R. v. Rangi, 2015 ONCJ 622

Information No.: 13-8020 Citation: R. v. Rangi , 2015 ONCJ 622 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. H A R M E E T R A N G I R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE P.F. BAND July 22, 2015 at BRAMPTON, Ontario

LEGEND [sic] – Indicates preceding word has been reproduced verbatim and is not a transcription error. (ph) – Indicates preceding word has been spelled phonetically APPEARANCES: C. Sibian Counsel for the Crown P. O’Marra Counsel for Harmeet Rangi ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S REASON FOR SENTENCE PAGE 1

Transcript Ordered: ............................July 23, 2015 Transcript Completed:...........................July 27, 2015 Ordering Partying Notified:.....................August 4, 2015 R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E Band J. (orally) : On May 3, 2013, Mr. Rangi was charged with a number of firearms offences in relation to a loaded revolver and a bag of ammunition that were in his possession, and with which he accidentally shot himself in the chest while sitting in his truck outside his home. On December 3, 2014, Mr.

Rangi pleaded guilty to the offence of unauthorized possession of a firearm, contrary to section 91(1) of the Criminal Code . The matter was then adjourned for argument as to sentence a number of times. The reasons for the adjournments included the time required to generate a pre-sentence report and Mr. Rangi’s illness and hospitalization arising from complications related to the injuries he suffered on May 3, 2013. The Crown had alleged that Mr. Rangi knew that the handgun was loaded and wished to prove this as an aggravation factor. The defence did not admit this fact and Mr.

Rangi gave evidence denying such knowledge on June 22, 2015. The parties then made their submissions. Facts Surrounding the Offence Mr. Rangi is married with two children, ages 10 and 7 at the time. His brother is a police officer in another jurisdiction. He and his wife own another home as income property. In the early afternoon of May 3, 2013, Mr. Rangi drove his pick up truck to the property to pick up some garden tools from the shed. On the ground in a corner, he found a handgun, which had a plastic bag of bullets attached to it.

At first, he wondered whether it was a real gun but because of its weight and the attached bullets, he concluded that it was. The handgun is a silver-coloured, highly corroded revolver handgun that was manufactured around the turn of the last century. It is

approximately six inches in total size and the barrel is less than two inches long. The brass coloured bullets are each approximately one inch in length. Mr. Rangi made a couple of trips to load his truck with tools and decided to bring the gun along with him as well. He placed it in the driver’s side door compartment together with the bag of bullets, and then went about his business, making some stops along with way. At some point that afternoon, his wife told him that their daughter needed to go to the doctor. Mr.

Rangi drove home, parked his pick up truck and drove his daughter to the doctor’s office in his wife’s car. The gun remained in the pick up truck’s driver-side door compartment. Mr. Rangi did not return to his pick up truck until later that evening after his children were in bed. After walking the dog he retrieved the handgun from his truck and took it into the house to show his wife. He met her by the entrance. She was upset and immediately told him to get the gun out of the house. He went back to his truck where he sat looking at the gun. It was dark outside.

He was not sure if the light was on or off in the truck. He wanted to look for markings on it so that he could tell his brother about it. His brother was the only person he could think to call. He did not load any bullets in the gun. As he was looking at it, the gun accidently discharged into his left chest. Mr. Rangi suffered a collapsed lung. He was taken to hospital where he was treated for his injuries. A complication known as pneumothorax required a chest tube to drain fluid until May 11. Police were able to verify that the handgun belonged to the income property’s previous owner. Mr.

Rangi was not suicidal at the time of the accident. He had no intentions of harming anyone. Additional Findings of Fact Mr. Rangi testified that he had no past familiarity with guns and did not know that it was loaded. The Crown urged me to disbelieve his evidence on this point. I decline to do so. The Crown did not contradict Mr. Rangi’s evidence that he was not familiar with firearms and I believed him about that. The real issue is whether he knew that it was loaded.

The Crown’s argument is that he had to have known it was loaded because the brass-coloured base of some of the bullets is visible between the rear side of the cylinder and a protruding, semi-circular

part I have since learned is called a recoil shield. The Crown relies on the photographs that police took of the gun. These were taken from a position somewhat behind and below the rear-side of the cylinder and under very good lighting conditions. Even if I have some doubt that Mr. Rangi inspected the handgun without turning on the cab light, I believe him that he did not know it was loaded.

Aside from the somewhat technical reasons I have just listed, the fact that he was necessarily pointing the handgun toward himself when it discharged makes that conclusion almost irresistible as a matter of human nature, if not logic. I also make a further finding of fact based on the police photos of the driver’s side door compartment where Mr. Rangi left the gun and ammunition for a number of hours. It is on the lower portion of the door, at approximately the level of the base of the seat. Based on the photographs, its contents would be difficult to see from outside with the door closed.

