R. v. Quintyne, 2018 ONCJ 482

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE CITATION: R. v. Quintyne , 2018 ONCJ 482 DATE: 2018 07 12 COURT FILE No.: Halton 1211.998.16 3548 00 BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN — AND — RACHAD QUINTYNE Before Justice P.T.

O’Marra Heard on May 10, 2018 Reasons for Sentence released on July 12, 2018 John Dibski.......................................................................................... counsel for the Crown James Coppolino............................................................................... counsel for the Crown Harold Fink................................................................... for the defendant Rachad Quintyne P.T.

O’Marra J.: Introduction: [ 1 ] On a night where the victim Justice Viera and his friends gathered to watch a Blue Jays baseball game at a Kelsey’s restaurant in Georgetown unfortunately turned into a punitive and violent attack on the victim, Justin Viera. The assault was precipitated by Mr. Viera’s alcohol fuelled highly provocative and repugnant racial slurs uttered towards, the accused Rachad Quintyne. [ 2 ] On March 21, 2018 Rachad Quintyne was found guilty after trial that on October 4, 2016 he committed assault causing bodily harm on Justin Viera.

On April 18, 2018 my reasons were released which set out the circumstances of the offence in detail. [ 3 ] I heard sentencing submissions on May 10, 2018. This is a case where the court is required to carefully balance competing sentencing objectives. On one side of the ‘scale’ is the vulnerability of a victim who was intoxicated and outnumbered, the sentence that is to be imposed must address the principles of general deterrence and public denunciation. On the other side of the ‘scale,’ Mr.

Quintyne is a young first time offender, and any sentence that must be imposed must meet the objectives of the principle of his rehabilitation. Circumstances surrounding the offence: [ 4 ] On October 4, 2016 the victim met his friends, Justin Kirke, Hailey MacArthur and Wayne Simmonds for drinks at the Kelsey’s Restaurant and Bar in order to watch the Toronto Blue Jays game. During the evening Ms. MacArthur snap chatted and texted her black and male friend, Mr. Quintyne. On this occasion Mr. Quintyne was at his home in Mississauga. [ 5 ] The victim and his friend Justin Kirke who were intoxicated took Ms.

MacArthur’s IPhone and messaged, texted, and uttered to Mr. Quintyne several racial slurs, taunts and threats.

[6] The victim and Mr. Kirke challenged Mr. Quintyne to a fight. Unwisely Mr. Quintyne accepted the victim’s offer, attended theKelsey’s and brought two other unknown black males. One male possessed a baton. [7] Initially perceived as a consensual fight evolved quickly into a two on one vicious beating of the victim. Due to hisintoxication and being outnumbered, the victim was easily overwhelmed by Mr.

Quintyne and another male party and brought to theground whereby he was subjected to punches and kicks to his head and body. [8] As a result of the attack, the victim suffered the following injuries: A fractured finger on his left hand, cracked ribs, a damagedcheek ligament, split plate in his skull, a baseball size contusion to his forehead. During the attack the victim lost consciousness. [9] No victim impact was provided. Circumstances of the offender: [10] At the time of the offence Mr. Quintyne was 21 years old. Today, he is 22 years old and has no prior criminal record.

According to the presentence report (“PSR”) he was born in Barbados. He immigrated to Canada in 1996 with his three (3) siblings. Upuntil he was six (6) years old he was sponsored and raised by his grandmother. His mother came to Canada. The PSR confirmed that Mr.Quintyne grew up in a stable environment which was free of any sexual or emotional abuse. Alcohol and drugs have never been a part ofhis life. He has been raised by his mother and grandmother. His father remained in Barbados. His parents separated shortly after hisbirth. However, Mr.

Quintyne has remained in contact with his father from a distance. [11] Despite attending three (3) different elementary schools and two (2) different high schools, Mr. Quintyne achieved a highschool education. In 2015 Mr. Quintyne attained his certificate in achievement in culinary arts at Humber College. After that he workedfor approximately a year he decided to pursue an alternative career path and registered in a three (3) year gaming design programme atHumber College. Despite injuries that he has suffered in a car accident and regular attendances to physiotherapy, Mr.

