R. v. Lamb Date:, 2013 BCPC 137

Citation: R. v. Lamb Date: 20130322 2013 BCPC 0137 File No: 88828-1 Registry: Port Coquitlam IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BAN ON PUBLICATION Pursuant to s. 486.4(1) Criminal Code of Canada REGINA v. RUSSELL THOMAS LAMB ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE POTHECARY Counsel for the Crown: P. Benning Counsel for the Accused: J. Percival Place of Hearing: Port Coquitlam , B.C.

Date of Hearing: March 22, 2013 Date of Judgment: March 22, 2013 [ 1 ] THE COURT : Russell Lamb has pleaded guilty to two charges: the first that from the 10th day of May, 2012 to the 13th day of September, 2012 –- inclusive at or near Maple Ridge, in the Province of British Columbia, that he did for a sexual purpose touch directly or indirectly with a part of his body or with an object, the body of A.G.M.M., a person under the age of 16 years; and Count 3 that from the 10th day of May, 2012 to the 13th day of September, 2012, inclusive, at or near Maple Ridge, in the Province of British Columbia, he did, by means of a computer system within the meaning of s. 342.1(2) of the Criminal Code , communicate with a person who was or who Russell Thomas Lamb believed was under the age of 18 years, A.G.M.M., for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence under

section 163.1 with respect to that person. [ 2 ] The dates have been broadly laid. The evidence and what has been agreed on in terms of the facts that have been described before me would put the dates more correctly as on Count 1 commencing June 29th, 2012 to approximately July 31st, 2012-- actually probably the 10th of August, 2012 thereabouts -- and for Count 3 from about the 10th of August, 2012 to the 13th of September, 2012.

I am clarifying the dates to show the sequence of the events as they took place in terms of the evidence that has been presented on sentencing. [ 3 ] The circumstances relate to a young woman whose date of birth is –- [ 4 ] February 24th, 1997. So at the time of the commission of these offences she was 15 years old. She is now, as of last month, 16 years old. [ 5 ] She was a young girl with some problems, in that in May of 2012 she was quite troubled.

This was apparently something that had commenced or at least was noticed by her parents as commencing around November 2011 when she had been missing school and involved in some vandalism and other kinds of behaviour. [ 6 ] On May 27th, 2012, she attempted to overdose on several dozen Tylenol and sleeping pills. As a result of this she spent the night in a local hospital and three nights at B.C. Children's Hospital and continued to have a difficult time into and through the month of June. [ 7 ] On June 29th, 2012, she apparently met Mr. Lamb.

The best information I have is that they met on a bus and started to talk. She did not return to her house that night and a friend of hers ultimately told her parents that she had spent the night at Mr. Lamb's house. [ 8 ] In early July, after having failed Grade 9, she was told she had to go to summer school. Nonetheless she then was away from her parents' house for at least eight nights up to and including the night of July 28th – these are sporadic dates – and her parents reported her missing July 29th, 2012. [ 9 ] She was located and the police as well as her parents spoke to both her and to Mr. Lamb.

In those conversations both she and Mr. Lamb denied that there was any sexual element to their relationship. [ 10 ] It is clear from the circumstances alleged that indeed there was a sexual relationship and it is clear that this was not a forced relationship with respect to this child, that she in her mind believed she was consenting although, of course, she was not legally entitled to consent to this. [ 11 ] There were also drugs involved and given what I have been told of Mr.

Lamb's drug use, I expect that was heroin. [ 12 ] Her father, in early August – August 11th – then moved her back to Mexico which is where her mother was at the time. She continues to live in Mexico. [ 13 ] Because she was removed from the area, and given the adamant denials on the part of both her and Mr. Lamb about a sexual component to their relationship, the police concluded their file at that time. However, while in Mexico her father monitored her Facebook page and found a series of chats on that page which made it very clear that the contact between them was clearly sexual.

In fact, he was enticing her with the idea of an ongoing relationship ultimately perhaps to getting married as soon as she turned 16 and having another wedding sometime thereafter when everybody would accept this. [ 14 ] It is the series of messages sent through the Facebook account that are the subject of Count 3. They are very affectionate; they are clearly identifiable to Mr.