Circumstances of the Offender

Mr. Rangi was 43 years old at the time of the offence. He obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree in India, where he and his wife weremarried in 1998. They came to Canada in 2000. They have lived and raised their family in Brampton since 2002. Mr. Rangi has been a successful subcontract truck driver for over two decades. In 2011 to 2013, Mr. Rangi graduated from a local private real estate college. He currently holds a conditional licence to sell real estatein Ontario. His wife is also a real estate broker. According to the medical records and the PSR, Mr.

Rangi continues to suffer physically and emotionally from the incident. He issusceptible to lung infections and his stamina is reduced. He related that he is subject to stress and anxiety. His wife thinks he isstruggling with depression. He was overcome with emotion a number of times during these court proceedings. His wife, police and he all agree that he is lucky to be alive. In addition, Mr. Rangi was cooperative with police, respectful of the process and exhibited remorse. Mr. Rangi, however, has a criminal record spanning the years 2000 to 2004.

He has convictions for Mischief Over, Assault, Over 80,Failing to comply with recognizance, Failing to comply with Probation and Driving while Disqualified. He has served short jailsentences in relation to two of these offences. Position of the Parties The Crown submits that the main purposes of sentencing in this case are general deterrence and denunciation and that nothing short of aconditional sentence is called for. Rehabilitation and specific deterrence are to be given much less weight. He cites the fact that Mr. Rangi had possession or control of a handgun for a number of hours. During that time, Mr.

Rangi carried itfrom the shed to his truck, transported it in his truck, where he left it for a number of hours, and then brought it to and from his house. Knowledge that it was loaded is the most aggravating factor. That it discharged is also aggravating, as it constitutes a very seriousdanger to the community. The Crown is adamant that Mr. Rangi’s self-inflicted injuries not be treated as mitigating. In his view they can be relevant only to theprinciple of specific deterrence. In support of his argument, the Crown relies on R. v. Nur, 2013 ONCA 677 , [2013] O.J. No. 5120 (C.

A) and R. v. Smickle,2013 ONCA 678 , [2013] O.J. No. 5070 and [2013] O.J. No. 258 (C.A.). Mr. O’Marra submits that Mr. Rangi should benefit from a conditional discharge. Aside from the serious impact the offence has had onMr. Rangi, he relies on the potential impact of a firearms-related conviction on his ability to remain licenced as a real estate broker. Thedefence also relies on the PSR and the fact that Mr. Rangi’s criminal record is dated and unrelated. In support of his argument, Mr. O’Marra cited a number of cases in which discharges were granted for firearms offences.

He also veryfairly submitted cases in which discharges were requested but not granted at first instance or on appeal. Aggravating Factors

The aggravating factors in this case include the fact that the firearm was transported from place to place on foot and in a motor vehicle, the duration of the possession and control and the fact that it was discharged in a residential setting. While Mr. Rangi’s record is dated, the last conviction having been registered nine years before this incident, it cannot be said that he is a “model citizen” or someone whose prior character is entirely unblemished. According to Mr. Rangi, his past offending took place when he was associating with a negative peer group and abusing alcohol.

That may be, however these were not mere youthful indiscretions. He was married and in his 30s. Mitigating Factors This matter was headed toward resolution from a very early stage and was the subject of prolonged negotiations. The guilty plea was a meaningful sign of remorse. This is further confirmed by the PSR, which also describes Mr. Rangi as insightful. He is hardworking and currently lives a stable, family oriented lifestyle. He also enjoys the strong support of his family. Whether the serious injuries and complications that Mr.

Rangi suffered and with which he continues to struggle are characterized as mitigating factors, circumstances of the offender or something else, is somewhat academic. It is unrealistic to simply ignore them. I say more about this below. Characterization of the Offence In Nur and Smickle, the Court of Appeal described a spectrum of firearms-related offences, the least serious being regulatory-type offences and the most serious falling at the so-called “true crime” end.

In Nur , the accused, who was carrying a semi-automatic prohibited handgun he knew was loaded ostensibly for self-defence, brought it into a community centre. When, how or why he came into possession of the handgun were not known. In Smickle , the accused was in possession of a fully loaded semi-automatic prohibited handgun, with the hammer cocked to fire, when police burst into the apartment under the authority of a search warrant. He had also been taking photographs of himself with the gun on a laptop to make himself look “cool”.

The Court characterized his conduct as “wanton and reckless disregard for the safety of others”. The Court placed the facts of both Nur and Smickle on the “true crime” end of the spectrum. I would characterize Mr. Rangi’s conduct as closer to the regulatory side of the spectrum than the wanton and reckless or “true crime” side. I do this for a number of reasons. In Mr. Rangi’s case, the how, when and why are known, and none of them give rise to concerns such as a desire to arm himself for self- defence or to glorify the use of firearms in any way.

