R. v. Sadden

2018 BCSC 1314 R. v. Sadden IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Sadden, 2018 BCSC 1314 Date: 20180611 Docket: 100864-2 Registry: Kamloops Regina v. Joel Eric Garrett Derek Jordan Sadden Ikbal Shah Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Beames Oral Reasons for Sentence (Re the Accused Sadden) Counsel for the Crown: K.K. Guest Counsel for the Accused: R.C. Peck, Q.C. M. Shah Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: Kamloops, B.C. June 11, 2018 Place and Date of Judgment: Kamloops, B.C. June 11, 2018 [1] THE COURT: I have before me today Derek Jordan Sadden for the purpose of sentencing. This morning, Mr. Sadden has pled guilty to two counts, Count 5 on the indictment before me and Count 6 on the indictment before me. Count 5 is that: Derek Jordan SADDEN, on or about the 24th day of June, 2015, at or near the City of Kamloops, in the Province of British Columbia, did unlawfully possess a controlled substance, to wit: Methamphetamine, for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to Section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Count 6 is that: Derek Jordan SADDEN, on or about the 24th day of June, 2015, at or near the City of Kamloops, in the Province of British Columbia, did unlawfully produce a controlled substance, to wit: Methamphetamine contrary to Section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. [2] THE COURT: The particulars of the offence are set out in part in the agreed statement of facts which was marked as Exhibit 1 in the sentencing proceedings today and supplemented, then, by the submissions of Crown counsel. Essentially, Mr. Sadden was observed by the Kamloops RCMP in the course of surveillance in an investigation referred to by the police as E-Prime which commenced as a result of information received from a confidential informant about an individual by the name of Ryan Andreychuk producing and selling large quantities of methamphetamine in Kamloops. The investigation itself involved surveillance, tracking warrants, garbage pulls, a vehicle stop, and search warrants of two properties. [3] With respect to Mr. Sadden's involvement, observations were made on May 11th of 2015 of Mr. Sadden and Mr. Andreychuk driving together in a vehicle that contained 45-gallon barrels that appeared to be empty which were then removed from the vehicle, presumably placed at an address on Pratt Road, and replaced instead by garbage bags that were dumped into a dumpster at a trailer park. Those garbage bags were subsequently seized by the police and found to contain items used or associated with the production of methamphetamine. The next observation of Mr. Sadden was on June 24th of 2015, at which time, Mr. Sadden was observed by the police over an extensive period of time, during which time Mr. Sadden was in and out of a garage at the Pratt Avenue address and he was surveilled attending at a store where he bought a submersible pump and chemical gloves, both of which are consistent with use in the production of methamphetamine. He then was observed to be in and out of the garage on the residence at Pratt for approximately eight hours, during which time it was believed, by the police, that there was the production of methamphetamine occurring. [4] At approximately 8:00 p.m., a search warrant was granted. In and around that same time, Mr. Sadden left the residence. He was arrested after his departure. He was found to be in possession of the packaging and the receipts associated with the purchase of the items at the store, the pump and the chemical gloves. There was then an execution of the search warrant and an entry into the garage at the Pratt property and, over the course of the next several days, the search warrant was executed and what was found to be a methamphetamine lab was dismantled. At the time the police entered into the garage in the first instance, there was an actual cooking of methamphetamine going on in the lab. There is, I was told in the course of Crown's submissions, an opinion provided by someone at Health Canada that estimates that the production of methamphetamine taking place at that time would have been something in the neighbourhood of 5.6 kilograms. [5] Mr. Sadden's counsel and Crown counsel have had, I am told, extensive discussions about the resolution of this matter by way of guilty pleas and then a joint submission on sentencing. It is the case in the circumstances of this case and the circumstances in particular of this offence that there is a mandatory minimum sentence which applies and that mandatory minimum sentence is one of three years of imprisonment. Crown counsel and defence counsel have joined in making a submission that the appropriate sentence in this case is, in fact, the mandatory minimum permitted under the provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. [6] In support of the mandatory minimum sentence, I have been provided with a lengthy report authored by Dr. Lohrasbe, a psychiatrist well known to these courts. That report was authored on June 12th of 2017, I gather in the course of there being discussions about the resolution of this matter by way of guilty pleas and a joint submission with respect to sentencing. In addition to the Lohrasbe report, I also have a letter from the parents of Mr. Sadden, a letter from Mr. Sadden's partner, and two letters from the plant manager and the assistant plant manager of Mr. Sadden's most recent employer, Koppers. [7] It is fair to say, from having reviewed and read, as I have, the report of Dr. Lohrasbe and the letters to which I have referred, all of which have been marked as exhibits, that the summary provided by Mr. Sadden's counsel is a fair summary of the circumstances in this case. Mr. Sadden, now aged 28, at the time of the offence aged 25, is a first-time offender. The whole of this series of events and circumstances that form the offences before the court are out of character. There is an