sexual abuse she experienced from one of the residential school employees, that I am told, triggered her drinking after what appears to be a long period of abstinence. Barriers to Success and Counselling History [ 24 ] Ms. Wycotte is an alcoholic.

She characterizes her drinking as binge drinking where, when drinking, she drinks for a couple of days to the point where she cannot remember. She has had long periods of sobriety, one of which is reflected in a gap in her criminal record. She has not drank since her last charge arose in March 2010, and that was two months prior to her incarceration. She expresses her commitment for continued sobriety.

She has attended residential treatment three times, those dates being 1989, 2002, and 2009. [ 25 ] She has seen, on a sporadic basis from January 2010 to April 2010, a mental health worker for Three Corners Health Services Society. [ 26 ] In 2002 she had a lot of success seeing a psychologist who assisted her greatly but unfortunately who passed away in 2006. [ 27 ] She is reported to have been compliant in the past with Community Corrections and is agreeable to attending for forensic assessments. [ 28 ] She says her time in jail has helped her and has given her time to reflect on emotional management.

Since being incarcerated, she is now regularly taking her medication. That is reported in the reports to be for her depression; however she clarifies today as being more to help her with her anxiety. She no longer has panic attacks. Her medication has been adjusted and has made a big difference.

She says she wishes that the medication level and type that she is taking now is something that she was taking back in 2009 when she had to speak to the residential school adjudicator. [ 29 ] She has recently learned, according to the report, that she may well have some fetal alcohol affects as a result of her mother drinking while pregnant with her, and this knowledge, the report writer says, has helped her understand some of her behaviours in her life.

She wants to learn more about it. [ 30 ] While in custody, she has read several self-help books and, in short, has a new philosophy on life that includes living in the present and not spending so much energy dwelling in the past or on the past or on laying blame. [ 31 ] Lynn Dunford, the manager and counsellor for Three Corners Health Services, described Ms. Wycotte as intelligent and articulate. Ms. Wycotte has assisted Ms. Dunford in putting on workshops, and was described by Ms. Dunford as a workhorse. Counsellor Dunford believes Ms.

Wycotte's difficulty in putting what she learns into practice may be related to fetal alcohol affects. [ 32 ] Ms. Wycotte comes before the court with a criminal record. Ms.

Wycotte has the following related criminal record. [ 33 ] In 2000, she was convicted with driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level. [ 34 ] In 2001, she was convicted of impaired driving. [ 35 ] In 2003, she was convicted again of driving with an illegal blood-alcohol level. [ 36 ] The first two convictions resulted in fines and the last conviction resulted in a two-month conditional sentence order and probation along with the usual driving prohibitions. Crown's Sentencing Position [ 37 ] Crown counsel, Ms. Dufour, refers me to three decisions to assist in determining the appropriate sentence for Ms. Wycotte.

Those decisions are R. v. Poppoff , 2001 BCPC 302 ; R. v. Noel , 2005 ONCJ 492 ; and R. v. Eno , 2007 ONCJ 101 . Crown says those cases show that a two- to four-year sentence would not be considered unfit. However, given Ms. Wycotte's personal and particular circumstances, including her recognition and apparent willingness to deal with the underlying problem, Crown submits a sentence of 18 months followed by probation would be appropriate.

Sentencing Position of the Defence [ 38 ] Defence counsel, Mr. Herdy, urges an emphasis on rehabilitation. He says Ms. Wycotte has gained insight since being incarcerated for over 210 days and has supports in the community and a plan to deal with her alcoholism. During her incarceration, Ms. Wycotte has been in regular contact with Lynn Dunford of the Three Corners Health Services Society for assistance in developing a care plan that would include residential treatment and counselling.

The counselling would include attendance at the women's trauma program in Kitwanga, B.C., and therapy with Victoria Scott to help her begin to deal with the residential school issues and the childhood abuses she endured. [ 39 ] Counselling would also include addiction counselling with Ms. Dunford, attendance at AA two times a week, church services on Sunday, and traditional ceremonies and practices such as sweat lodges, smudges, powwows, et cetera, when the opportunity arises. [ 40 ] Ms. Wycotte's plan includes living at what I have confirmed to be called Jubilee Place upon her release.

Jubilee Place has strict house rules restricting guests from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. and has on-site recovery meetings, life skills meetings, and employment and job search counselling. [ 41 ] Mr. Herdy says, given Ms. Wycotte's recognition of the underlying problem and her plan to address it, an appropriate sentence would be time served and probation. Alternatively, he suggests time served for all but one charge and a conditional sentence order for the charge that was not preceded by way of indictment. I will come back to that suggestion.