Quintynecontinues to attend classes in this program. Mr. Quintyne’s tuition is covered through the Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP). [12] Since he was sixteen (16) years of age Mr. Quintyne has worked on a part-time basis with his mother at a chocolate factory. Inthe past he has worked in a hotel and in a variety of restaurants as a line cook. Currently, he is unable to work due to his injuries from thecar accident in 2017. [13] According to Mr.

Quintyne’s mother, Shelly, her son is her right hand and is indispensable in driving and picking up her four(4) year old daughter from his grandmother’s home while she is at work. In addition, Mr. Quintyne has the power of attorney for hergrandmother. Mr. Quintyne’s mother testified at the sentencing hearing. She also wrote a letter on behalf of her son. She testified that ifher son was sentence to jail it would be devastating to her son and her family. [14] Mr.

Quintyne’s grandmother, Ruby Quintyne reported in the PSR that her grandson is a “very nice boy who looks after me.” She reported being in shock over the allegations “as this is totally out of character for him.” His grandmother also wrote a letter ofsupport. [15] Mr. Quintyne’s girlfriend, Jessica Miller prepared a letter dated November 28, 2017 on behalf of Mr. Quintyne. In her letter Ms.Miller wrote that she and Mr. Quintyne were expecting a baby on or about January 26, 2018. Unfortunately, Ms. Miller lost the babyseveral months ago. In the PSR, Ms. Miller described Mr.

Quintyne as “really down to earth, caring kind of a guy…since the day that Imet him, he has always been focused on school.” [16] An e-mail was submitted to the court from one of his teachers from Humber College that confirmed that Mr.

Quintyne is astudent that is “eager to learn and looking to succeed.” [17] A reference letter from Gary Shaw, the General Manager of Browns Socialhouse, dated August 3, 2017 indicated that Mr.Quintyne, while employed as line cook, was “an excellent addition to our team…very professional employee…always on time…willingto take on extra tasks or projects that are not in his everyday job description….strong work ethic.” [18] I convicted Mr. Quintyne following his trial in which he testified and he denied committing the offence.

In his allocution to thecourt, he still maintained that had the victim not struck his friend he would not have assaulted the victim. He further stated that he wouldnot have continued the assault had he known the victim was unconscious on the ground. In convicting Mr. Quintyne I rejected Mr.Quintyne’s explanations, however, his denial is not to be treated as an aggravating factor on sentence. The Crown on the other handproperly cites that an offender’s attitude towards his or her crime and its consequences can be treated as an aggravating factor infashioning an appropriate sentence.

The offender’s attitude can also be taken into consideration in reflecting on the “substantiallikelihood of future dangerousness.” (See R. v. Ellacott, 2017 ONCA 681 , [2017] O.J. No. 4563 paras. 22-31). The Crown citedin the PSR an example of Mr. Quintyne’s poor attitude towards his crime, its consequences and poor character. At page 7, the writer ofthe PSR stated Mr. Quintyne felt that, “…he should not have been the only one charged.

He believes that the victim in the matter also had fault in the offence because he beganprovoking him and using racial slurs toward his person even after the subject requested him to stop several times.” [19] The Crown argues that as a consequence of Mr. Quintyne’s testimony the charges against his co-accused (apparently chargedseparately) were withdrawn. And now that those charges have been withdrawn, Mr.

Quintyne has suggested that he was treated unfairlyand deserved that same parity as his co-accused. [20] I say in passing that I am not entirely clear on the reasoning behind advising the court that as a result of Mr. Quintyne’stestimony and his reluctance or refusal to identify his co-accused that their charges were withdrawn.

[ 21 ] I disagree that the only

interpretation from Mr. Quintyne’s comment was that he sought on how he should have been treated. In fact, I believe that a common sense

interpretation from the facts of the case support Mr. Quintyne’s assertion that Mr. Kirke’s and the victim’s joint conduct that evening could have and should have attracted the criminal charge of uttering a threat to cause bodily harm or death. Furthermore, Mr. Quintyne was provoked by the racial slurs. [ 22 ] In the PSR, Mr. Quintyne stated that he acknowledged that he made the “biggest mistake in his life” by attending Kelsey’s that evening and the he should never have gone there. He also stated to the court that he felt bad that he caused the victim’s injuries. In my view, Mr.

