R. v. Hassani, 2022 BCPC 291

Citation: R. v. Hassani 2022 BCPC 291 Date: 20221222 File Nos: 265621-1 265493-1 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REX v. ARJEAN HASSANI REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE R.P. HARRIS Counsel for the Crown: J. Madden Counsel for the Defendant: J. Allingham Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Hearing: October 28, 2022 Date of Judgment: December 22, 2022

INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] In an unprovoked attack, Mr. Hassani approached Mr. Akimana from behind and stabbed him. The attack occurred within 24 hours of Mr. Hassani being released from custody on conditions including not to possess weapons. [ 2 ] Mr. Hassani was arrested and charged with aggravated assault. He has pled guilty and a sentencing hearing was held wherein counsel agreed that a custodial sentence was appropriate, despite this, they disagree on the appropriate length of sentence. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCE [ 3 ] On May 31, 2022 at approximately 2 p.m., Mr.

Akimana was seated using a computer at Covenant House Vancouver when Mr. Hassani entered and walked by behind him. The pair did not speak, nor, did they engage in anyway. The only point of note is, Mr. Akimana briefly looked at Mr. Hassani and then turned back to face the computer. There is no indication Mr. Hassani noticed Mr. Akimana looking at him. [ 4 ] Then, and while Mr. Akimana was looking at the computer, Mr. Hassani approached from behind and stabbed him. In doing so, Mr. Hassani pulled Mr. Akimana backward and to the ground. Once Mr. Akimana was on the ground Mr.

Hassani stood over him and stabbed him several times. Eventually, Mr. Hassani stopped his attack, he fled from the building and he was arrested a short time later. [ 5 ] Shortly after the attack, staff rushed to Mr. Akimana who was lying in a pool of blood. Mr. Akimana was taken to the hospital and he underwent surgery. Injuries included a 4-6 inch gash to Mr. Akimana’s cheek, a wound to his arm, and a stab wound to the right side of his back. [ 6 ] The above events were captured on CCTV and a copy of the video has been entered as an exhibit.

From my review, I make the following findings, the attack was unprovoked, it was a surprise attack, Mr. Hassani targeted vulnerable parts of Mr. Akimana’s body and Mr. Hassani maintained a position of physical dominance throughout. [ 7 ] In terms of where the attack took place, Covenant House Vancouver is a facility committed to supporting youth who are experiencing homelessness by offering protection and safeguarding them. MR. HASSANI’S CIRCUMSTANCES [ 8 ] Mr. Hassani is 24 years old. He was born in Ontario and he has three brothers and two step siblings. When Mr.

Hassani was three, his family moved to the United States where his father joined the military. At age six, the family moved to Iraq. While living in Iraq, Mr. Hassani saw wartime violence, corruption, poverty and social upheaval. He also witnessed his father being violent toward his mother. Eventually, Mr. Hassani’s parents divorced and he moved back to Canada. [ 9 ] Once in Canada, Mr. Hassani worked at a bakery. Things were challenging in that he was isolated and suffering financially. Having heard of employment opportunities in Kelowna, Mr. Hassani moved out west where he fell in with the wrong crowd.

Ultimately, he was convicted of possessing drugs for the purpose of trafficking. As a result, Mr. Hassani received a two year custodial sentence. [ 10 ] Once released from custody, Mr. Hassani made his way back to Iraq where he intended on joining his family, however, they rejected him owing to him having spent time in jail. Feeling alone, Mr. Hassani returned to Ontario where he lived in a shelter. He applied for the military, however, he needed a math course in order to be accepted. Mr. Hassani then moved to Vancouver with the intention of completing his education. [ 11 ] Once in Vancouver, Mr.

Hassani started living in a shelter. While there, all of his identification was taken. He then moved between shelters and he started using methamphetamine. At this stage, he reports that his mental health started to decline. [ 12 ] As for the reason for the assault, according to Mr. Hassani, Mr. Akimana attacked him and stole his backpack on May 28, 2022. Thereafter, on May 29, 2022, Mr. Hassani attacked a third person with a weapon on the mistaken belief that this person was Mr. Akimana. Then, and on May 31, 2022, Mr. Hassani saw Mr. Akimana at which point he impulsively attacked Mr. Akimana. Mr.