The Law [ 42 ] The Criminal Code ss. 718 to 718.2 , which relate to the purpose and principles of sentencing, govern this proceeding. Those sections direct that: 718. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is 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; (

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

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

d) to [rehabilitate] 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 and to the community. [ 43 ] A sentence must be proportionate to the offence and should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences in similar circumstances. [ 44 ]

Section 718.2 (

e) directs that: All available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders. [ 45 ] I am to consider any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The aggravating circumstances are the very high readings on the impaired driving causing bodily harm charge; the very high readings on the March 4, 2008, conviction; three prior drink-driving convictions; and the continuing nature of the criminal activity.

It is particularly aggravating that after seriously injuring two passengers as a result of impaired driving, this fact did not motivate Ms. Wycotte at that time to curb her behaviour. Rather, she continued to drink and drive and is charged with two more impaired driving offences and a third charge of driving while prohibited in circumstances that indicate she had been drinking at that time as well. [ 46 ] It is also an aggravating factor that the driving was wildly erratic with respect to the June 2009 offence.

It is also an aggravating factor that on all three drink-driving occasions, the offender was, in fact, prohibited from driving. [ 47 ] The mitigating circumstances include the offender's recognition of her serious alcoholism, the offender's development of a plan and arranging community supports to assist her in the development of that plan to address her alcoholism, her guilty pleas, evidence that Ms.

Wycotte can be a productive and contributing member to her community and to her family when she abstains from alcohol, evidence that she can successfully address her alcohol problem given the gap of any convictions between the 2003 and 2009 offences where she is being sentenced today, and the fact that she has had other periods, significant periods, she tells me and I accept, of sobriety. [ 48 ] Crown is relying on the three notices to seek greater punishment.

Consequently, minimum sentences apply such that a conditional sentence order is not an available sentencing option. [ 49 ] From the cases provide by Crown, it is clear that a primary focus for sentencing a drink-driving offender with multiple prior related convictions will be deterrence and denunciation. In R. v. Noel , supra , Justice Kukurin, in determining the appropriate sentence for an offender with multiple priors, concluded, after reviewing many prior sentencing decisions, that there were themes that pervade the decisions.

At paragraph 60 of that case, he says: The themes that pervade the decisions on sentencing in drinking/driving cases are:

(1) Deterrence and denunciation are key objectives;

(2) Imprisonment is almost invariable for third or subsequent offences;

(3) For offenders with multiple, that is approaching ten, drinking/driving related offences, with poor evidence of addressing the drinking problem, sentences exceed two years;

(4) Sentences for offences arising out of the same transaction or incident need not be concurrent, but may be consecutive particularly where different public interests are tied to the offences;

(5) Convictions for additional offences may result in additional imprisonment subject to the totality principle;

(6) Appellate courts appear to be harsh in their attitude towards sentencing when the offender has reached a point where s/he hasn't learned despite many chances, and the odds on rehabilitation are poor;

(7) The courts are sensitive to the public demand for intolerance by our justice system to drinking/driving behaviour and to the importance of the public's perception of and approval of sentencing practices. [ 50 ] The facts in Noel are more aggravating, I find, than the facts in Ms. Wycotte's case. For example, Mr. Noel came before the court with eight prior drink-driving related convictions and was being sentenced for two more in addition to other unrelated charges. Gladue considerations did not apply. Unlike Ms.

Wycotte, he had done next to nothing to address his severe alcohol problem, and prospects for rehabilitation were poor. Mr. Noel received 36 months total for the two impaired driving convictions plus a further three months for driving while disqualified. His other sentences on the non-drink-driving charges were concurrent. [ 51 ] I recognize that although Mr. Noel's history was more aggravating than Ms. Wycotte's, Ms. Wycotte did cause injuries to two passengers, something that distinguishes her case from the facts in the cases provided by Crown.

That said, I recognize Crown provided those cases to highlight the principles that are to be applied in sentencing a person with multiple related priors. [ 52 ] One of the primary considerations, of course, is public safety. The late Chief Judge Stansfield in his decision R. v. Poppoff , supra , concluded that in sentencing Mr. Poppoff, who had nine prior related convictions and was before the court with four new drink- driving incidents, the dominant consideration must be protection of the public.

