R. v. Sharma

2018 BCSC 660 R. v. Sharma IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Sharma, 2018 BCSC 660 Date: 20180111 Docket: 27241-2 Registry: Vancouver Regina v. Vishnu Datt Sharma Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Schultes Oral Reasons for Sentence Counsel for the Crown: J. Hermanson Counsel for the Accused: T. Paisana Place and Date of Hearing: New Westminster, B.C. January 11, 2018 Place and Date of Judgment: New Westminster, B.C. January 11, 2018 [1] THE COURT: Counsel have been very focussed and helpful in their submissions, so that puts me in a position where I can impose sentence today. [2] We are dealing with guilty pleas by Mr. Sharma to the offences of aggravated assault of Catherine Reddy and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, both committed on January 19, 2016. [3] There are some mandatory orders, which I will deal with now. First, since aggravated assault is a primary designated offence, pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code Mr. Sharma will provide the number of samples of bodily substances that are reasonably necessary for the purposes of forensic DNA analysis. Second, pursuant to s. 109(2) of the Code, he will be subject to a prohibition on possession of any of the items listed in that section for life. [4] The circumstances of the offences were set out in admissions of fact, which is always very helpful. [5] Mr. Sharma and the victim of the offences, Ms. Reddy, had known each other for about 14 years and had been in an intimate relationship at times over that long duration. For some periods of it, they did not have any contact. [6] They resumed their initiate relationship in late 2015, but it ended on January 3, 2016. [7] On January 19, they met at Ms. Reddy's workplace for her to return an item of clothing to him. He then offered her a ride home and she accepted it. During the drive they had a confrontation, after she challenged him about whether he had been faithful to her when they were together. He altered his route to travel to a residential area, away from her home. [8] He stopped the vehicle and demanded to know if their relationship was truly over. She confirmed that it was. He started yelling at her, and at this point made the decision that led to the harm that followed. He grabbed a box cutter that had been behind the passenger seat, and either during his initial motion of doing that, or while he was holding it close to her face, he cut her ear. [9] He yelled at her while he was holding the box cutter and told her to keep her hands on the dashboard of the vehicle. She tried to get out by opening her door. He grabbed her and he still had the box cutter in his hand, and in the course of that struggle she received injuries from it. Those include serious cuts to her forearm and cheek, needing 23 and 20 stitches respectively to close. Photographs have been provided and I think it is fair to describe them as severe, nasty-looking injuries. It does not surprise me that they have left scarring. [10] He followed her to a nearby house and tried to get her to come back to the vehicle. She refused to do so. Her shouts attracted the attention of a passer-by and Mr. Sharma left. [11] Crown counsel has analyzed the nature of the aggravated assault in terms of its essential elements, what he is and is not able to prove, and how that leads to his position on sentencing. That was extremely helpful and should ideally be part of all joint submissions in serious matters. [12] In this case, what grounds Mr. Sharma's liability for aggravated assault, the Crown advises, is the objective foreseeability of harm, from grappling with Ms. Reddy while holding a box cutter in his hand. That is objectively something that could very likely lead to the infliction of a wound, even if that is not what he was intending to do. It is on that basis that a guilty plea was entered. [13] The victim impact statement by Ms. Reddy was well worth the time she took to write it. The scarring has brought shame to her family, as she perceives it, and requires her to repeatedly explain it to people, both of which increase her distress. Commendably, she has shown the resolve not to let this incident or the relationship with Mr. Sharma dominate her life, and she is trying to take positive steps to live in a way that is more fulfilling. She expresses an ongoing fear of Mr. Sharma however, which is understandable. Overall, the statement is helpful because it reminds us that there is a person out there with serious permanent scars and in fear, because of this reckless decision by Mr. Sharma. [14] He is now 38 years old. There is no suggestion that anything in his upbringing was wanting. He has a steady work history and has done some volunteer work in connection with his faith. He has a heart problem, but it was not really emphasized in submissions, other than to note that his restrictive bail conditions have affected his ability to exercise. [15] He is now in a positive domestic relationship. His current partner has provided a letter of reference, which struck me as quite a clear-eyed description of her understanding of Mr. Sharma's past troubles and the nature of their relationship. [16] There are also positive letters from employers, co‑workers, and friends. It is clear that a number of people have a very positive impression of him. He has the offer of work upon the expiry of whatever sentence he receives. This material shows that there are situations which he plays a positive role. [17] These restrictive bail conditions have been in effect for 22 months. They have amounted to house arrest for a considerable portion of that time, except for working. One specific negative effect is that they have compromised his ability to see his young daughter from a previous relationship. [18] His criminal record makes one stop and pause. Crown counsel has distilled the previous offences of violence, which are in themselves quite significant: an assault in 1997, for which he received a suspended sentence; uttering threats in 1999, suspended sentence; assault with a weapon in 2007, 14 days time served; two counts of uttering threats in 2012, resulting in consecutive three-month sentences; and aggravated assault in 2012, which was a stabbing, for which he received a four-year sentence. There is also a lengthy history of property-related offences. [19] The biggest concern, which Crown counsel faced head‑on in his submissions, is that Mr. Sharma has only recently completed a sentence for the same offence, one involving a very serious and intentional infliction of violence. Normally one would look at increasing his sentence for the current offence as a result. But in this case, as I have explained, the Crown has analyzed the way in which the violence against Ms. Reddy arose and has drawn a distinction, which I accept as valid, between grappling with someone while you have a sharp object in your hand and setting out to actually inflict wounds. In that situation an increased sentence for the subsequent offence is not necessarily automatic. [20] The aggravating factors are self-evident: the previous serious record, including a recent conviction for the identical offence, and the context of a recently ended romantic relationship. Women are particularly vulnerable to the infliction of violence at that point, and the courts have to send a serious message about that. [21] There are mitigating factors as well. Guilty pleas still mean something, even at a later stage of the case like this. Although Ms. Reddy testified at a preliminary inquiry, trial testimony is still a significant and onerous requirement, particularly in this case, where the issue would be how exactly she got the cuts. I imagine she would have had to relive these events more or less frame-by-frame, and it is a benefit to avoid that. The bail conditions have been onerous and Mr. Sharma has managed to comply with them, to the letter it seems. He has a good work history and the opportunity to return to work when he is released. He is in a positive domestic relationship and many people in the community who know him support his ability to live a law-abiding life. [22] I do not think lectures are helpful at all -- it is better simply to say what the reality is. The sentence that is being jointly proposed is justified by the particular circumstances under which the force was applied by Mr. Sharma. If Ms. Reddy's injuries had resulted from an intentional use of the box cutter, then a sentence significantly higher than the last one would have been imposed. If this is his wake-up call, that is fantastic, I hope it is. But if it is not, then a judge who is faced with any further acts of violence by him will not have too many options other than to strongly emphasize denunciation and deterrence. [23] Ultimately my conclusion is that this joint submission not only meets the fairly minimal threshold for acceptance by a court that is set out in R. v. Anthony-Cook, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 204, but is in fact a careful, principled and ultimately appropriate way of dealing with this matter. [24] So on the aggravated assault count, I impose a sentence of two years and six months' imprisonment, which takes into account the 87 days of pre-trial custody. On the count of possession of a weapon for the purpose dangerous to the public peace, there will be a sentence of one year's imprisonment, which will be served concurrently to the two-year six-month sentence. The Honourable Mr. Justice T.A. Schultes