Quintyne’s attitude does not demonstrate a lack of remorse or insight into his crime or its consequences nor does it completely undermine his previous good character. The Legal Parameters: [ 23 ] The offence of assault causing bodily harm contrary to

section 267 (

b) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a hybrid offence. The Crown elected to prosecute this case by

summary conviction. The maximum penalty that can be imposed is eighteen (18) months imprisonment. Positions of the Parties: [ 24 ] The parties are far apart and disparate on what is the appropriate sentence in this case. [ 25 ] On behalf of the Crown, Mr. Dibski submits that a sentence of imprisonment for a period of twelve (12) months is appropriate, followed by three (3) years of probation. The Crown seeks the following corollary orders: A discretionary weapons prohibition order pursuant to

section 110 of the Code for a period of ten (10) years and a mandatory (super primary designated offence) DNA order pursuant to

section 478.04 (

a) of the Code. [ 26 ] On behalf of Mr. Quintyne, Mr. Fink seeks a suspended sentence, or in the alternative, if the court feels that custody is warranted that I should impose a conditional jail sentence. The Aggravating and Mitigating Factors: (

i) Aggravating Factors [ 27 ] The following are aggravating factors in this case. (

a) Mr. Quintyne planned to confront the victim and Mr. Kirke with two other male parties. He did so not for a defensive purpose but in order to avenge remarks made by both men. (

b) Mr. Quintyne angrily left his home, he recruited other male parties and one armed himself with a baton. (

c) Mr. Quintyne and another male party quickly overpowered the victim with punches and forced him to the ground. This was a two on one fight. (

d) Once the victim was defenceless and laid prone on the ground he was repeatedly kicked and punched in the head and body. This clearly indicated an intent to cause bodily harm. (

e) The victim was heavily intoxicated. (

f) The kicking and punching continued after the victim was momentarily unconscious. (

g) The serious injuries suffered include, a fractured finger, cracked ribs, a fractured cheek ligament, split plates in his skull, black eyes and bruises. Although the victim did not provide a victim impact statement, he testified that he still suffers from some residual effects from the attack such as an occasional sharp pain in his rib cage and dark shadow under one of his eyes. (ii) Mitigating Factors [ 28 ] The most significant factor is that Mr. Quintyne is a youthful first offender. As I have previously noted I believe that Mr.

Quintyne has expressed some remorse for his actions in his allocution and in the PSR. It is clear that expressions of remorse made after trial are deserving of far less weight than remorse expressed through an early guilty plea. (See: R. v. Fernandez , [2018] O.J. No. 2213 at para. 16 .) Nevertheless, I accept that Mr. Quintyne feels bad about what has occurred. [ 29 ] Mr. Quintyne has a positive PSR. Mr. Quintyne did have the benefit of a stable upbringing and supportive family unit where he was taught traditional family values. Mr.

Quintyne should be given credit for what he has achieved in attaining higher education and consistent part-time employment. Mr. Quintyne continues to have a supportive family and girlfriend. According to the PSR he spends his time with ‘pro social’ friends. [ 30 ] Mr. Quintyne’s offence was committed in response to provocative and pernicious anti-black racist slurs. I view the provocation as a significant factor of the several mitigating factors present. The victim’s and Mr. Kirke’s comments were the most serious anti-black racial slurs. They were objectionable and repugnant.

The fact that it provoked a violent response is not acceptable as there were other reasonable options, but it is far from shocking. The Relevant Principles of Sentencing and analysis: [ 31 ] The guiding principles of sentencing are set out in sections 718, 718.1 and 718.2 of the Code. The principle of proportionality is fundamental in the sentencing process. A fit sentence must reflect the seriousness of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender . This is achieved by examining the aggravating and mitigating factors and the circumstances relevant to the offence and the

offender bearing in mind the established principles of sentencing. The sentencing objectives are met by selecting and identifyingsentencing goals. Keeping in mind judicial restraint, a sentence must be fit in achieving those objectives, and must be similar to sentencesimposed in similar cases. (See R. v. Casselman, [2014] O.J. No. 1995 at para. 3.) [32] I agree with the Crown that the principles of general deterrence and public denunciation are particularly important in this case. The court must send a message that clearly denounces Mr.