Lamb because of details he gave in them about police investigations, about the probation officer (I will get to why he was on probation shortly), his learning Spanish to communicate with her, and his again talking about moving into an apartment though he has to live with his parents. He uses extremely rude language in any references to the police, and in one of the chats from September 3rd or 4th of 2012 he spoke of using a SigSauer P228 gun. She replies that she checked out the gun and he says it is such a "bad ass" gun.

It is compact, concealable -- very concealable. [ 15 ] Some of the other chats refer to her father requiring her to stay in Mexico and his anger and frustration with that. There is also jealousy about a picture of her with somebody else on the Facebook page, and his talking about how he was going to save the money he was making through drug trafficking to be able to fly down and meet her and pay for a big wedding.

There is also a series of extremely graphic sexual exchanges which include her sending him a series of pictures of herself that are more than suggestive sexually. [ 16 ] These were turned over to the police and as a result of that he was arrested I believe on September 13th, 2012. He has been in custody since that time. There was ultimately a detention order.

[ 17 ] The police executed search warrants; various materials were seized. Materials that came to the attention of the police included a diary, a few pages of which have been filed as exhibits on sentencing. He writes on July 2nd that he has met this girl on June 29th, describes her coming to his house, and then having sex that night.

That is corrobative with the night that the family were aware that she had not come home and was AWOL from not being with her parents. [ 18 ] It is of concern that in the note in his diary where he is talking about this amazing, beautiful girl in his life now -- so he has now known her for three days maybe four -- he signs off with a sketch of two handguns. [ 19 ] A picture of the complainant has been filed taken July 29th. She looks like a pretty 15-year-old girl. [ 20 ] Another document that was filed is a letter dated December 25th, 2012 that he wrote to her from jail.

I am assuming that that was intercepted and did not get to her, is that correct? [ 21 ] MR. BENNING: No, the letter sent -- I think it did get to her and it was her father who discovered it in her belongings and sent it back to the Coquitlam Detachment who in turn sent it to me. [ 22 ] THE COURT: All right, so there was a letter dated December 25th, 2012, "Merry Christmas, baby", which was intercepted at some point probably by her father.

The envelope that is filed suggests it comes from him so there is no secret about the author. [ 23 ] The contents include: Always remember that I love you and will never stop loving you. You brighten my life, baby. I told my mom not to be rude at all if you called her. She likes you but she was just upset with everything. Soon this all will be behind us and you and I can move on with our lives. I think I should be out sometime in March. It's felt like a really long summer since I was arrested. I love you so, so, so much. I can't wait until I can hold you in my arms and tell you how important you are to me.

Your future husband [Those are just some extracts from it]. [ 24 ] In referring to the chats on Facebook, there are a number of comments that are disturbing but there was one on p. 13 that shows a date of August 22nd, 2012 that I particularly want to refer to as well wherein he says: My P.O. found out about me trying to help you back to Canada 'cause that piece of shit G.I.S. cop Chris found out about you trying to get help and he looked into it and when he found out that I was helping you with it, he saw it as a problem and went and told my P.O. that I'd been texting you lots and trying to help you back here and he made it seem all bad and told my P.O.

So much of this entire thing is his fault. [ 25 ] Reports were prepared, both a Forensic psychiatric report by a psychologist, Dr. Stangeland, and also a pre-sentence report. I mention the psychologist's name because it seems he has prepared other reports in other similar sorts of cases and he is not a stranger to these kinds of allegations. [ 26 ] In terms of preparing the psychiatric report, the doctor interviewed Mr. Lamb by way of video conference on December 12th, 2012 for three hours.

There was substantial psychological testing and a list of some 19 documents including Crown counsel reports that were reviewed by the doctor. That report was then prepared on January 8th, 2013. [ 27 ] The pre-sentence report was prepared in and around the same time and was prepared for January 13th, 2013. [ 28 ] The pre-sentence report discloses the criminal record of Mr. Lamb: a conviction July 19th, 2010 in North Vancouver for public mischief and criminal harassment for which he was sentenced to one day in jail with probation for 18 months.

Then most troubling is a conviction May 2nd, 2012 in North Vancouver for sexual interference with a person under 16. For that he was sentenced to actual time served of 15 days plus an additional 14 days plus probation for three years.