Hassani reports his mental health was not good when the attack occurred. [ 13 ] At the conclusion of his custodial sentence, Mr. Hassani plans to work at a friend’s barbershop and up-grade his education in hopes of joining the military. [ 14 ] In terms of criminal history, Mr. Hassani has convictions for failing to attend court, breaching an undertaking and possessing drugs for the purpose of trafficking. POSITION OF THE PARTIES [ 15 ] Counsel for Mr. Hassani urges the court to impose a custodial sentence of 12-15 months less the time he has served in custody followed by a comprehensive probation order.

In support, counsel argues the proposed sentence would denounce and deter, while supporting Mr. Hassani’s rehabilitation and reintegration. Counsel relies on the following: R. v. Nakamura, 2012 BCSC 327 , R. v. Chambers, 2021 BCSC 1083 , R. v. Sultan, 2007 BCSC 849 , R. v. Fraser, 2009 BCSC 1789 , R. v. Moozhayil, 2004 BCSC 976 and R. v. Eustache, 2013 BCPC 248 . [ 16 ] The Crown urges the court to impose a 2 ½ year custodial sentence less the time Mr. Hassani has served in custody. In support, the Crown points out the circumstances requires a sentence that denounces and deters.

The Crown relies on the following authorities: R. v. Slizak, 2017 BCCA 279 , R. v. Hurtado, 2012 BCCA 47 , R. v. Adamec, 2021 BCSC 1832 , R. v. McIntosh, 2020 BCSC 269 , R. v. Peeace, 2021 BCPC 256 , and R. v. Randhawa, 2018 BCSC 545 . SENTENCING PRINCIPLES

[17] A sentence imposed after only considering the offence and the harm caused is not a fit and appropriate sentence. Rather, a fit andappropriate sentence is one that is achieved through a process wherein consideration is given to the offence, the harm caused, theoffender’s unique background, decided cases and the purpose and principles of sentencing as set out in ss. 718 – 718.2 of the CriminalCode. Purpose of sentencing [18]

Section 718 sets out the fundamental purpose of sentencing and it states: The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for thelaw 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 and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct; (

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

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

d) to assist in rehabilitating 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 or to the community. Fundamental principle of sentencing [19] As per

section 718.1 of the Code, proportionality is a fundamental principle of sentencing. This

section states: A fundamental principle of sentencing is that the sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree ofoffender responsibility. Other sentencing principles [20] Further sentencing principles that a court shall take into consideration are found in

section 718.2 of the Code. Relevant to theinstant matter are; (

a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offenceor the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, … (iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, includingtheir health and financial situation, … shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances; (

b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances; (

c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh; (

d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and (

e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done tovictims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginaloffenders. ANALYSIS Sentence objectives [21] In terms of denunciation, this requires that the sentence imposed communicates society’s abhorrence for the offender havingencroached on societal values. This objective was commented on by Chief Justice Lamer in R. v.

M. (C.A.), (SCC),[1996] 1 S.C.R. 500 at para. 81: … The objective of denunciation mandates that a sentence should also communicate society’s condemnation of that particularoffenders conduct. In short, a sentence with a denunciatory element represents a symbolic, collective statement that the offender’sconduct should be punished for encroaching on our society’s basic code of values as enshrined within our substantive law. [22] As for deterrence, this principle refers to imposing a sentence for the purpose discouraging the offender and/or others fromengaging in similar criminal conduct: R. v. B.W. P, R. v.

B.V.N., 2006 SCC 27, at para. 2. [23] With the above in mind, I conclude, Mr. Hassani’s armed unprovoked attack necessitates a sentence with the primary focus beingdenunciation and deterrence. The sentence imposed must communicate society’s abhorrence and it must communicate to Mr. Hassaniand others that the courts will respond with harsh sanctions in circumstances involving acts of unprovoked armed violence.

