R. v. Campbell

2025 BCSC 2302 R. v. Campbell

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Campbell, 2025 BCSC 2302 Date: 20251009 Docket: 85387‑3, 85387‑8, 85387‑16 85387‑23, 85387‑25 Registry: New Westminster Rex v. Bryce Dallas Lee Campbell Before: The Honourable Justice Brundrett Oral Reasons for Sentence Counsel for the Crown: A. Lee M.P. Bussanich Counsel for the Accused: J. Dosanjh T.R. McLean Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: New Westminster, B.C. October 9, 2025 Place and Date of Judgment: New Westminster, B.C. October 9, 2025 THE COURT: Overview [1] Bryce Dallas Campbell entered a guilty plea to a charge of manslaughter where a firearm was used in the commission of the offence, contrary to s. 236(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s. 490 [Code]. He comes before the Court for sentencing. [2] The offence relates to the shooting death of David Goldstein on April 6, 2022, at his home in Surrey, British Columbia. Mr. Goldstein rented a room in the basement of a home on 24 Avenue. He was a low-level drug dealer who sold drugs from his suite. [3] Mr. Campbell has admitted to being one of the three males who entered Mr. Goldstein's basement suite in the early morning hours of April 6, 2022, confronting and confining him. One of the three males shot Mr. Goldstein. The three males fled, taking property from the home as they did so. [4] The Crown has advised that it is unable to prove which of the

males shot Mr. Goldstein. Mr. Campbell's liability thus arises by virtue of being a party to the offence. Under s. 21(2) of the Code, the Crown alleges, and the accused accepts, that the offence of manslaughter was carried out as a consequence of the commission of the underlying offence of confinement of Mr. Goldstein in his room in the home. [5] With respect to the appropriate sentence, counsel have jointly proposed a sentence of five years in custody, with 24 months of probation and various ancillary orders. Mr. Campbell has now been in custody for 733 days. If enhanced credit is applied, he will have served 1,100 days and will have 725 days left to serve if the requested five-year sentence is imposed. [6] The issue for my determination is the appropriate sentence and whether I should accept the joint submission. I will address the circumstances of the case before turning to the applicable sentencing principles and the appropriate sentence. Circumstances of the Offence [7] The Crown and defence agree to the following circumstances for the purposes of sentencing: 1. In April 2022, David Goldstein resided in a room at 15262 24 Avenue, Surrey, BC.

2. Mr. Goldstein was involved in the illicit drug trade.

3. On April 5, 2022, at approximately 11:50 PM, Bryce Dallas Lee Campbell boarded Newton Whalley Taxi #40. He was with two other males. They boarded the taxi in the vicinity of 11076 131A Street, Surrey, B.C.

4. Taxi #40 drove to the vicinity of 15262 24 Avenue, Surrey, B.C. They arrived at approximately 12:50 AM on April 6, 2022. Mr. Campbell and the two other males exited the taxi. One of them instructed the taxi to wait for them.

5. The taxi driver, Hamid Khan, stayed within a block of the drop off point, leaving the meter running.

6. Mr. Campbell and the other two males entered Mr. Goldstein's room. One of the three males brandished a silver firearm and pointed it at Mr. Goldstein. The firearm was visible to all participants.

7. One minute and two seconds of the interaction in Mr. Goldstein's room was captured on video. During that period, all three of the males were positioned between Mr. Goldstein and the only exit to the room.

8. Jessica Howard spoke to try to diffuse the situation, but one of the males told her to "shut up." One of the males also went to strike her with the gun, but she was able to block it with her arm.