I note the pre-sentence report does not refer to the 15 days' time served but it is clear from a copy of the probation order that that was a part of the sentence. [ 29 ] At that time, a firearms prohibition and an order prohibiting attendance where children were present as well as DNA orders were made according to the probation order. [ 30 ] The terms of the probation order had him reporting, providing his address, having no contact with a series of young women and others, and not to attend a series of addresses in Squamish, no weapons including any imitation or replicas or BB guns, no other weapons or imitations, no knives, counselling, and a letter of apology.

I have no information as to whether that letter of apology was prepared. [ 31 ] There is nothing specific with respect to his response to this probation order in the pre-sentence report although there are comments that seem to refer to it. [ 32 ] I should note that this offence date is about five or six weeks after he would have been released from custody on the sentence he received May 2nd, 2012. [ 33 ] In the pre-sentence report under the heading "Attitude and Receptiveness to Previous and Proposed Interventions", the probation officer wrote: The subject's previous contact with the criminal justice system has been poor.

He was not always forthcoming and honest during

sessions. He often missed appointments or attended for appointments late. In addition, he self-reported continuing criminal activity and committed additional sexual offences while bound by a court order. Possible interventions were discussed with the subject that included but were not limited to psychological and psychiatric assessment, treatment and programming for sexual offenders and treatment and programming related to substance misuse. The subject states he is willing to participate in interventions and abide by conditions as proposed by the court including no contact conditions with the victim.

The subject expressed that conditions which restrict computer usage would impede his educational aspirations. [ 34 ] The circumstances of the offence to which he had pleaded guilty and was sentenced on May 2nd are set out in the psychiatric report which states: On April 18, 2012 a series of charges were brought against Russell including sexual interference of a person under 16, assault, sexual assault, giving alcohol to a minor and permitting a minor to consume alcohol. On May 2nd, 2012 he was convicted of sexual interference of a person under 16.

The victim was a 15-year-old girl who was in the company of her 17-year-old friend. They appear to have come to Russell's residence and he provided them with alcohol. The two girls had been sexual partners and it was suggested that they began to disrobe and behave sexually with each other. Russell became involved and they performed oral sex on him and he had unprotected intercourse with each of them. The older girl was quite intoxicated and the sexual involvement narrowed down to Russell and the younger girl.

The victim stated that Russell wanted to perform anal intercourse and she believed that she denied consent but she also reported that she was very intoxicated and was unsure. He was sentenced to 14 days in jail in addition to 15 days' time served and three years of probation. [ 35 ] Counsel have provided me with a number of cases dealing with charges of sexual touching and of the communication. They each have maximum penalties of ten years. Some of the cases refer to when the maximum penalty was five years.

There now are new minimum penalties included as well, but I am not going to consider those for the purpose of this sentencing hearing. [ 36 ] The cases which I have reviewed and which I will simply list are R. v. Aimee , 2010 BCSC 1463 ; R. v. Gurr , 2007 BCSC 1586 ; R. v. D'Argis , 2011 BCSC 842 ; and R. v. McCall , 2011 BCPC 143 . As well, R. v. Florence , 2010 BCSC 1010 and R. v. Nichol , 2009 BCPC 124 . [ 37 ] I have read all of these cases. Given that it is late in the day on a Friday afternoon, I am not going to make particular reference to them other than for some comments. [ 38 ] In the decision of R. v.

Aimee , supra , Justice Fisher reviewed a number of the principles with respect to sentencing. There are the principles in s. 718 as well as s. 718.01 which requires primary consideration be given to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence when imposing a sentence for an offence involving the abuse of persons under the age of

Section 718.2 is also of course to be taken into account and time spent in custody is to be taken into account. [ 39 ] In terms of the internet luring charges, the range suggested in the Aimee , supra , case is a sentence of from 18 months to two years. [ 40 ] In this case the use of the internet was not so much for luring in terms of identifying a stranger and getting that stranger into one's life, but it was unquestionably used in an ongoing coercive fashion to maintain a relationship that he knew was illegal. [ 41 ] In terms of the sexual interference charges, the sexual touching, the range is discussed again and although there are exceptions, Justice Fisher establishes the range more as being two to four years although it can go as high as six years. [ 42 ] The concern with respect to the sexual touching charge is the vulnerability of people under the age of 16 to sexual exploitation. [ 43 ] Sometimes children do not know what is good for them; that is nothing new.