[24] In considering the requisite degree of denunciation, I acknowledge Mr. Hassani’s assertion that Mr. Akimana assaulted him twodays earlier; however, as per the CCTV, there is nothing to suggest that Mr. Akimana was about to assault or that he even recognizedMr. Hassani. Additionally, the passage of two days combined with Mr. Hassani’s earlier arrest negates any credible suggestion ofprovocation. [25] Further to the above objectives, Mr. Hassani’s relative youth and his desire to move forward in a pro-social fashion supports afinding that his rehabilitation deserves some consideration.

Proportionality – 718.1 [26] Proportionality is a fundamental principle of sentencing. In R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, Justice Wagner, now Chief Justice,commented on the importance of proportional sentences at paras. 128-129: [128] The principle of proportionality has a long history as a guiding principle in sentencing, and it has a constitutional dimension: R. v.Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206, at para. 41; R. v. M. (C.A.), (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at para. 41.

Aperson cannot be made to suffer a disproportionate punishment simply to send a message to discourage others from offending: Nur, atpara. 45. As Rosenberg J.A. wrote in R. v. Priest (1996), (ON CA), 30 O.R. (3d) 538 (C.A.), at pp. 546-47: The principle of proportionality is rooted in notions of fairness and justice. For the sentencing court to do justice to the particularoffender, the sentence imposed must reflect the seriousness of the offence, the degree of culpability of the offender, and the harmoccasioned by the offence.

The court must have regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors in the particular case. Careful adherenceto the proportionality principle ensures that this offender is not unjustly dealt with for the sake of the common good. [Footnote omitted.] Although a court can, in pursuit of the objective of general deterrence, impose a harsher sentence in order to send a message with a viewto deterring others, the offender must still deserve that sentence: R. v. Paré, 2011 QCCA 2047; G. Renaud, The Sentencing Code ofCanada: Principles and Objectives (2009), at para. 3.13.

If a judge fails to individualize a sentence and to consider the relevantmitigating factors while placing undue emphasis on the circumstances of the offence and the objectives of denunciation and deterrence,all that is done is to punish the crime: R. v. R. (M.), 2010 QCCA 16 , 2010QCCA 16, 73 C.R. (6th) 136. Proportionality requiresthat a sentence not exceed what is just and appropriate in light of the moral blameworthiness of the offender and the gravity of theoffence.

From this perspective, it serves as a limiting principle: Nasogaluak, at para. 42. [129] My colleague states that the principle of proportionality means that the more serious the crime and its consequences, or the greaterthe offender’s degree of responsibility, the heavier the sentence will be (para. 12). I would qualify this statement somewhat. In my view,an offender’s degree of responsibility does not flow inevitably and solely from the gravity of the offence.

The gravity of the offence andthe moral blameworthiness of the offender are two separate factors, and the principle of proportionality requires that full consideration begiven to each of them: Proulx, at para. 83. As s. 718.1 Cr.

C. provides, “[a] sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of theoffence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.” [130] Whereas the gravity of the offence concerns the harm caused by the offender to the victim as well as to society and its values, theother aspect of the principle of proportionality involves factors that relate to the offender’s moral culpability: The “degree of responsibility of the offender” as used in s. 718.1 certainly includes the mens rea level of intent, recklessness or wilfulblindness associated with the actus reus of the crime committed.

For this assessment, courts are able to draw extensively on criminaljustice principles. The greater the harm intended or the greater the degree of recklessness or wilful blindness, the greater the moralculpability. However, the reference in s. 718.1 is not simply to the “mens rea degree of responsibility of the offender” at the time ofcommission of the crime. Parliament evidently intended “degree of responsibility of the offender” to include other factors affectingculpability. These might relate, for example, to the offender’s personal circumstances, mental capacity or motive for committing thecrime.

Where else does the Code provide for an offender’s degree of responsibility generally to be taken into account? Here, too, theanswer takes us to s. 718.2.