Quintyne’s retributive conduct and deter him and like-minded individualsfrom engaging in similar unlawful conduct. [33] The Crown has provided seven (7) cases that supports its position that incarceration is the appropriate sentence. Several of thecases were guilty pleas to the offence of aggravated assault. Many of these cases can be distinguished on their facts including theseriousness of the injuries, circumstances of the case, the offender’s background and antecedents. I do not intend to review the variousdecisions in any detail.

They all stand for the proposition that incarceration is warranted in a largely “unprovoked” attack whereby avictim is attacked by multiple assailants and or struck in the head area while on the ground. I agree that the victim’s injuries were seriousto the extent that may have constituted the offence of aggravated assault. However, I have found Mr. Quintyne guilty of assault causingbodily harm as he was charged. There is considerable variation in the range from an intermittent sentence at the bottom end of the rangeto three (3) years in a federal penitentiary at the higher end. The case of R. v.

Grewal, [2010] ABQB 346 was the single case thatinvolved a provoked attack in which the nineteen (19) year old accused was called a number of harsh racial and religious slurs by aconsiderably older victim after a soccer match. Mr. Grewal was sentenced to twelve (12) months incarceration after he was found guiltyafter trial of the offence of aggravated assault. The victim was chased down by the accused and other team members and attacked thevictim. The victim was the father of a player on an opposing team. The accused was a member of a group that were of East Indiandescent.

During a verbal altercation the victim stated to Mr. Grewal that he was going to pull his “fucking due rag off his head and stuff itup his ass if he didn’t shut up.” Mr. Grewal was a youthful first time offender with a positive PSR. In my view this case isdistinguishable from the case at bar as the victim’s injuries were more serious. The victim’s injuries consisted of a broken nasal passageand five fractures on the right side of the face. He had plastic surgery. Metal plates were inserted. His mouth was wired shut for twomonths.

He had a second surgery fourteen (14) months after his initial surgery to remove the metal plates. He testified that he stillendured numbness and swelling on the right side of his face. His victim impact statement reflected that he suffered serious emotional,psychological and economic consequences that were caused by the incident and the injuries. [34] Not to in any way diminish Mr. Viera’s injuries or his pain and suffering but he did not require any surgical intervention andwas released from the Georgetown hospital a few hours later.

He testified that he fully recovered from his head injury and suffered nolasting effects. He missed a job opportunity due to his injuries, but he left Ontario shortly after the assault and secured full timeemployment in B.C. [35] The jail sentence sought by the Crown would undoubtedly meet the sentencing objectives of general deterrence anddenunciation. However, it would also remove Mr. Quintyne from the supportive environment of his family, and would prevent him fromcontinuing his education and being a contributing member of society. It would impede rather than promote his rehabilitation.

Thedefence seeks a suspended sentence which would promote Mr. Quintyne’s rehabilitation but, in my view would fail to denounce hisconduct and deter others. (See: Fernandez, para. 21). I do not believe that a suspended sentence would be a demonstrably fit andappropriate sentence in these circumstances and would fall well short in meeting the sentencing objectives set out in the Code. There areno special or extenuating circumstances that would justify such a sentence. [36] I agree that a custodial disposition is warranted in these circumstances in order to address the sentencing objectives contained inthe Code.

However, Mr. Quintyne is a youthful first time offender which requires mandatory judicial restraint. [37] In R. v. Stein, (1974), (ON CA), 15 C.C.C. (2d) 376 (Ont. C.A.) at page 377, Martin J.A. made it clear thatin the case of a first offender, the court should explore all other dispositions before imposing a custodial sentence: It is the view of the Court that the sentence imposed upon the appellant does reflect an error in principle.

In our view, before imposing acustodial sentence upon a first offender the sentencing Court should explore the other dispositions which are open to him and onlyimpose a custodial sentence where the circumstances are such, or the offence is of such gravity that no other sentence is appropriate. Inour view, this offence does not fall within the category of offences where a custodial sentence is the only appropriate sentence to beimposed upon a first offender, nor are there other circumstances which require the imposition of a custodial sentence. [Emphasis inoriginal] [38] In R. v.

Priest (1996), (ON CA), 110 C.C.C. (3d) 289 (Ont. C.A.) Rosenberg, J.A. made the followingcomments concerning Stein, (at paras. 18 and 19) as well as addressing the issues raised in sentencing a first offender: As the Stein case shows, it has been an important principle of sentencing in this province that the sentence should constitute theminimum necessary intervention that is adequate in the particular circumstances. This principle implies that trial judges considercommunity-based dispositions first and impose more serious forms of punishment only when necessary.