That is why we have special legislation dealing with young persons, and that is why there are all kinds of rules and regulations about what children can and cannot consent to. They do not always know what is best for them and when they find a receptive adult who is prepared to take advantage of the immaturity or the lack of self-awareness of children, then they become extremely vulnerable. I am satisfied that is part of what was happening here. [ 44 ] There is also an aspect of grooming here in terms of apparently trying to encourage this very troubled 15-year-old girl to be a real actual girlfriend.

That is demonstrated by his discussions with his mother and his father about this young woman being his girlfriend and his convincing them that this was an acceptable relationship, that she was in fact of appropriate age which they were prepared to accept.

I believe because they love their son and want to help him they perhaps did not look at the situation as closely as they might have. [ 45 ] The Crown in speaking to sentence says the primary principle in this case, given the fact that he was newly on a probation order and had very recently been released from custody for a very similar offence, is a sentence that isolates him from society and then puts him on the longest probation period possible within that context. [ 46 ] The law is clear that the longest sentence that I can impose with attaching a probation order is a sentence of two years with a three-year probation order, or if it is kept within provincial time, a sentence of two years less a day, plus three years' probation. [ 47 ] Counsel on behalf of Mr.

Lamb is submitting that a much shorter period of time would be appropriate of perhaps nine months to one year before time being deducted for actual time served. Counsel is agreeable that the three year probation order is appropriate. [ 48 ] The reports are very troubling. They are either the product of complete fantasy on the part of Mr. Lamb or he is a much more serious offender than his parents would like to accept and that counsel is really prepared to acknowledge.

[ 49 ] The risk assessment was made and as part of that risk assessment, a review was done of his sexual violence history, his psychological adjustment, mental disorder, social adjustment, and manageability; and so on covering 22 different points. In going through that I do note although it is not set out as a diagnosis in the report as a whole that under "Mental Disorder" the item "Psychopathic Personality Disorder" is found to be present. The comment made is: A review of personality and behavioural characteristics common to the most persistent criminals indicates high moderate levels of similarity.

Some of these traits might have been exaggerated by his history of drug abuse and some might be associated with immaturity but his history is strongly suggestive of those characteristics that place at high risk for acting out behaviour whether that is related to substance abuse, criminality or sexual misconduct. He is not found to have a major mental illness nor a violent or suicidal ideation.

No problems arising from child abuse. [ 50 ] Under the category "Psychological Coercion and Sexual Violence" the psychologist found that to be absent but did note there was little evidence of psychological coercion in the form of threats or verbal abuse. It would appear, however, that Russell is quite manipulative in pursuing his sexual objectives and as I commented in earlier exchanges the psychological coercion and manipulation I think is highly evident in the Facebook messages. [ 51 ] Under the characteristic "Physical Coercion and Sexual Violence" that is described as being possible.

There is one sentence I will not refer to but then he said: When he was convicted of sexual interference [that is referring to the May 2nd conviction] the victim initially reported that she had denied consent for anal intercourse but that he had engaged in this action anyway. [ 52 ] In terms of the psychopathy checklist, his total score placed him at the 64th percentile when compared to male prison inmates but there are two parts to the test.

The first is a collection of personality traits that has been found to be related to a criminal lifestyle and he scored high on this factor at the 76th percentile in comparison with the sample prison inmates. The second factor relates to an unstable and anti-social lifestyle. His score on this factor was moderate in comparison with prison inmates falling at the 42nd percentile so that brought his overall score down to 64 from the high of 76. [ 53 ] Much of this was self-reported to the doctor and whether that was accurate reporting or not is problematic.

Certainly it appears from everything I have heard today that his behaviour was manipulative, not only with respect to the younger partners, but very much with respect to his parents and whether that stability is what it is described as being is hard to say. [ 54 ] In conclusion, on the risk assessment, the doctor said: It is my opinion that Russell represents a high level of risk for future sexual misconduct.

He appears to be particularly vulnerable to opportunistically exercising poor judgment about the appropriateness of his relationships and he seems to have a low degree of sensitivity to anything other than his immediate gratification. [ 55 ] In the course of his interviews he described at length that he supported himself by trafficking in drugs, that he had guns, that he had been using opium -- is the way he described it – almost daily for a number of years. [ 56 ] The drug use was more or less corroborated by his parents. They had in fact paid for him to go to a fine treatment centre.