Section 718.2 directs the sentencing judge to take into consideration a number of principles. All are either components of theproportionality principle or properly influence its

interpretation and application. Either way, all are relevant in determining a just sanctionthat satisfies the proportionality principle. [Citation omitted.] (R. v. J.L.M.A., 2010 ABCA 363, 499 A.R. 1, at paras. 58-59; see also Nasogaluak, at para. 42; M. (C.A.), at para. 40.) [131] The application of the proportionality principle may therefore cause the two factors to conflict, particularly where the gravity ofthe offence points strongly to a sentence at one end of the range while the moral culpability of the offender points in the otherdirection: R. v.

Hamilton (2004), (ON CA), 72 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.), at para. 93, quoted in C. C. Ruby, G. J. Chan andN. R. Hasan, Sentencing (8th ed. 2012), at pp. 26-27. In short, although it is true that the gravity of the crime is a relevant factor, it mustnevertheless be considered in conjunction with the offender’s degree of responsibility, a factor that is unrelated to the gravity of theoffence. [27] Lastly, and before considering the seriousness of Mr. Hassani’s offence and his degree of moral responsibility, Iacknowledge R. v.

Chen, 2017, BCSC 1863, where Justice DeWitt-Van Oosten, commented on the analysis necessary to achieve aproportionate sentence: [63] Achieving a proportionate sentence is a case-specific endeavour, requiring a multi-factored analysis that is focused on, and tailoredto, the individual circumstances of the offence and the offender: R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15 at para. 43. All relevant factors must beconsidered, including the circumstances of the offence, the circumstances of the offender and the needs of the community in which theoffence occurred: R. v. Nasogaluak at para. 44. [28] There is no dispute that Mr.

Hassani’s offence was serious. In this regard, while armed with a knife, he silently approached Mr.Akimana, he grabbed him and he started stabbing while pulling Mr. Akimana to the ground. Once Mr. Akimana was on the ground, Mr.

Hassani continued to stab. [ 29 ] As for Mr. Hassani’s moral culpability, I accept his exposure to war violence, the violence within his family home, his homelessness, and having recently been a victim himself, all combine to slightly reduce his culpability. In terms of Mr. Hassani’s mental health and its impact on his culpability, the only evidence of this is his self report that his mental health was low at the time of the offence. What this means and the impact it may have had is unclear. OTHER SENTENCING PRINCIPLES Aggravating and mitigating factors [ 30 ] The manner in which Mr. Hassani assaulted Mr.

Akimana is particularly aggravating. In this regard, it was a surprise unprovoked knife attack that continued despite Mr. Akimana being on the ground. Finally, Mr. Hassani was breaching his court conditions by possessing a knife at the time of the offence. [ 31 ] The environment where Mr. Hassani perpetrated his attack is also aggravating. The attack occurred at Covenant House Vancouver which is a sanctuary of safety for the vulnerable and those in need including those who have experienced previous traumas. Simply, Mr.

Hassani’s act of violence likely shattered the sense of safety for those unfortunate and vulnerable youth who were seeking refuge and support. [ 32 ] In terms of mitigation, Mr. Hassani’s guilty plea is substantially mitigating. Through his plea he has saved the time and expense associated with a prosecution. Additionally, his plea is an acceptance of responsibility and it is demonstrative of some remorse. I also note his plea saves first responders from having to come to court and testify, thus, permitting them to focus on their primary role of helping those in need. Victim impact [ 33 ] Mr.

Akimana did not provide a victim impact statement. Despite this, common sense dictates that Mr. Akimana has a scar on his face, that the events were frightening, that his injuries were painful and that he experienced some lingering trauma. Similar sentences [ 34 ] Counsel presented the Court with several authorities. Some of the authorities relate to sentences imposed for violent offences, while others relate to sentencing principles.

I have reviewed all of the authorities and I will not summarize each one; rather, I will confine my analysis to the most relevant cases. [ 35 ] With the above in mind, I acknowledge that sentencing is an individualized process wherein the unique characteristics of each offender and offence are considered. Lastly, ranges are guidelines and do not represent inflexible boundaries and that individual circumstances may justify going above or below the range: R. v. Parranto , 2021 SCC 46 , R. v. Lacasse , 2015 SCC 64 , R. v.

