R. v. Thrones, 2022 BCPC 86

Citation: R. v. Thrones 2022 BCPC 86 Date: 20220425 File No: 83553-1 Registry: New Westminster IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. FREDERICK JOHN THRONES REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE D. SUDEYKO Counsel for the Crown: Lionel Yip Counsel for the Defendant: L. Pippard Place of Hearing: New Westminster, B.C. Dates of Submissions: March 11 and 17, 2022 Date of Sentence: April 25, 2022

INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] On July 13, 2021, Frederick John Thrones (“Mr. Thrones”) entered a Canada Trust financial institution and presented a note demanding “at least $10,000” or he would “start shooting”. He was provided with some money, but hidden within that was a Global Position System (“GPS”) tracking device, which quickly resulted in his capture and arrest. [ 2 ] Mr. Thrones has pleaded guilty to the robbery. He has a lengthy criminal record, including previous robbery convictions, the last one involving a firearm, for which he received a 7 year sentence.

However, he has not had a conviction since 2001, some 20 years before this robbery. [ 3 ] As in all sentencing cases, the court must consider the circumstances of the offence, the circumstances of the offender, and apply sentencing principles, so as to reach a proportionate and fit sentence. [ 4 ] However, the particular issue that arises in this case is what consideration should be given for a lengthy gap in an offender’s record, when the new offence is a serious one. OFFENCE [ 5 ] On July 13, 2021, at 4:15 p.m., Mr. Thrones entered the Canada Trust financial institution in New Westminster, B.C. and got in line.

He had what appeared to be a laptop bag over his shoulder, from which he produced a note to the teller. That note said as follows: THIS IS A ROBBERY I MUST HAVE AT LEAST 10,000 DOLLARS AS I AM DYING IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS I HAVE 16 SHOTS AND I WILL MAKE EVERY ONE COUNT, YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS SO LETS GET GOING OR I START SHOOTING NOW [ 6 ] The teller responded to the note by approaching the cash machine. However, the manager, who had already been suspicious of Mr. Thrones, intervened and took over. At some point, Mr. Thrones said: “You only have 10 more seconds”. The manager provided Mr.

Thrones with some money ($645), but also a hidden GPS tracking device. [ 7 ] When Mr. Thrones left, and the police attended, he was tracked through the GPS device, showing him having made a number of stops, including a trip to the liquor store, where he obtained a box of wine with a value of $39.00. He then got into a taxi and directed the driver to Surrey Central station. [ 8 ] Mr. Thrones was then stopped, while in the taxi, and arrested in a high risk take down fashion. The items connected to the robbery were found with him, but no firearm or other weapon was located. OFFENDER Background [ 9 ] Mr.

Thrones’ background history, in addition to the submissions of defence counsel, was primarily provided in a Pre-Sentence Report (“PSR”), which also included a psychiatric component (“Psychiatric Report”). [ 10 ] Mr. Thrones, who is now 54 years old, was born in The Pas, Manitoba, and was the youngest of 13 children. He stated to the PSR writer that he has significant memory problems, such that his childhood background was primarily obtained through Corrections Canada records. Those records “describe the family home as marked by substance abuse as well as physical and sexual abuse”. Mr.

Thrones was taken into foster care at age 12. He was reportedly on the streets of Winnipeg by age 13 and admits to being engaged in substance use and criminal activity during his adolescence, which continued into adulthood. He has also suffered from anxiety and depression. Criminal Record [ 11 ] Mr.

Thrones’ criminal history was provided through filing of a Canadian Police Information Centre (“CPIC”) record. [ 12 ] That CPIC record began in 1986 in Manitoba, with convictions for Break and Enter, Theft x2 and Take Auto without Consent, resulting in a 30 day jail term, followed in 1987 by 10 months jail for Possession of Stolen Property (“PSP”), 18 months for a sexual assault, and 3 months (concurrent) for Obstruct and Resist Arrest in 1988. This was his first federal prison term, at age just 21. [ 13 ] That was then followed with a two-week sentence in 1991 for PSP.

[ 14 ] More significantly, in 1992 he was convicted for Robbery x3, for which he received 4 years jail on each count, to run concurrently. A Theft Over conviction in 1993 resulted in a 1 year concurrent sentence, while a Fail to Comply with Probation, also in 1993, added 30 consecutive days. [ 15 ] And then in 1994 he was sentenced to 5 years jail for another Robbery, consecutive to the sentence being served. [ 16 ] And what must have followed soon after his release from prison, he was sentenced for yet another Robbery in 2001, this time in Saskatchewan, involving a firearm, resulting in a 7 year sentence.

Post 2001 Sentence Release [ 17 ] That 2001 sentence was Mr. Thrones last before the matter presently before the Court. [ 18 ] Following his release from prison, according to the PSR sometime in 2008, Mr. Thrones met Ms. Lindsey Cunningham. He was on parole. They were located in B.C. and lived common law for some time. He was steadily employed in construction. In 2012 or 2013, they had a daughter together, who is now 9 or possibly 10. Unfortunately, they split when the daughter was 6 months old, but he was described by Ms. Cunningham as being a good father who has paid child support. [ 19 ] Ms.