The effects of that lasted for about a month before he was back in that pattern. However he denied guns and he denied the trafficking; that he was not really doing that. His parents were assisting him financially in terms of supplies more than direct money payments as I understand it throughout the years which meant he never quite got to rock bottom. [ 57 ] The reports make mention of a previous girlfriend who had been with him for about three years. During that time, it was clear that they engaged in drug use together.

I was told that she had gone into treatment and has now maintained sobriety for an extended period of time. At that time it became apparent she indeed was here in court and as I had heard from Mr. Lamb's mother and father, I also heard from this young woman. [ 58 ] I am satisfied she is not here to be vindictive. She put a lot of commitment into her relationship I think with Mr. Lamb and she is here to basically make sure that the court is not fooled about things. I take it that is her primary motivation. She described that she met him when she was 16. He was 20 or 21 and they were together for some three years.

Within a short time of meeting, he turned her on to using heroin in his parents' house, and that they then used together frequently and regularly. She described that the quantity that they were using was three grams every couple of days between them which cost approximately $200.00. That money came, from her perspective, from savings that she had, from an inheritance, and then pawning belongings and getting hold of things in other ways. She ultimately ended up stealing and was charged with those offences some time ago. [ 59 ] She said the last time she saw Mr.

Lamb was November 4th, 2011, the day before she entered into treatment and then in January of 2012 she advised him she no longer wanted him in her life. She has responded well to treatment. She does not blame him for her addiction. Her words are "nobody held a gun" to her head. But she is now working very hard to maintain a clean and sober life which she is managing to do. She has been clean now for nearly 17 months. [ 60 ] She was asked if she had ever seen Mr. Lamb with a gun and she said "yes".

She described the gun and described that he told her that he had got it from his connection in the United States and that he kept it in the bedroom in his parents' house. She testified that she simply wants him to stop hurting people but for that he will need to be clean and sober and get an awful lot of help. Clearly, the relationship had been tumultuous and difficult for her and she is now getting to where she is able to distance herself from it. [ 61 ] In mitigation in terms of sentencing here, the key factor is that Mr. Lamb pleaded guilty at a very early stage and he was

remanded in custody for the preparation of the reports. During the time that he has been in custody he has detoxed and he is at this stage presumably clean and sober. His parents both talk about noticing an enormous difference in him, that the person they go to visit and they see now they like which they have not been able to say about their son for a very long time. His addiction made him very difficult to like and not tolerable to have in their house.

Notwithstanding their efforts to help him at different times, they could not have him within their home. [ 62 ] I am told that his parents are prepared to assist him when he is released from custody to get into a much longer and more intensive residential treatment program and to move forward in terms of his recovery. [ 63 ] Mr. Lamb himself says that he has learned a great deal about himself in the last six months while in custody.

He is now willing to accept that there is no relationship with this young woman and he is willing to accept help and counselling. [ 64 ] One of the problems in assessing the reports and everything I have heard is that much of what came from Mr. Lamb that is in the reports is simply not true, at least that is what I am being told. At one point he said that he killed some 17 people. I do not think that happened; that seems highly unlikely. In the same way as when the young complainant said that he was a father figure and they had not had sex, I do not believe that.

It is not true and I do not believe that he was killing people. If he was, there would be a lot more open investigations than have been suggested exist. [ 65 ] The most serious aggravating factor in this case is the commission of this offence within weeks of him receiving a jail sentence for the other sexual interference. That month seems to have done nothing whatsoever to get through his head that maybe he needs to be a little smarter. [ 66 ] In terms of the relationship he lied to everybody about it; he knew she was not 16, but he certainly presented to his family and others that she was 19.

When she described herself apparently to his mother as being a pre-med student at BCIT, he knew that was nonsense, but he was prepared to let his mother believe this is a nice young girl who was age appropriate and appropriate for him. I do not think he really knows what the truth is. [ 67 ] I cannot, on the information I have, determine what is true and what is not in the context of the various activities.

The information from the ex-girlfriend suggests that maybe there is more truth to his statements than anybody else thought, particularly with respect to his drug trafficking and his possession of weapons. [ 68 ] The range of sentences certainly result in a lot of choice in terms of appropriate sentence; whether we are dealing with simply a federal sentence and that he just gets locked up for a number of years, that is supportable from the cases.