Voong , 2015 BCCA 285 . [ 36 ] The range of sentence for the offence of aggravated assault is imprisonment between 16 months and 6 years: R. v. Smith, 2017 BCCA 112 , at para. 35 ; R. v. Nguyen, 2016 BCCA 408 , at para. 47 . This wide sentencing range reflects the varying contexts within which the offence can be committed. In this regard, Justice Prowse observed in R. v. Johnson, [1998] B.C.J. No. 2924 (C.A.) , at para 10 : [10] Sentences at the lower end of the range [for aggravated assault] tend to be imposed in "fight" situations in which the altercation escalates and results in injuries to the victim.

Sentences at the higher end of the range tend to be imposed in situations where the victims are attacked with a weapon, without provocation and without any opportunity to defend themselves. [ 37 ] In Adamec , the offender was sentenced to 5 years and 4 months after the offender was found guilty of aggravated assault. The offender and the victim where socializing when an argument ensued. In response, the offender went into the kitchen and retrieved a large knife. He then stabbed the victim in the chest.

The offender was 26, he had a supportive upbringing and he had a criminal record including youth convictions for violence, robbery, uttering threats and weapons. The offender had an adult record for uttering threats, possession of drugs and mischief. [ 38 ] In Hurtado , the Crown appealed an effective 5 year sentence for the offence of aggravated assault wherein the offender slashed the victim’s throat with a box cutter. The offender was 22 at the time of the offence and the offence occurred after the victim approached the offender and spoke to him about his interaction with two women.

The offender left and retrieved a box cutter. He returned after about 10 minutes, approached the victim from behind and slashed him across the throat. In dismissing the appeal, the Court concluded the offender’s relative youth and his remorse required that rehabilitation be considered as a sentencing option. Of note, are the following helpful comments: [20] Although I am not persuaded that we should interfere with this sentence, I am reluctant to agree that the range here was two to six years.

Where there is unrestrained violence such as occurred here, coupled with stalking and a surprise attack, I think the lower end is more than two years and the upper end is about eight years, with the possibility of sentencing above eight years in particularly egregious circumstances. This is often a difficult offence for which to fashion an appropriate sentence and I am not attracted to a practice of breaking down the types of aggravated assault and suggesting a relatively narrow range for each type.

Sentencing in this area is very subjective having regard to the particular aggravating and mitigating factors which can vary greatly from case to case. [ 39 ] In McIntosh , the offender was convicted of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon. The offender was on the street when the victim approached him and an altercation occurred culminating with the offender stabbing the victim three times in the back of the neck. The victim’s brother then approached the offender, who in anticipation of a fight, stabbed the brother in the back of the neck.

The injuries included a 15 centimetre long wound extending from the base of the victim’s skull to his neck, the wound gapped by ten centimetres and exposed the spinal bone. Victim 2 suffered two less serious cuts to his neck. The offender was 37, he had an unstable

upbringing, he lived in different foster homes, he was diagnosed with ADHD and Fetal Alcohol Effect, and he worked as an unskilled labourer. His record contained twenty-two criminal convictions with four involving violence. Ultimately, the offender was sentenced to three years for the aggravated assault and six months concurrent for the assault with a weapon. On imposing sentence, Justice Blok observed that the offender had a profound lack of insight into his offending behaviour. [ 40 ] In Nakumura, the offender received a suspended sentence for a robbery and aggravated assault.

The offences involved the offender and a co-accused robbing the victim of drugs. During the robbery the offender stabbed the victim in the face and stomach. The offender was 18, he had no criminal record and had good rehabilitative prospects. [ 41 ] In Chambers , the offender was convicted of aggravated assault, two counts of assault with a weapon and one count of dangerous driving and he received a one year sentence.

After a night of drinking and consuming marijuana, the victim and the offender got into a disagreement that concluded with the offender knocking the victim over with his car and thereafter striking him with an axe. The victim suffered serious injuries to his arm. The offender was 33, he had no prior record, and he had grown up in the foster system. [ 42 ] In Sultan , the offender was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to one year jail and probation for two years.