Cunningham also offered some historical information and observations to the PSR writer, including that Mr. Thrones had suffered a back injury in 2020, affecting his ability to work, which may have contributed to his loss of identity and greater use of substances, and ultimately to the robbery. Through his counsel, Mr. Thrones mostly denies Ms. Cunningham’s “opinion” and suggests she doesn’t really know him. [ 20 ] Instead, the defence takes the position that Mr.

Thrones’ allegation that he was beaten in his back yard by two unknown men with baseball bats some weeks before the offence (which he did not report), and his lack of memory for events following that assault, including the robbery, suggest a causal connection between the “beating” and a possible traumatic brain injury, and the commission of the offence. Psychiatric Report [ 21 ] The Psychiatric Report, ordered by the court, was initiated by the defence in order to consider that causal connection. [ 22 ] The view of the psychiatrist, among other things, was that Mr.

Thrones “might have suffered from some traumatic brain injury”. He also referred to Mr. Thrones’ history of fighting and boxing as another consideration in the longer term effects of brain injuries. He did not in the end offer an opinion that connected a “possible traumatic brain injury” with the commission of the offence. [ 23 ] Despite the relative innocuous opinion offered, I feel the need to comment on the quality of that report. It was riddled with significant grammatical and other errors, which at times made it nonsensical. It included gratuitous opinions, such as a risk of future violence.

It may be that the author’s first language is not English, which would not in itself bring into question his psychiatric opinion. However, the quality of the Psychiatric Report was such that, had a stronger opinion been offered, I could give it little weight. CROWN POSITION [ 24 ] The Crown says that the circumstances of the offence, a bank robbery with the threat of a firearm, is already very serious, but is aggravated by the tenor of the note, including the need to act with immediacy or face the consequences. [ 25 ] They also say that deterrence and denunciation are primary sentencing objectives, and that Mr.

Thrones’ extensive criminal record, in particular the previous robberies, while taking into account the extended gap, supports a 5-6 year prison sentence, less time served on remand. [ 26 ] In support of that position, they rely primarily on R. v. Turnbull 2014 BCCA 186 , R. v J.J.Q.G. (Gwyn) 2013 BCCA 51 , R. v. Zakis 2012 BCCA 450 , R. v. Bezdan 2001 BCCA 215 , and R. v. Hanko 2002 BCCA 450 , all robberies of financial institutions with sentences ranging between 5 and 6 years. They also cited R. v.

Gaucher 2013 BCSC 349 , involving two robberies at credit unions, one day after the other, where a box cutter was found and a threat of a gun was made. Mr. Gaucher had an extensive record for robberies where he was given federal time, but there had been a 19 year break. He received 7 years. DEFENCE POSITION [ 27 ] The defence says I should impose a Conditional Sentence Order (“CSO”) of 2 years less a day. [ 28 ] They say that Mr. Thrones’ life had, for such an extended period of time, been crime-free and positive, such that the commission of the offence is entirely unexplainable, without motive or reason.

They point to the alleged beating and loss of memory to postulate that he suffered a brain injury, which they suggest offers some explanation for the commission of the offence. Defence counsel submits that Mr. Thrones has advised him that he doesn’t even drink wine, such that the purchase after the robbery also makes no sense. In essence, the defence submits that this alleged connection makes Mr. Thrones less culpable for the offence. [ 29 ] The defence also argues that Mr. Thrones' lack of memory of the offence significantly reduces the application of deterrence as a sentencing objective.

They argue that if he cannot recall committing the offence, how can he be deterred by the court’s sentence? [ 30 ] Although the Defence provided a binder with a number of cases, it was submitted that this case is so unusual that there are no real comparables. They did, however, refer to R. v. Sooch (Surrey Registry 235852-1 and 235853-1) of Docolas, J., (“ Sooch ”), an unreported June 21, 2021 B.C.

Provincial Court decision in which a 2 years less a day CSO was the sentence for two robberies, and R. v McBride 2015 BCPC 138 (“ McBride ”), where Keyes, J. imposed 2 years and 3 months for a single robbery. [ 31 ] In support of the CSO, the defence pointed out the BCCA’s recognition in R. v. Voong 2015 BCCA 285 para. 38-43 of the

deterrent effect of certain non-custodial sentences, and a description of the deterrent effect of a CSO, in particular, at para. 30 and 31 ofR. v. M.J.R. 2005 BCPC 468, and at para. 22 of R. v. Labrash 2006 BCCA 357. ANALYSIS [32] I agree with the Crown’s position that the seriousness of the offence, a bank robbery with the threat of a firearm, was aggravatedby the terms of immediacy imposed in the note. I also find the statement that “I am dying in the next few weeks” adds a further level ofdesperation and stress to the receiver of the note. [33] I agree that deterrence and denunciation (s. 718(

a) and (

b) of the Criminal Code) are primary sentencing objectives. Generaldeterrence has particular application to a robbery of a financial institution, since it is logically targeted because of the expectation oflarge sums of money available, putting employees at significant risk. It is important that those considering robbing a financial institutionare aware that a significant sentence awaits their capture. [34] The case law provided by the Crown provides the general and in fact broad range of sentencing (2-9 years) commonly imposedin regard to robbery, the circumstances of which can vary significantly.