9. One or more of the males gave Mr. Goldstein directions including the content of messages to send to another person. A portion of the interaction was captured on video, with audio. A transcript of the audio is reproduced below: 383 UM2: And the fucking chunk. 384 UM5: And the chunk. 385 UM2: Say Dallas and Dillon are here and got a fucking chunk. 386 UM5: Oh no, don't even say that. 387 UM2: Don't even anything. 388 UM5: Don't even say that. Just say I got a chunk out there [apple], brand new in the box- 389 UM2: Mm-hm. 390 UM5: -and I've got money to reload it. 391 UM2: This guy is fucking loaded, bro. 392 UM5: Yeah, I'm pretty sure they can see that. 393 UM2: (Indecipherable) fuck (indecipherable). 394 JH: (indecipherable). 395 DG: What do you want me to say about that bro [apple]? 396 UM5: Huh? 397 DG: What do you want me to say about computers? 398 UM5: Just say you have a fucking brand-new MacBook Air Pro. Brand new in the 399 box, and you got a chunk. 400 UM2: Hey n-, hey, hey. None of the (indecipherable). 402 UM5: Huh? 403 UM2: (Indecipherable). 404 JH: My ears are plugged. 405 UM2: (Indecipherable). 406 UM5: (Indecipherable). 407 UM2: (Indecipherable). 408 UM5: After you're done texting, put your phone in the fucking (indecipherable). 409 UM2: (Indecipherable).

10. Approximately 30 minutes after arriving in Mr. Goldstein's room, one of the males fired a single shot. The shot struck Mr. Goldstein in the head. The three males fled the room. Ms. Howard noted that one of the males took Mr. Goldstein's laptop computer.

11. At approximately 1:24 AM, Mr. Khan spoke to one of the males who told him to pick them up. Mr. Khan returned Taxi #40 to the vicinity of 15262 24 Avenue. Mr. Campbell and the other two males boarded the taxi. The taxi left the area.

12. Ms. Howard did not have a phone with her. She got the attention of Eric Dueck, who lived in the same house. Mr. Dueck called 911 at 1:27 AM.

13. Police and Emergency Health Services arrived. Mr. Goldstein was transported to Royal Columbian Hospital.

14. Mr. Goldstein died of the single gunshot wound to the head while in hospital. [8] A video capturing a portion of the incident was played at sentencing. It intermittently shows activity in Mr. Goldstein's room prior to and during the incident. One can see Ms. Howard arrives and interacts with Mr. Goldstein, then in another clip, the males are visible accosting Mr. Goldstein and Ms. Howard. [9] The room is relatively small, and the males appear to be confronting Mr. Goldstein and giving him instructions. One man with a firearm is visible, but the intruders are masked. The Crown cannot say if the male with the firearm is Mr. Campbell or one of the other males. The actual shooting is not shown on the video excerpt. [10] There are some gaps in what is known about the incident. The gun possessed by one of the three males was never recovered. It is unknown who brought the firearm. The Crown cannot say if the shooting was accidental or intentional. It cannot prove how the three males entered the home or Mr. Goldstein's room, though the video excerpt indicates that they were there to confront him. The Crown has no evidence as to the extent of the planning involved in the incident. [11] It is apparent, however, that the three males were working together; they attended and alighted from the scene together, and they were all aware of the presence of a loaded firearm in the Goldstein

room. They also jointly confronted Mr. Goldstein and made demands of him, which were related to the drug trade. Circumstances of the Offender [12] Mr. Campbell is currently 29 years old. He was 25 at the time of the offence. He is a Canadian citizen. He was born in New Westminster. He is Métis on his mother's side. His father was Caucasian. [13] Both of his parents, and particularly his mother, suffered from addiction. Mr. Campbell has been diagnosed with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. He was taken from his parents shortly after he was born. Initially, he was placed in the care of his maternal aunt. Mr. Campbell did not have a stable home, even with his aunt. As a result, he entered foster care. [14] During his early years living with his aunt, he reportedly still saw his parents and was exposed to their addictions and to family violence. Mr. Campbell advises that he observed his mother battle addictions and a criminal lifestyle throughout her life. By the time he aged out of Ministry care, Mr. Campbell had been placed in at least 16 different foster homes around the province. His early life had considerable instability, and he was raised in environments with both active addictions and violence. He advised that he was the victim of all forms of abuse while in the foster care system. [15] Mr. Campbell has struggled with addiction. His turbulent upbringing led him to turn to

