R. v. Harrison

R. v. Harrison

The grow operation was a large-scale, ongoing commercial enterprise involving family participation; Harrison, who had a significant prior record and was operating while subject to a conditional sentence (and had breached it), warranted immediate custody and a sentence of three years to achieve denunciation and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2009 BCSC 499
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Robert John Harrison; Accused: Nathan Edward McVannell; Accused: Sharon McVannell
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Offences (production and Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking) / Sentencing Oral Reasons (in Chambers) March 27, 2009
Outcome
Convictions entered for production of a scheduled substance and possession for the purpose of trafficking; sentences imposed for each accused as stated below.
Legal Topics
Production of Marijuana, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, Conditional Sentence Breach, Denunciation and Deterrence, DNA and Weapons Prohibition Orders
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Drug Offences Sentencing Production of Marijuana Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking Conditional Sentence Breach Denunciation and Deterrence DNA and Weapons Prohibition Orders

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Robert John Harrison

Accused

Nathan Edward McVannell

Accused

Sharon McVannell

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Offences (production and Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking) / Sentencing Oral Reasons (in Chambers) March 27, 2009

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate sentence for large-scale commercial marijuana grow operation
  2. 2 Effect of operating while subject to a conditional sentence order
  3. 3 Whether a conditional sentence is appropriate for each offender

Ratio Decidendi

The grow operation was a large-scale, ongoing commercial enterprise involving family participation; Harrison, who had a significant prior record and was operating while subject to a conditional sentence (and had breached it), warranted immediate custody and a sentence of three years to achieve denunciation and deterrence; Nathan, despite a lesser role, had a problematic record and breaches making a conditional sentence inappropriate and warranted 10 months custody; Sharon, a first offender with remorse and employment prospects, warranted a 14-month conditional sentence rather than incarceration. Lifetime weapons prohibitions and DNA orders under s.47.051 were ordered for Harrison and Nathan.

Court Disposition

Convictions entered for production of a scheduled substance and possession for the purpose of trafficking; sentences imposed for each accused as stated below.

Orders

  • Robert John Harrison: sentenced to 3 years imprisonment; lifetime weapons prohibition; DNA order under s.47.051 of the Criminal Code/related statute
  • Nathan Edward McVannell: sentenced to 10 months imprisonment; lifetime weapons prohibition; DNA order under s.47.051