Chief Judge Stansfield also noted that in order for the administration of justice to maintain some semblance of credibility, he must attempt to denounce the danger Mr. Poppoff creates: see paragraph 42. Mr. Poppoff was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. [ 53 ] I accept that in Ms. Wycotte's case, the primary considerations directed to maintaining a just and safe society require a sentence that recognizes and reflects the key objectives of deterrence and denunciation. To obtain this, a sentence of imprisonment is required.

Although in light of the June 2009 accident resulting in bodily harm to two passengers I have determined the subsequent drink- driving incidents to be aggravating, I caution myself to not treat the June 2009 incident as a prior conviction. The sentences she had received prior to today on her three prior convictions clearly did not deter her. Unlike the Poppoff case, though, she has received no actual jail time for any of those convictions. However, she has now, for the first time in her life, been in jail for a lengthy period of time.

I am told she has benefited from this in the sense that she has had time to reflect with a sober mind on her life and, as I have said previously, begin taking medication regularly for her anxiety and depression that is likely a trigger for her drinking if left unmanaged, and has gained insight into how her thinking may be playing a role in her decision-making. [ 54 ] In short, I am told and accept that she wants to change her behaviour. However, general deterrence and denunciation must be addressed.

I cannot accept the implied defence submission that rehabilitation should trump denunciation and general deterrence in these particular circumstances nor would a sentence of seven months' time served appropriately address those key objectives. That said, even in circumstances where the primary considerations are denunciation and deterrence, a sentencing judge must not lose sight of the individual before him or her. Sentencing is an individualized process that will address the key objectives within several contextual spheres that include the personal situation and characteristics of the accused. [ 55 ] In Ms.

Wycotte's case, Gladue considerations weigh significantly given her desperate alcoholism is perhaps fully related to the compounding negative effects of the forced residential school attendance of her grandmother, both parents, and then herself. The resultant dysfunction in her family and her upbringing in an environment of poverty, abuse, and alcoholism, exposure to which began in utero , may well be a full explanation for why she stands before me today. [ 56 ] Given that context, it does not seem just to use Ms. Wycotte as a sentencing poster person for denunciation and deterrence.

It is more appropriate to consider what sentence will adequately achieve those objectives and also address the concern of Parliament as reflected in s. 718.2 (

e) of the Code directing that particular consideration be given to aboriginal offenders in finding alternatives to incarceration. [ 57 ] Although in the present case incarceration is necessary, s. 718.2 (

e) can be addressed through a sentence at the lower end of the appropriate spectrum. That there is a wide sentencing spectrum in these types of cases is illustrated by the following decisions. [ 58 ] In R. v. Swite , [2006] B.C.J. No. 3030 , Justice Johnston commented that the offender's original sentence of four months for an impaired causing bodily harm when the aboriginal offender had two prior convictions for impaired driving was not unfit. [ 59 ] In R. v. Anderson , 2004 BCPC 542 (CanLII) , [2004] B.C.J.

No. 2861 , Provincial Court Judge Sandhu sentenced an aboriginal offender who had three prior but very dated drink-driving convictions and who had pled guilty to impaired driving causing bodily harm to 90 days. There were significant mitigating circumstances, including the offender's immediate steps taken to address the underlying alcohol problem.

[ 60 ] Contrast those cases with R. v. Niganobe , 2010 ONCA 508 (CanLII) , [2010] O.J. No. 2959 , where the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of five years for an aboriginal offender with related prior convictions who had been sentenced on one count of impaired driving causing bodily harm and one count of impaired driving causing death. [ 61 ] I have concluded that for Ms. Wycotte in her particular circumstances, a global sentence of 12 months is appropriate, followed by 12 months' probation.

The terms of the probation order will be designed to assist her in maintaining her abstinence and also to protect the public given the disinhibiting effect alcohol has on her. [ 62 ] Ms. Wycotte's sentence will be recorded as follows. [ 63 ] On File 30369-1, the file containing the two impaired driving causing bodily harm charges, the sentence would have been six months on each charge concurrent to each other; however, Ms. Wycotte spent seven months in pre-sentence custody on these charges. I will credit her six months on each charge. Consequently, her sentence on those charges is time served.

On this file, I order, pursuant to s. 259, that Ms. Wycotte be prohibited from driving for a period of five years. I also make a DNA order pursuant to that file. [ 64 ] On File 30279, referencing the refusal charge, the sentence is three months concurrent. I am not granting her any credit on that matter given that that credit is going to be used up on other files.