He clearly made a serious and criminally culpable mistake by transporting and maintaining control of the firearm over a number of hours rather than immediately calling police. But it is important that he did not know it was loaded, that when it was in his truck, it was not in plain view and that he intended to call his brother, who is a police officer. Analysis Is Incarceration Necessary in this Case ? I acknowledge and agree that general deterrence and denunciation are important sentencing principles in this case. But in light of the

facts as I have found them, they do not displace other relevant principles including rehabilitation. And I must also remind myself of the overarching importance of the principle of proportionality as recently described by the SupremeCourt of Canada in R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6 , [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206. A conditional sentence is a sentence of incarceration, albeit one that is served in the community. By definition, and by application of theprinciple of restraint enshrined in

section 718.2(

d) of the Criminal Code, a conditional sentence must not be imposed where lessrestrictive sanctions may be appropriate. I have come to the conclusion that to incarcerate Mr. Rangi would be to punish him more than is necessary in light of his moralculpability and would run contrary to the principle of restraint. In doing so, I have considered the importance of deterring like-minded members of the community. Where I disagree most strongly withthe Crown is about the role that Mr. Rangi’s injuries and ongoing suffering play in the sentencing process.

According to the Crown, they are entirely consumed by the principle of specific deterrence. This position presumes that Mr. Rangi is an offender who requires the criminal law’s coercion to deter him from committing furtherfirearms offences. It also ignores the “flexibility and contextual nature of the sentencing process in Canada” as described by theSupreme Court in Nagosaluak at paragraph 56. Both approaches would be wrong. Mr. Rangi’s criminal record is dated and unrelated, and he has been living a stable and productive life for many years. Specificdeterrence is not called for in this case.

But this does not mean that the very real consequences of his actions can play no role in this process. I agree with Mr. O’Marra that Mr. Rangi’s case serves as a clear warning and reminder of the dangers that firearms pose. Even firearmsthat appear to be antiques. Even when they may not appear to be loaded. Those lessons cannot be overemphasized. They serve to deterother like-minded citizens from taking possession or control of firearms when they are unauthorized to do so. Is a Conditional Discharge Sufficient to Meet the Principles of Sentencing in this Case?

I believe that a conditional discharge would be in Mr. Rangi’s interests. It would be accompanied by probation and would provide himwith counselling and other resources to facilitate his well-being and rehabilitation. And it would allow him to be confident that hischosen career as a real estate broker is assured. However, I have concluded that it would be contrary to the public interest.

In my view, the principles of general deterrence and denunciation would be undermined by a conditional discharge in the case of a manwith a dated, but not insignificant criminal record, who had a firearm with readily accessible ammunition in his possession and controlfor a period of approximately eight hours, who transported it and left it in his motor vehicle and ultimately had it discharge in aresidential neighbourhood. R. v. To, [2015] O.J. No. 893, a decision of the Superior Court in this jurisdiction, was of great assistance to me in my analysis. I also note that each of the cases that Mr.

O’Marra cited in which a discharge was granted is distinguishable on the basis of ignorance of

an important fact (such as the need to be licenced), the lack of a criminal record, youthfulness or the certainty of lost livelihood. In only one of them was the firearm discharged, and in that case the firearm accidentally discharged and the accused fired a subsequent warning shot in an effort to ward off a robbery. See R. v. Kurkcuoglu, [2010] B.C. No. 813 (S.C.). I have also given serious consideration to the possible impact that a conviction of this kind might have on Mr. Rangi’s real estate licence. Based on the lack of evidence, I am not convinced that it will be fatal.

But in any event, I am satisfied that this concern is outweighed by the circumstances of this case and the principles that I am required to apply. As a result, the passing of sentence will be suspended. Mr. Rangi will be placed on probation for a period of 12 months. He will report to a probation officer immediately, and thereafter as required; He will attend and cooperate with assessments and counselling as recommended by his probation officer, particularly with respect to anxiety and depression; He will not possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code ; He will keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

As the Crown proceeded by way of indictment, an order under

section 109 of the Criminal Code will be made prohibiting Mr. Rangi from possessing any firearm, cross bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substances for a period 10 years. A forfeiture order will also be made in relation to the firearm and ammunition in accordance with

section 491 of the Criminal Code . THE COURT: I’d like to thank all counsel involved in matter. MR. O’MARRA: Thanks very much, Your Honour. THE COURT: Thank you, sir. MR. O’MARRA: And the remaining charges? THE COURT: I expect the Crown will be withdrawing those? MS. SIBIAN: Yes, ask that those be marked as withdrawn. ...WHEREUPON THIS MATTER WAS ADJOURNED FORM 2 C ertificate of Transcript (Subsection 5(2)) Evidence Act I, Mary Gabriele-DeRose, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of the proceedings in R. v.

Harmeet Rangi , in the Ontario Court of Justice held at 7755 Hurontario, Brampton, Ontario, taken from Recording No. 3111 H9 20150722 093516 30 BandP, which has been certified in Form 1 by Sheena Watt.

____________________ _________________________________ August 4, 2015 Mary Gabriele-DeRose Authorized Court Transcriptionist ACT# 7181875571 gabbymd92@yahoo.ca 416-200-4103 This certification does not apply to the Rulings, Reasons for Judgment, Reasons for Sentence, or Charge to the Jury, which was/were judicially edited .