These principles have now beencodified in the recently proclaimed sections 718 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

Section 718(

c) instructs that separation of offendersfrom society is an appropriate objective of sentencing "where necessary".

Section 718.2(

d) directs that an offender should not bedeprived of liberty "if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances." The principle embodied in now s. 718.2(

e) was of particular significance in this case. It provides that "all available sanctions other thanimprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to thecircumstances of aboriginal offenders." [39] In R. v. Batisse, 2009 ONCA 114 , [2009] O.J. No. 452, at paras. 32 to 34, the Ontario Court of Appeal reaffirmedthe judgment in Priest and further held: ... the appellant was a first offender.

As such, the restraint principle requires that a sentencing judge consider all sanctions apart fromincarceration and where, as here, incarceration must be imposed, the term should be as short as possible and tailored to the individualcircumstances of the accused: see R. v. Priest (1996), (ON CA), 30 O.R. (3d) 538 (C.A.), at p. 545.

...the principle of restraint requires the sentencing judge to consider rehabilitation in determining the appropriate length of the sentence.In lowering a sentence given to a first offender, this court stated in R. v. Blanas (2006), (ON CA), 207 O.A.C. 226, atpara. 5: [G]eneral deterrence cannot be the sole consideration. The appellant is relatively youthful and has no prior record and appears to havethe full support of her family and community. Appropriate consideration must be given to the rehabilitation of the appellant.

In serious cases and cases involving violence, rehabilitation alone is not the determinative factor - general deterrence and denunciationare also significant factors to be considered. However, as this court ruled in R. v. Dubinsky, [2005] O.J. No. 862, , atpara. 1, it is an error to focus almost exclusively on general deterrence and fail to consider individual deterrence and rehabilitation,especially when sentencing a first offender. (See: R. v. Gibson, [2017] O.J. No. 6865 paras. 32-34). [40] The central issue in this case is whether or not a conditional sentence is sufficient enough to denounce Mr.

Quintyne’s crime anddeter others. This is a common dilemma for most sentencing judges: Balancing the competing sentencing objectives. There is no correctmethod of achieving this balance. That is why courts are given a wide latitude in determining the appropriate balance in any given case.(See: R. v. Lacasse, [2015] SCC 64 at para 11 and Fernandez, at para. 22). [41] There are five (5) prerequisites for the imposition of a conditional sentence:

(1) The offender must be convicted of an offence that is not specifically excluded (e.g. sexual assault, when prosecuted byindictment).

(2) The offender must be convicted of an offence that is not punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment.

(3) The court must impose a sentence of imprisonment that is less than two years.

(4) The safety of the community would not be endangered by the offender serving the sentence in the community.

(5) The conditional sentence must be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to718.2 of the Code. [42] The facts of this case meet the first four pre-conditions. The Crown did not proceed by indictment, there is no minimumsentence applicable, and the Crown is seeking a twelve (12) month custodial sentence. Mr. Quintyne has no criminal record. He is ayouthful offender and is living a pro-social lifestyle. He has a supportive family and has important familial responsibilities to his youngersister, his mother and grandmother.

He has been on a form of release for approximately twenty-one (21) months with no allegation ofcriminal behaviour or a breach of any term of his undertaking. I am satisfied that if I imposed such a sentence the safety of thecommunity would not be endangered. However, I must impose a sentence that takes into consideration of the fundamental purposes andprinciples set out in sections 718 to 718.2 of the Code. [43] In R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5 , [2000] S.C.J.

No. 6, at para. 127, #7, the Supreme Court directed that where the first fourpre-conditions of s. 742.1 are met, sentencing judges must give serious consideration to community based sentences. The only pre-condition remaining therefore is whether a conditional sentence is consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencingset out in ss. 718 to 718.2. [44]

Section 718.2 indicates that sentences should be increased or decreased based on the mitigating and the aggravating factorswhich I have already set out.