Pursuant to s. 259, she is prohibited from driving for five years. [ 65 ] On File 30557-1, driving while prohibited, the sentence is one month concurrent. [ 66 ] On File 30677-1, regarding the illegal blood-alcohol charge arising March 4, 2010, the sentence would have been six months consecutive; however, Ms. Wycotte has been in custody for seven months. She has been given credit for six of those months on the File 30367. Consequently, I am going to give her credit on File 30677-1 with one month. The result is, the sentence on 30677-1 is a further five months' jail. Pursuant to s. 259, Ms.

Wycotte is prohibited from driving for five years. [ 67 ] It will not seem like a favourable sentence to Ms. Wycotte, but the fact is, but for her efforts at developing a plan and the significant Gladue considerations in this case, she would have been looking at a much longer sentence. [ 68 ] I am going to waive the victim fine surcharge on all of those matters. [ 69 ] A probation order is going to attach to the three drink-driving files. The terms of the probation order will be as follows, and the period of probation is for 12 months. [ 70 ] The terms are: 200, you shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

You shall appear before the court when required to do so by the court. [ 71 ] 201A: Within 48 hours after completion of your jail sentence, you shall report in person to the probation office in Williams Lake, B.C., and after that, you shall report as and when directed by the probation officer. [ 72 ] 201B: After first reporting to the probation officer, further reporting may include reporting by telephone in the discretion of the probation officer. [ 73 ] 215A: You shall not possess or consume any alcohol or drugs except as prescribed for you by a physician. [ 74 ] 216: You shall not enter any liquor store, beer and wine store, bar, pub, lounge, or other business premise where the primary commodity sold is liquor. [ 75 ] 227: You shall attend, participate in, and successfully complete any assessment, counselling, or program as directed by the probation officer.

Without limiting the general nature of this condition, such assessment, counselling, or program may relate to alcohol or drug abuse and full-time attendance program for alcohol or drug abuse. You shall comply with all rules and regulations of any such assessment, counselling, or program. [ 76 ] Madam Clerk, I think I failed to refer you to 202.

Did I do that? [ 77 ] THE CLERK: No. [ 78 ] THE COURT: All right. 202: When first reporting to the probation officer, you shall inform him or her of your present residential address and phone number, and you shall not change your address or phone number at any time without first providing written notice to your probation officer. [ 79 ] 229: You shall not occupy the driver's seat of any motor vehicle. [ 80 ] The probation order applies to File Numbers 30369-1, 30279-1, and 30677-1. [ 81 ] MS.

DUFOUR: May I ask to clarify, Your Honour, if you also ordered a driving prohibition on the refusal matter? [ 82 ] THE COURT: A driving prohibition for five years on all three of those -- [ 83 ] MS. DUFOUR: On all three. [ 84 ] THE COURT: -- drink-driving offences related to those three files that I just referred to in the probation order. [ 85 ] MS. DUFOUR: Thank you. [ 86 ] THE CLERK: And Your Honour, the DNA, was it primary or secondary?

[ 87 ] THE COURT: It was secondary, the DNA order. I think I will read that out, and that applies to 30369. I am just going to read out this DNA order. If you have not provided a DNA sample while in custody, then no later than 48 hours after your release, you shall attend at the RCMP detachment at Williams Lake, British Columbia, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. and thereafter as may be necessary in order for a sample or samples of your bodily substances to be taken for purposes of registration in the national DNA databank in accordance with the provisions of

Part XV of the Criminal Code . 30369-1, both counts. [ 88 ] THE CLERK: Both counts. And is the driving prohib on both counts? [ 89 ] THE COURT: Yes. Okay. That concludes my reasons for sentencing. I will just say this. [ 90 ] Ms. Wycotte, I am very impressed with you, but that is not something that allows me to ignore the law and the legal precedents completely.

I have, in my mind, sentenced you to what I think would be the very low end of the range that is available to anybody that would be in your circumstances, and that is the best I feel that I, in good conscience, can do, and I think that if I was to go much further, Crown would be forced to consider whether that is an appropriate sentence. Crown might already be considering that, I don't know, but in any event, I am constrained by the law and do not have a free hand. So you will be serving another five months in jail. The way it works is, you will be getting credited some time.

You will be out before five months is up, but that is something for Community Corrections to figure out, not for me, and then that plan you have put in place, I wish you the best of luck with it. I think it is going to work fine for you. _________________________________ R. D. Morgan, Provincial Court Judge