R v. Mugford, 2019 NSSC 127

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia Citation: R v. Mugford , 2019 NSSC 127 Date: 20190411 Docket: CRS 479685 Registry: Sydney Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Donald Gordon Mugford Defendant Library Heading Judge: The Honourable Justice Patrick J. Murray Heard: April 11, 2019 in Sydney, Nova Scotia Sentencing Decision: April 11, 2019 Subject: Criminal Law; Sentencing

Summary: Mr. Mugford pled guilty to a charge of conspiring to traffic in cocaine at the kilo and multi kilo level. Issues: Should the joint recommendation of Crown and Defence be accepted by the Court? Result: Court accepted the joint recommendation of a 4 year federal sentence. Court granted the ancillary orders sought by the Crown: a 10 year mandatory firearms prohibition; an Order for Forfeiture pursuant to s. 16 of the CDSA; a DNA order. THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION. QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET. SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia Citation: R v.

Mugford , 2019 NSSC 127 Date: 20190411 Docket: CRS 479685 Registry: Sydney Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Donald Gordon Mugford Defendant Judge: The Honourable Justice Patrick J. Murray Heard: April 11, 2019, in Sydney, Nova Scotia Sentencing Decision: April 11, 2019 Counsel: Jill Hartlen for the Crown David Iannetti for the Crown Nash Brogan for Mr. Mugford

By the Court (Orally): Introduction [1] Mr. Mugford, age 37 years, is before me to be sentenced for the serious offence of conspiring to traffic in cocaine, contrary tos. 465(1)(

c) of the Criminal Code. The Indictment states the offence took place between the period of October, 2015 to 23 February,2017. [2] The Criminal Code at s. 465(1)(

c) states the penalty for conspiring to commit an indictable offence is the same penalty forthe offence itself. In this case, the maximum penalty for trafficking is imprisonment for life, cocaine being a

Schedule 1 drug pursuantto s. 5(3)(

a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Facts [3] According to the agreed facts, Mr. Mugford was involved in the distribution of cocaine at the kilogram and multi kilogramlevel. He was a trusted member of a group that included five other individuals, three of whom have pleaded guilty and been sentencedfor their roles as co-conspirators. The Agreed Statement of Facts is quite lengthy and has been entered as an Exhibit. [4] Mr. Mugford assisted higher level cocaine dealers with logistics, administrative support, and ran errands for them.

Hearranged for and provided transportation which included interprovincial transportation. As time went on, he took on more responsibility,but he was not an organizer in the group, he was a worker. He would sometimes play an important role in smoothing out difficulties inrelationships and prevent things from escalating. He was motivated by money and received payment for what he did. He saw this as away to “get ahead fast” and make money for his family. [5] The proposed sentence for Mr. Mugford is a 4 year term of imprisonment, and this is a joint recommendation made by bothCrown and Defence.

The Public Interest Test [6] Because this is a joint submission, the proper test is the public interest test. Under the law, departure from a jointrecommendation is warranted only if the sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or would otherwise be contraryto the public interest. (R v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 , [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204) [7] The principles of sentencing are contained in the Criminal Code at sections 718 – 718.2. I adopt those for the purpose of mydecision.

Of those, the fundamental principle is that of proportionality, which states that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravityof the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [8] In this case the Crown in its brief has pointed to the significance of the Accused’s guilty plea at an early stage stating: We agree that this should be considered an early guilty plea as Mr. Mugford first communicated his intention to plead guilty in the fall of2017, and stated his intention on the record in July 2018. The position on sentence reflects a high value given to a guilty plea asmitigating.

This investigation involved nine consecutive wiretap authorizations and spanned over two years making disclosure large andthe presentation of a compelling narrative challenging. The Crown anticipates that presentation of the full case at trial would haveincluded over 200 intercepted communications involving over twelve indicted and unindicted co-conspirators. We estimate that the trialwould have required 6-8 weeks of court time. Mr.

Mugford’s early decision to plead guilty saved significant Crown and Court resourcesand demonstrates his acceptance of responsibility. [9] In addition, there are the objectives of sentencing contained in s. 718. These state that the fundamental purpose is to protectsociety, and to contribute to respect for the law, and the maintenance of a just, peace and safe society by imposing just sanctions. [10] In terms of drugs and trafficking in cocaine, our Courts have repeatedly stated that drugs are harmful to society and tocommunities in general.

The offences here have affected a number of communities. [11] It is equally clear from the caselaw that the Courts have placed emphasis on protection of the public and the factors ofdenunciation and deterrence have impacted on the appropriate range of sentence. [12] The Crown has provided a series of cases, in support of its position that the joint recommendation of 4 years falls within anappropriate range. [13] I am not going to canvass each of those cases today. I have reviewed them for the purpose of this hearing.

In so doing I havetaken into account such things as the amount of drugs, the type of drugs, the role of the individual offender, whether there was a priorrecord of drug related convictions, the age and circumstances of the Accused, the length of time over which the offences took place and,the circumstances of the offence and the offender. [14] I note that in cases such as R v. Shane Williams, 2016 NBQB 231, the sentence was 6 years but there was no guilty plea. In Rv. Decker, unreported, while the global sentence was 7 years, the sentence for the conspiracy charges were in the range of 3 and 4 years. In R v.

Field, 2013 NSPC 51, one of the cases referred to in Decker, The Honourable Judge Anne Derrick, as she then was, imposed asentence of 5 years for an offence involving a significant amount of drugs. The offence period was not as lengthy as here, but theAccused had a prior record. Mr. Mugford has no prior record. In Decker, unreported, the accused received 5 years for trafficking. [15] Outside of Nova Scotia the Crown has referred to R v. Majnoon, 2009 ONCA 876, where a guilty plea was entered to

conspiracy to traffic, in a highly organized commercial operation involving multi-kilos per month. The Ontario Court of Appeal varied the initial sentence of 2 years less a day for conspiracy plus probation to 5 years. [ 16 ] In the present case, I was concerned that the offence period was longer than others I have seen in the cases, and the number of communities mentioned in the indictment is of concern. However, when you look at the sentences of the other co-conspirators, six years with prior drug convictions, seven years for the “quarterback” of the group.

A sentence of four years does not appear to be out of line in terms of the ranges earlier referred to. All of those were guilty pleas coupled with joint recommendations that were accepted by the Court. Decision [ 17 ] With these principles and penalties in mind, I am satisfied that the proposed sentence for Mr. Mugford is in keeping with the general range for sentences for these types of offences. Mr. Mugford is a first-time offender with a young family. He was not an organizer, but a worker and an intermediary within the group.

His early guilty plea is a significant mitigating factor. [ 18 ] In the result, I am satisfied that acceptance of the joint recommendation would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute or otherwise be contrary to the public interest. A 4 year custodial sentence is twice that of (the 2 years) required with a federal sentence. It is a significant sanction and one that does not signify a breakdown in the proper functioning of the justice system. I am therefore prepared to accept the joint recommendation in this case.

Ancillary Orders [ 19 ] I am going to grant the ancillary orders requested by the Crown. These include a 10 year mandatory firearms prohibition, the Order for Forfeiture pursuant to s. 16 of the CDSA. [ 20 ] With respect to the DNA order, taking into account the joint recommendation and the factors set out in s. 487.051(3), I am satisfied it is in the best interest of the administration of justice to grant the order based on the factors referred to in that section, including the nature of the offence and Mr. Mugford’s criminal record, which he now has. Murray, J.