The circumstances of the offence involved an argument and a fight with a co-worker culminating in the offender retrieving a knife and stabbing the co-worker. The offender was 52, married, no criminal record and community support. [ 43 ] In Fraser , the offender was convicted after a jury trial and sentenced to 15 months in jail on four counts of aggravated assault. The circumstances involved the offender returning after being removed from a party whereupon he and his brother assaulted others. The assaults related to Mr. Fraser involved him producing a knife and stabbing/slashing four others.

The offender was 24, he was gainfully employed, he did not have a criminal record, he was in a long-term relationship and he had the support of others. [ 44 ] In Moozhayil , the offender pled guilty to aggravated assault and he was sentenced to a conditional sentence of two years less a day. The circumstances were the offender became upset after being asked to leave a party. He returned shortly thereafter and knocked on the door. When the victim answered the door, the offender stabbed him. The offender was 39, he had a number of medical issues, he was separated and he had two children.

A review of the decision indicates that the offender’s medical circumstances and his disabilities were significant factors in the disposition: See para 26. ANALYSIS [ 45 ] In sentencing Mr. Hassani, the Court must exercise restraint and impose the least restrictive sanction that is appropriate in the circumstances. With this in mind, I conclude that the totality of the circumstances requires a sentence that denounces and deters while giving some consideration to Mr. Hassani’s rehabilitation. On this point, Mr.

Hassani’s relatively young age and his stated future objectives satisfies me that he has some rehabilitative prospects. As for proportionality, Mr. Hassani’s offence was serious and his moral culpability was relatively high. Lastly, I observe he is not a first time offender, he does not have community support and he was bound by conditions at the time of his offence. [ 46 ] With the above in mind, I am of the view that a custodial sentence of 2 years is appropriate.

He has spent 207 days in custody and credited at 1.5 days for every day in custody he has a pre-sentence custodial credit of 311 days leaving a balance of 419 days to serve. As for the rehabilitative aspect, a 2 year probation order will follow his custodial sentence. [ 47 ] I have declined to accede to defence counsel’s sentencing recommendation because it would fail to address the seriousness of the offence and Mr. Hassani’s degree of moral culpability. The seriousness is demonstrated in that, without provocation, Mr. Hassani stalked and attacked Mr. Akimana with a knife when Mr.

Akimana was unable to defend himself. [ 48 ] As for the sentence proposed by the Crown, I accept it appears reasonable and consistent with the authorities, however, such a sentence would not provide rehabilitative support, nor, does it reflect the mitigating factors or Mr. Hassani’s minimally reduced moral culpability.

TERMS AND CONDITION OF PROBATION [ 49 ] The probation will be for 2 years with the following terms and conditions: • Keep the peace and be of good behaviour. • Appear before the Court when required to do so by the Court. • Notify the Court or the Probation Officer in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the Court or the Probation Officer of any change of employment or occupation. • Within 48 hours of having completed your sentence, you must report to a probation officer located at 275 East Cordova Street, Vancouver, BC, and thereafter as and when directed by the probation officer. • You must have no contact or communication, directly or indirectly, with Gladys AKIMANA. • You must not go to any place where Gladys AKIMANA lives, works, attends school, or worships, or happens to be.

If you see them, you must leave their presence immediately without any words or gestures. • You are not to be found within a two block radius of Covenant House Vancouver located in Vancouver, BC. • While outside your place of residence, you are not to possess any knives unless you are immediately engaged in your employment. • You must attend, participate in and complete any and all counselling that may be directed by your probation officer. This can include, but not limited to psychological counselling.

• Having consented in court, you must attend for a psychiatric intake, assessment, counselling or treatment program through Forensic Psychiatric Services as directed by your probation officer. ANCILLORY ORDERS DNA [ 50 ] Pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code , I order that Mr. Hassani provide a sample of his DNA. Weapons prohibition [ 51 ] Pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code , Mr. Hassani is prohibited from possessing firearms and all other items in that

section for life. Victim fine surcharge [ 52 ] Mr. Hassani has been unemployed and in custody for a lengthy period of time. As such, to impose a victim fine surcharge would be a hardship on Mr. Hassani and it is therefore waived. ____________________________ The Honourable Judge R.P. Harris Provincial Court of British Columbia