substances at a young age. At 13 years of age, he began using marijuana and pills. His addiction progressed to methamphetamines and eventually opiates. The evidence I heard on the voir dire in this matter indicates that he continued to suffer from addiction at the time of the offence. [16] At 18 years of age, Mr. Campbell aged out of the foster care system and transitioned to a Community Living B.C. assisted living home. Despite his difficulties, Mr. Campbell has been employed at various times. He has worked in window installation, asbestos removal, and demolition work. [17] Since being in custody, Mr. Campbell has completed programming and earned certificates. He obtained his adult graduation diploma. He completed the life skills program, comprising nine modules relevant to rehabilitation and reintegration. He also completed a program offered through Kwantlen Polytechnic University called Arts 3200, the Inside‑Out Prison Exchange Program, which pairs incarcerated inmates with non-incarcerated students for collaborative learning. After completing this program, Mr. Campbell received two positive reference letters from instructors. [18] Mr. Campbell has a criminal record which includes numerous convictions from 2015 to 2020. Of note, he has several prior convictions for various forms of assault, a prior conviction for robbery, a conviction for use of an imitation firearm, and

convictions for breaching Court orders. [19] Mr. Campbell also has a significant conviction for an unrelated murder, which post-dates the offence in this matter. Both counsel have asked that I not take that conviction into account as an aggravated factor on sentence, and I accede to that position. In this regard, I note that the Court in R. v. Pete, 2019 BCCA 244 at paras. 27-40 discussed the "Coke Rule" that subsequent offences should not be treated as aggravating in sentencing for prior offences by the imposition of a harsher sentence. However, such subsequent sentences may be relevant to ascertaining an offender's moral culpability and prospects for rehabilitation. I understand that both counsel are in agreement with this approach. [20] I wish to acknowledge, however, that in a practical sense, that conviction may be relevant to Mr. Campbell in that it will impact his release date, whether he serves the sentence in a provincial or federal institution, and his ability to serve a probation order in the community. [21] Finally, I note that Mr. Campbell briefly addressed the Court at sentencing and apologized to the Goldstein family. Impact of the Offence upon the Victim and the Community [22] The deceased, Mr. Goldstein, was 33 years old at the time his life was tragically taken from him. The Court was advised that he was a good person at heart and that his family and friends

cared deeply about him. [23] I heard victim impact statements from Mr. Goldstein's sister, Jessica Goldstein, who read her statement in court; his mother, Dorothy Goldstein; his cousin, Christy Dunphy; and his friend, Jessica Howard. All expressed their deep sorrow, shock and frustration over the sudden loss of Mr. Goldstein from their lives. [24] I agree with their description of his loss as senseless and tragic. It is apparent that they think about Mr. Goldstein often and that they have all been profoundly affected by his death. No sentence that I can impose will make up for the deep sense of loss his family and his community feel over losing him. Sentencing Principles [25] Section 234 of the Code broadly defines manslaughter as culpable homicide that is neither murder nor infanticide. [26] Section 236(a) sets out the punishment for manslaughter with a firearm as having a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. The minimum sentence is four years' imprisonment. [27] The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society. Section 718 of the Code relates the fundamental purpose to six main objectives of sentencing, which it sets out as follows: (1) denunciation of the offending conduct and of the harm done to victims and the community; (2) deterrence of the offender and of

