R. v. Parris Date:, 2013 BCPC 88

Citation: R. v. Parris Date: 20130313 2013 BCPC 0088 File No: 76498-1 Registry: New Westminster IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. STEVE PARRIS ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE ALEXANDER Counsel for the Crown: S. Smith Counsel for the Accused: E. Warren Place of Hearing: New Westminster , B.C. Date of Hearing: March 13, 2013 Date of Judgment: March 13, 2013

[ 1 ] THE COURT : This is a tragic case on so many fronts. The defendant has entered a guilty plea to a single count of aggravated assault for an incident that occurred on November 19th, 2012 here in New Westminster. [ 2 ] The facts are not in dispute. The defendant was living with his long-term partner, Mr. L in Mr. L's apartment. Mr. L offered the victim, Mr. M, a place to stay. The three were intimate during the brief time that they resided together, and the defendant became jealous of the close relationship that was or had developed between Mr. L and Mr. M.

The defendant felt excluded from that relationship and also felt taken advantage of by the victim. [ 3 ] In anger, one day he heated a pot of water and a pan of oil on the stove while Mr. L and the victim were watching a movie in the other room. As he is a chef, the defendant rationalized that no one would suspect that anything was amiss as he was regularly in the kitchen. [ 4 ] When the water was boiling, he took the pot and poured it on the unsuspecting victim. Mr.

L intervened before the defendant could do the same thing with the oil. [ 5 ] The victim has sustained serious and life-altering burns to 30 percent of his skin surface. He was hospitalized for an extended period and there will be long-term physical and psychological effects to the victim as a result of this incident. He is presently unable to work and engage in his usual leisure pursuits. To say that this injury is life-altering would be an understatement. He has not regained range of motion in his limbs and the burns are visually disturbing to him.

The scars from this incident are more than physical and will likely affect the victim for the rest of his life. [ 6 ] The defendant is 52 years old I have had the benefit of reading a pre-sentence report and a psychiatric assessment setting out the defendant's background. He has also been ably represented by Mr. Warren this afternoon. [ 7 ] The psychiatric report shows no mental illness; both the pre-sentence report and the psychiatric report indicate a lack of insight on the part of the defendant and that somehow the victim is partly to blame.

This was also confirmed in the defendant's final address to the Court this afternoon. [ 8 ] The defendant has a record for a similar offence in 2010 when he hit another male with a car club, (the type that you find on a steering wheel), in similar circumstances. [ 9 ] The prosecution has submitted that a range of 18 months to eight years is the range of sentence that this Court should consider and the prosecution submits that this case should be at the higher end. [ 10 ] The Crown points to a number of aggravating factors: the use of a weapon; the premeditated nature of this assault on an unsuspecting and vulnerable victim; the stated desire to hurt the victim, and to suggest that he was in part responsible. [ 11 ] All of those are aggravating factors, but by way of mitigation the defendant has entered a guilty plea, he has accepted responsibility for his actions, and he is an otherwise gainfully employed contributing member of society. [ 12 ] The Crown, relying on several authorities it has put before the Court, seeks a sentence of five to six years, and the defence seeks something less. [ 13 ] The authorities cited by the prosecution offer one in particular that is most persuasive and that is the decision of R. v.

Haj- Ahmed , 2007 BCCA 143 . [ 14 ] In that case, the Court of Appeal in 2007 upheld a five-year sentence for a 39-year-old male with no criminal record who poured boiling oil on his roommate.

I find the reasoning in that case to be applicable to the case before me, particularly those passages at paras. 22 to 24 of that decision which are on all fours with the circumstances in this case. [ 15 ] I agree with the Crown that denunciation and deterrence are the primary principles that this Court should be addressing and rehabilitation also remains as I understand that the defendant has future plans for when he is released from prison. [ 16 ] I am concerned about the prospects of rehabilitation given what I perceive as a lack of insight based on what he has indicated to the Court and again his further attempts to rationalize his actions and hold the victim in some way responsible. [ 17 ] I give the defendant credit for four months' time served.

The balance of the sentence will be four years and eight months for a total of five years. [ 18 ] There will be a lifetime firearms prohibition and the usual DNA order. (ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)