aspect of Mr. Sadden's mental health that is, I am satisfied, a contributor to the offences that he committed and, specifically, Mr. Sadden is somebody who has autism spectrum disorder which Dr. Lohrasbe describes as a lifelong condition and which I am satisfied, based on the submissions that I have heard, the letters I have read, and Dr. Lohrasbe report, made him particularly susceptible and vulnerable to committing offences of this type. I am also satisfied that given his ASD, that the effect of imprisonment will have a disproportionate effect on him compared to the effect it would have on other offenders who do not suffer or who do not suffer from ASD. [8] Mr. Sadden is by all accounts before me a very gifted individual in many aspects of his life. He has been a hard worker. He has a Red Seal certification in one trade already and is within a few hours, I gather, of having certification in a second. He is gifted in his ability to understand machinery, to diagnose problems, to rebuild and make machinery operative again. [9] He has pled guilty and I am satisfied from everything I have read and heard that he is genuinely remorseful for his actions. He said to Dr. Lohrasbe, as reported in Dr. Lohrasbe's report, that he is very clear that he will never be so stupid again, and that is a quote from Dr. Lohrasbe's report, with respect to the way in which he found himself in the circumstances that led to these offences, circumstances where he felt he had gotten himself into a situation that he could not get himself out of. He told Dr. Lohrasbe, and I accept, that he hopes somehow to be able to make up to his family, his partner, and his friends for the things that he did and, again, quoting from Dr. Lohrasbe's report, "He knows that his primary task is to ensure that he never crosses the line again." He takes responsibility for his actions. I am satisfied that he is a low risk to offend in any way again. He has been on bail for a period of three years. That period of time that he has been on bail has been absolutely without incident and he has, in fact, remained working and a valuable and contributing member of his family, I use that in the broadest term, and in the community including by performing various volunteer activities that I have read about in particular in the letters that have been put before the court. [10] The purposes and principles of sentencing are set out in s. 718, 718.1, and 718.2 of the Criminal Code. Of course, of most significance in cases like this are the issues of deterrence and denunciation, particularly where the crime involves something as dangerous and harmful to the community as the production and trafficking of methamphetamine. The Supreme Court of Canada has cautioned trial judges and, in fact, instructed trial judges that where counsel have carefully considered and come before the court with a joint submission on sentencing that such a sentence should be imposed by the court unless the court is satisfied that the sentence is inappropriate taking into account the provisions of the Criminal Code and the circumstances of the offence and the offender. [11] There is no question in my mind on the facts of this case that the sentence, in fact, is appropriate. It is in keeping with the authorities put before the court. It is the lowest that can be imposed given the mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for the offence before the court. I have every expectation that Mr. Sadden, with his family support and his community support, will not ever reoffend and that he will continue to work on his rehabilitation to the extent that that is required. In fact, he has been working on his rehabilitation for the past three years while he has been on bail. [12] Under all of the circumstances, Mr. Sadden, if you would just please stand up. [13] With respect to Count 5 on the indictment, I impose upon you a three-year sentence of imprisonment. On Count 6 on the indictment, I impose a three-year sentence of imprisonment. Those two sentences will be concurrent; that is to say, it will be a global sentence of three years. [14] In addition, I will impose upon you a 10-year prohibition on you possessing any weapons pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code. [15] I will also order that you provide a sample of your DNA to the authorities and that, unless I am corrected by counsel or the clerk, will be pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code. I see nodding and so I guess there will be no correction. [16] I will also, as requested by defence counsel on your behalf, Mr. Sadden, ask the clerk to ensure that when the warrant of committal is transmitted to the authorities that there will be a copy of Dr. Lohrasbe's report included in the warrant of committal, and I will make a recommendation, knowing that is non-binding, but at least a recommendation to the authorities that they consider classifying you as a minimum security risk. [17] I accept, Mr. Sadden, and it is obvious to me that you are genuinely remorseful, that you found yourself in circumstances completely out of character, and I am going to say to you, you are very fortunate to have the family and community support that you have, but you also sound as though you are very deserving of it and I wish you the very best of luck and I am confident that you will not be back before these courts again. [18] I dealt with the issue of the forfeiture order earlier, counsel. That matter is adjourned generally. [19] Is there anything else arising? [20] MS. GUEST: No, My Lady, thank you. [21] MR. PECK: Thank you. [22] THE COURT: All right, thank you. [23] THE CLERK: Sorry, can I just confirm that the firearms is on both counts? [24] THE COURT: Firearms on both counts. [25] THE CLERK: Same with the DNA? [26] THE COURT: DNA on both counts. [27] THE CLERK: And that is a secondary DNA? [28] MS. GUEST: Secondary. [29] THE CLERK: Thank you. [30] THE COURT: All right, thank you very much. "Beames J."