Sentences should be imposed on similar offenders in similar circumstances and an offender should not bedeprived of his liberty if less restrictive sanctions are appropriate and if all available sanctions, other than incarceration, that arereasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to the victim should be considered for “all offenders.” [45] In Proulx, the Supreme Court made it clear that a conditional sentence with such onerous conditions can achieve the principlesof general deterrence and denunciation.

However, the Court also emphasized that there may be circumstances that are so serious andaggravating that the only suitable way of addressing the objectives of deterrence and denunciation is to impose incarceration. (SeeProulx, paras. 106-107.) [46] In my view, this is not a case that the “punitive objectives such as denunciation and deterrence are particularly pressing…inwhich there are aggravating circumstances, incarceration will generally be the preferable sanction”. (See: Proulx, para. 114 and see: R. v.Champion, [2016] O.J. No. 1257, para. 52).

There are aggravating features to this case including the kicks to a vulnerable part of thebody and the resulting injuries, however, this was a provoked attack due to the racist slurs and threats that were directed to Mr. Quintyneby the victim and his self-admitted racist friend, Justin Kirke. It was a premeditated attack in the sense that Mr. Quintyne recruited‘muscle’ and drove from Mississauga to Georgetown, however the assault was not carried out without warning to the victim. Theevidence at trial disclosed that the victim invited or called out Mr. Quintyne to fight.

Initially, the victim was a willing and enthusiasticparticipant. He exited the bar with the knowledge that Mr. Quintyne was outside. As the victim exited the bar he prepared himself for aconfrontation as he removed his sweater and jewelry. This was a senseless act of violence and should not be condoned, but in my viewthe imposition of a conditional sentence would not be disproportionate to the gravity of the crime and Mr. Quintyne’s level ofblameworthiness in its commission rather than the imposition of a jail sentence. Conclusion: [47] I believe that restraint is applicable to “all offenders” including Mr.

Quintyne. Mr. Quintyne arrived in this country at veryyoung age with no paternal support, but was taught strong core family values by his mother and grandmother. He has continued hiseducation in the face of physical adversity. He is a contributing member of society.

[48] I adopt Justice West’s comments in Gibson, at para. 53, when he stated, I am of the view that on a careful balancing of all of the relevant factors neither a community based jail sentence with onerous conditionsnor a custodial sentence as proposed by the Crown can be said to be unfit. In those circumstances, what tips the balance between the twoalternatives is the important principle of restraint that underlies s. 742.1 and 718.2(

d) and (e), (see R. v. Wismayer, (ON CA), [1997] O.J. No. 1380 (C.A.), at paragraphs 67-68 and R. v. Proulx, at para. 100). [49] In my view, a conditional sentence for a period of six (6) months with onerous conditions including house arrest and communityservice can meet the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing, including meeting the goals of general deterrence and publicdenunciation. [50] Stand up Mr. Quintyne, for the foregoing reasons, you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a period of six (6) months tobe served in the community pursuant to

section 742.1 of the Code. You are subject to five (5) compulsory conditions set out in section742.3(1). As well, you are to abide by the following additional conditions:

(1) For the first four (4) months of the sentence, you are to remain in your place of residence at all times, subject to the followingexceptions: • While at or travelling to your pre-arranged medical, including physiotherapy, and dental appointments. • While at or travelling to your scheduled classes at Humber College. • While at or travelling to your place of employment. • While travelling to drop off or pick up your younger sister at your grandmother’s residence. • While at or travelling to your placement for community service. • Each Sunday from 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm to obtain the necessities of life. • For any medical emergency involving you or your immediate family including your grandmother.

(2) For the remaining two (2) months of the conditional sentence, you are to observe a curfew between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.subject to exceptions of education, employment and medical emergencies.

(3) Do not contact or communicate in any way, either directly or indirectly, by any physical, electronic or other means with JustinViera and Justin Kirke.

(4) Complete thirty (30) hours of community service. [51] I decline to exercise my discretion pursuant to

section 110 of the Code and impose a weapons prohibition order in this case.Although a weapon may have been present, I did not make a finding of fact that the victim was struck by a weapon. However, Mr.Quintyne is required to provide a sample of his DNA for inclusion in the national database. [52] There will also be a victim fine surcharge in amount of $100.00. Mr. Quintyne will be given two (2) years to pay that fine. Released: July 12, 2018 Justice P.T. O’Marra