Another alternative is that after deducting and crediting the time actually served that he is at the two year or the two year less a day plus three years' probation break in terms of federal or provincial time at the maximum, or that the sentence is in fact a great deal less and is a simple step up from the one month approximate sentence that he received on May 2nd, 2012. [ 69 ] In terms of the submissions that I have heard overall and as I particularized at the outset of my reasons, these are offences that I do not believe should be dealt with by concurrent time.

They were sequential as they occurred and the sentence with respect to them should be looked at sequentially. [ 70 ] The Crown has submitted that a probation order is appropriate as has counsel for Mr. Lamb and I agree with that. Mr. Lamb is a young man; he is 24; his record is pretty nasty now for 24.

His history is extremely troublesome, and his absence of insight and absence of familiarity with the truth is also extremely troublesome. [ 71 ] I do not think that the seriousness of this matter in the context of the events that were happening and his very recent conviction bring the shorter sentence within the range; it is simply not there. [ 72 ] The sentence would be 15 months for Count 1 and 15 months consecutive for Count 2. However, taking into account the actual time served of six months, the sentence will be recorded as 12 months for Count 1 and 12 months to be served consecutively for Count 2.

I am also placing him on probation for a period of three years following the completion of his sentence. [ 73 ] I should say before I forget Madam Clerk that I am waiving the victim fine surcharge on these matters. [ 74 ] The probation order is as follows: 1. You are to keep the peace and be of good behaviour and report to the Court when required to do so. 2. You are to reside where directed by your probation officer and you are not to change that residence without first obtaining the written permission of your probation officer. 3.

You are to attend for and participate in psychiatric and psychological assessments, counselling, or educational programming as may be directed by your probation officer and to the reasonable satisfaction of your probation officer including but not limited to the Sex Offender Treatment program and the Sex Offender Maintenance program. 4. You must attend for, participate in and accept any other counselling as directed by your probation officer and successfully complete any such program or counselling to the reasonable satisfaction of your probation officer. 5.

You are not to have any contact directly or indirectly with any person under the age of 18 years. 6. You are not to engage in activities, employment, or volunteer work that would bring you in contact with any person under the age of 18 years. 7. You are not to attend any playgrounds, school grounds, public parks, daycares, swimming areas or community centres or other

sites where children under the age of 18 years may congregate. 8. You will not possess pornography of any kind. 9. You will not own, access, touch, or possess any computer system or any other device capable of accessing the internet. 10. On the demand of a peace officer, you will consent to a search of your residence –- [ 75 ] MS. PERCIVAL: Well, I think that has to be with reasonable and probable grounds. Just because he's on probation I don't think they have a right just to march in the house whenever they feel like it. [ 76 ] THE COURT: I will hear from your friend on that. Mr. Benning?

Come on back. [ 77 ] MR. BENNING: I think Ms. Percival is right. [ 78 ] THE COURT: Okay. Well, no, I think they get to go in and make sure that he does not have anything. [ 79 ] MS. PERCIVAL: Yes, if they have some reasonable and probable grounds to believe that, like if they have been given a complaint that he has used the internet for something of that nature -- [ 80 ] THE COURT: No, why should it have to be complaint based? I want them to go in and make sure -– [ 81 ] MS.

PERCIVAL: I just think it's an illegal condition. [ 82 ] THE COURT: Well, I would like to see some -– we will go back to that. [ 83 ] THE CLERK: So that condition at this time is non-existent? [ 84 ] THE COURT: It is suspended right now. [ 85 ] THE CLERK: Thank you. [ 86 ] THE COURT: [Continuing probation conditions] 11. You are not to engage in any area of study, employment or volunteer work that would bring you in contact with persons under the age of 18. 12.

You shall not possess or consume any alcohol or any controlled substance within the meaning of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for which you do not have a lawful personal prescription. 13. You are to have no contact directly or indirectly with A.M. or any member of her immediate family. [ 87 ] THE CLERK: May I just get that spelling? Thank you. [ 88 ] THE COURT: A-- M------. [ 89 ] THE CLERK: M------. Thank you. [ 90 ] THE COURT: [Continuing probation conditions] 14. You shall not attend at any residence, educational facility or place of employment of A.M. or any member of her immediate family. 15.