It is also the guide provided by our B.C. Court of Appeal (see R.v. Brogan, 1999 BCCA 278 , [1999] B.C.J. No. 1011). [35] It is clear that all of the cases referred by the Crown will have differences in regard to the circumstances of the offence and thecircumstances of the offender. And, sentencing is very much an individualized process. Nonetheless, looking at the sentencing principleof parity (s. 718.2(

b) of the Criminal Code), I agree that 5-6 years is generally in the range for the circumstances of this offence and, forthe most part, this offender, keeping in mind his previous record. [36] I now turn to the submissions of the defence. [37] The cases referred to by the defence are distinguishable in that the offender in Sooch was just 35 years old and had only oneprevious conviction for robbery some 15 years earlier.

McBride involved a case of a stolen vehicle which ran over the leg of the owner,and the 39 year old offender had “no criminal record of significance”. [38] I also did not agree with the defence submissions with respect to a connection between a possible brain injury and thecommission of the offence. Even if I were to accept Mr.

Thrones’ advice to his counsel (and others) that he was beaten and knockedunconscious and has no memory for a period following that event, including the robbery, that does not explain the commission of therobbery. [39] It seems to me that the defence conflates a loss of memory for the robbery as evidence that Mr. Thrones was in some sort of“altered state” (which is my term to explain the defence submission), or otherwise influenced by the effects of a brain injury at the timeof the robbery. There is no evidence of that, including from the Psychiatric Report. [40] In fact, the actions of Mr.

Thrones in writing and producing the note, the manner of its’ presentation at the bank, the briefcomments made, leaving the bank having received the money (unwittingly with a GPS attached), going to the nearby liquor store andpurchasing a $39.00 box of wine (suggesting his advice to his counsel that he didn’t drink wine was not accurate, or perhaps he hadsomeone else in mind), and getting into a taxi headed for Surrey, does not support such an “altered state”, or otherwise explain Mr.Thrones’ conduct as a consequence of a brain injury.

His conduct was planned and purposeful. [41] And so even if he has no use for wine and doesn’t know why he purchased it, and his life was in perfect harmony such that thereappears to be no motive for committing the robbery, and that he suffered a brain injury and has no memory for the robbery, the evidencesupports that he was fully aware of what he was doing at the time he committed the robbery.

For that reason, I am unable to reduce Mr.Throne’s culpability for the offence on the basis of the argument made by the defence. [42] I also conclude that specific deterrence is not reduced as a sentencing objective, even accepting Mr. Thrones’ loss of memory forthe robbery. That sentencing objective is achieved when Mr. Thrones is made aware of the potential sentence should he commit arobbery in the future, which deters him from doing so.

That is no less achievable even if he has no memory of committing a robbery inthe past. [43] Having come to those conclusions, this is a case that is nonetheless unusual for the length of the gap from what had been asignificant and related criminal record to return to crime on this one occasion, in such a big and familiar way, by committing a bankrobbery. [44] The significant gap in criminality demonstrates Mr. Thrones’ ability to live productively for an extended period. That bodes wellfor considerations of his rehabilitation, which remains an important sentencing objective (s. 718(

d) of the Criminal Code). [45] I am also satisfied that, despite the arguments presented by defence, which I rejected, the decision to commit this bank robberyafter all this time came about because there was a significant and negative change in Mr. Thrones’ circumstances. He must address whatcaused that change and how to address that in the future. CONCLUSION [46] I conclude that a CSO, even of two years less a day, would be contrary to the primary sentencing objectives of deterrence anddenunciation. [47] When I consider the serious and aggravated circumstances of this offence, together with Mr.

Thrones’ lengthy related criminalrecord, giving rise to the primary sentencing objectives of deterrence and denunciation, and then balance that against the significant 20year gap, revealing his ability to live crime free and productive, supporting the sentencing objectives of rehabilitation and reintegration,the appropriate sentence is one of 4 years.

[ 48 ] From that 4 years (1461 days) will be deducted the pre-trial remand period of 317 days on a 1.5 basis (476 days), such his effective remaining sentence is 985 days. [ 49 ] I also make a firearm prohibition order s. 110 for life, and order that a DNA sample be provided pursuant to s 487.04 of the Criminal Code . [ 50 ] I waive the victim fine surcharge, as that would impose an undue hardship. _______________________________ The Honourable Judge D. Sudeyko Provincial Court of British Columbia