You must remain within the Province of British Columbia and you are not to leave the Province without first having the approval of the Court. 16. You must surrender any passport in your possession to the Port Coquitlam Court Registry by 4:00 p.m. of the next business day of your release from custody. [ 91 ] Mr. Benning, I have some questions with a few others here. Can you look at condition 15 please? I am not quite sure about that one. [ 92 ] MR. BENNING: Condition 15 –- [ 93 ] THE COURT: In the probation order at the back -– PSR, I am sorry. [ 94 ] MR.

BENNING: I don't know what that means. [ 95 ] THE COURT: I do not either. So Condition 10 you think is not –- [ 96 ] MR. BENNING: I think that the Condition 10 as it reads gives the police the right to enter any residence where he may be living and to demand a search the residence. I can't imagine that the mere fact that he's on probation would dispense them with at the very least having reasonable and probable grounds that might otherwise result in the issuance of a warrant. I agree with Ms. Percival. I don't think that that can be written. [ 97 ] THE COURT: Okay.

How about within 48 hours of your commencing residence at any location you must provide access to

your residence to your probation officer or police officer for the purpose of ensuring that you have no computer systems or other devices capable of accessing the internet or connections for the purpose of accessing the internet at your residence. [ 98 ] MR. BENNING: The only difficulty with that Your Honour is that he provides that access and the next day goes out and acquires all or any of that and then –- [ 99 ] THE COURT: Yeah, okay. [ 100 ] MR. BENNING: -- there is no provision for anything. I would think that -– [ 101 ] THE COURT: All right. He is not allowed to have it. If he has it, he goes to jail.

We will just leave it at that. [ 102 ] MS. PERCIVAL: And that's already been (indiscernible –- overlapping speakers). [ 103 ] MR. BENNING: Right, and –- [ 104 ] THE COURT: And that is already there . I am not going to put in Condition 15 because that one I do not even understand what it means. What is the

section number for the no contact order while in jail? [ 105 ] MR. BENNING: 516(2). [ 106 ] THE COURT: 516(2). Pursuant to s. 516(2) I am ordering that he have no contact, directly or indirectly, with A.M. or any member of her family. [ 107 ] THE CLERK: And that's part of the conditions? [ 108 ] THE COURT: That is the power under warrant of remand. So that is part of the sentence. [ 109 ] Now, with respect to DNA -– [ 110 ] MR. BENNING: I must seek it as a primary designated offence. [ 111 ] THE COURT: Sorry? [ 112 ] MR.

BENNING: It is a primary designated offence when proceeded with by Indictment. [ 113 ] THE COURT: Yes. So, pursuant to s. 110 I think it is, I am ordering you to provide a sample of your DNA suitable for the purposes of the DNA Databank. [ 114 ] THE CLERK: And that's on Counts 1 and 2? [ 115 ] THE COURT: Certainly Count 1. [ 116 ] THE CLERK: Count 1 only or 1 and 2? [ 117 ] MR. BENNING: One would cover it. [ 118 ] THE COURT: Count 1 is fine. [ 119 ] MR. BENNING: And I'm seeking a ten-year SOIRA order. [ 120 ] THE COURT: Yes. A ten-year? [ 121 ] MR. BENNING: Yes. [ 122 ] THE COURT: All right, what is the

section number for that? [ 123 ] MR. BENNING: (Indiscernible). [ 124 ] THE COURT: Here it is.

Section 490. [ 125 ] Pursuant to s. 490, I am – no, that is not right. [ SOIRA ORDER] [ 126 ] THE CLERK: Is that on Count 1 (indiscernible)? [ 127 ] THE COURT: Yes. And pursuant to 487 –- no, what is the firearms section? [ 128 ] MR. BENNING: 110. [ 129 ] MS. PERCIVAL: A no weapons ban, right? [ 130 ] THE COURT: Oh, okay, so the DNA was 487.051 and s. 110 is the weapons ban, so I am prohibiting you from having in your possession any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, or explosive substance or related authorizations, registrations and certificates. Any such items that you have in your possession must be

surrendered to the Ridge Meadows Detachment of the RCMP within 24 hours of your release from custody. [ 131 ] THE CLERK: And just to clarify, is that on Count 1 again only? [ 132 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 133 ] THE CLERK: And was that mandatory or discretionary? [ 134 ] MR. BENNING: That's discretionary. [ 135 ] MS. PERCIVAL: The discretionary 110. [ 136 ] THE CLERK : Thank you. [ 137 ] THE COURT: Okay. Any other orders? I have waived the victim fine surcharge. The other counts are stayed. [ 138 ] Mr. Lamb, so you are going into the federal system. I am recommending that he be -– [ 139 ] MS.

PERCIVAL: He's not going in the federal system. He's going in the provincial system. [ 140 ] THE COURT: He is going to the federal system, [ 141 ] MS. PERCIVAL: Your Honour gave him three years' probation. We can't have probation -- [ 142 ] THE COURT: I gave him two years and three years' probation. That is absolutely permitted. He is going into the federal system. [ 143 ] MS. PERCIVAL: Oh. [ 144 ] THE COURT: It was 12 months and 12 months; that makes 24 months which is two years. [ 145 ] MS. PERCIVAL: Minus time served of six months. [ 146 ] THE COURT: No, no. It was 15 months and 15 months.

I took three months off each of the 15 so –- [ 147 ] THE CLERK: That's what I was going to clarify, thank you. Six months jail time credited. Thank you. [ 148 ] MS. PERCIVAL: So you gave credit for time served. [ 149 ] THE COURT: I will refer to the institution where he can get the sex offender treatment programs. [ 150 ] MR. BENNING: I missed that very last. [ 151 ] THE COURT: I want him referred to the institution where he will get the sex offender treatment program while in federal custody. [ 152 ] MR.

BENNING: The way that works is he'll go to R-AP and they will either place him at the Regional Health Centre or Mountain wherever they can get him into a program sooner. [ 153 ] THE COURT: I just do not want there to be any misunderstanding. Thank you everybody. [ 154 ] MR. BENNING: Thank you, Your Honour. [ 155 ] THE CLERK: And to clarify, the firearms prohibition was 10 years discretionary? [ 156 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 157 ] THE CLERK: Yes. Thank you. And 24 hours after release to the Ridge Meadows RCMP? [ 158 ] THE COURT: Yes. After release. [ 159 ] Mr.

Lamb, I neglected to include one of the conditions in the probation order. It is just to fix it. So adding to the terms and it should actually be at the beginning is that within two working days of your release from custody, you are to report to a probation officer at 2610 Mary Hill Road in Port Coquitlam and report thereafter as directed. [ 160 ] THE ACCUSED: I've just got one question. For -– after RRAC he said I'd be going to Mountain to do the – [ 161 ] THE COURT: That's what Mr.

Benning said. [ 162 ] THE ACCUSED: Okay. [ 163 ] THE COURT: They will classify you then to the place where you will get the proper programs. [ 164 ] THE ACCUSED: Okay, so they'll classify me at the Regional Assessment Centre? [ 165 ] THE COURT: I think, yes.

[ 166 ] THE ACCUSED: Okay. [ 167 ] THE COURT: What I did not put in there as well is a term that you are to attend as directed – I am just going to add this – to any residential treatment program to which you may be directed and complete any such program to the reasonable satisfaction of your probation officer. So that will assist in getting into some residential treatment. [ 168 ] THE ACCUSED: (Indiscernible). [ 169 ] THE COURT: Which we talked about but I did not include it in the order. [ 170 ] THE ACCUSED: Okay.

And the courts will be able to provide that for me when I get out? [ 171 ] THE COURT: Well, if it is part of the Court order then they get to discuss it with you how it works out but at least it makes them think about it for you because I think that will be appropriate for you. [ 172 ] THE ACCUSED: Because I couldn't be able to afford that. [ 173 ] THE COURT: Yes, that is what you get to talk to them about. [ 174 ] THE ACCUSED: All right. [ 175 ] THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

Sorry about bringing you back up. [ 176 ] THE CLERK: (Indiscernible) the wording. [ 177 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 178 ] THE CLERK: You are to attend for, participate in and participate in –- [ 179 ] THE COURT: Oh, participate in and complete –- [ 180 ] MS. PERCIVAL: Okay, I'll just change that. [ 181 ] THE COURT: All right, thanks everybody. (ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)