other people from criminal conduct; (3) separation of the offender from society where necessary; (4) rehabilitation of the offender; (5) reparations to victims or the community; and (6) promotion of the offender's acknowledgment of responsibility and of the harm done to victims or the community. [28] Section 718.1 provides that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [29] Section 718.2(a) of the Code requires me to consider that the sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstance relating to the offence or the offender. [30] Section 718.2(d) and (e) embody the principle of restraint. This principle encourages caution in moderation in the imposition of custodial sentences such that any custodial period ought to be the lightest term reasonable in the circumstances; see R. v. Bosco, 2016 BCCA 55, at para. 35. [31] The range of sentences in manslaughter cases is wide, given the various ways in which the offence can be committed. Manslaughter exists on a spectrum and includes situations involving near accidents up to those involving near murders. The typical range spans sentences of four to 15 years of imprisonment: see R. v. Engebretsen, 2016 BCCA 182 at para. 13; R. v. Badhesa, 2019 BCCA 70 at paras. 24, 26 and 49. [32] While no two cases of

manslaughter are identical, I take guidance from s. 718.2(b) of the Code, which provides that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. Here, the Crown referred to the decisions in R. v. Dhak, 2003 BCSC 595, R. v. MacDonald, 2006 BCPC 485, R. v. Hothi, 2023 BCSC 1564, and R. v. Henry, 2015 ONSC 3905. The defence referred to the sentences imposed in R. v. Morin, 2021 ABQB 433, R. v. Wisdom, [1996] B.C.J. No. 704 (CA) and R. v. Stuiver, 2020 BCSC 334. The suggested penalty here falls toward the lower end of the range for manslaughter cases of this type. Still, it also reflects the Crown's inability to prove more aggravated circumstances, such as forced entry into the home or that Mr. Campbell was the actual shooter. [33] Use of a firearm is an inherent aggravated factor in the charge itself, as evidenced by the minimum four years' imprisonment. As the Court of Appeal explained in R. v. Kachuol, 2017 BCCA 292, at para. 25, the Court should strive to deter and denounce gun violence to the extent possible. [34] In R. v. Anthony‑Cook, 2016 SCC 43, at paras. 32-34, the Supreme Court of Canada held that trial judges should not lightly interfere with or reject a joint submission. A sentencing court should only depart from a joint submission when the proposed sentence would be viewed by a reasonable

person informed of the circumstances as a breakdown in the proper functioning of the justice system. These principles were recently reaffirmed in R. v. Nahanee, 2021 BCCA 13, where the Court set out a public-interest test for departing from a joint submission. Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances [35] I accept the following aggravating factors as being present in this case: 1. Mr. Campbell has a criminal record, including convictions for violent and weapons offences.

2. Mr. Campbell was subject to a bail order at the time of the offence with a curfew from 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. every day. Despite that, he continued to engage in unlawful activity, including at night.

3. The offence was committed in the context of the illicit drug trade, which is fraught with risk and danger.

4. Jessica Howard, an innocent bystander, was present in the room at the time of the confrontation. She was exposed to a violent and, undoubtedly, terrifying situation and placed at risk. She witnessed the death of her close friend.

5. The underlying confrontation and confinement of Mr. Goldstein was prolonged. The evidence establishes that the assailants were at the scene for approximately 45 minutes.

6. Pursuant to s. 718.2(iii.1) of the Code, the significant impact on the Goldstein family and Ms. Howard is aggravating.

7. The offence occurred in Mr. Goldstein's home, a place he was entitled to feel safe in.

8. Mr. Godlstein absolutely posed no threat to Mr. Campbell. He was unarmed and defenceless. [36] I also accept that this case includes several mitigating factors, including the following: 1. Mr. Campbell pled guilty. He has taken responsibility for his role in the tragic death of Mr. Goldstein. It cannot be said that Mr. Campbell's guilty plea was early. It came after several weeks of pre-trial applications and a day after the trial proper started. However, his guilty plea saved significant court time and spared civilian witnesses the inconvenience and, in some instances, the trauma of testifying. I also note that the reduced charge of manslaughter came about after most of the pre-trial applications were complete. When the new charge was laid, Crown and defence counsel actively engaged in resolution discussions. The plea came at the opening of the trial itself.

2. Mr. Campbell has demonstrated some prosocial change in his attitude toward rehabilitation while in custody. He has obtained his high school equivalent diploma. He has participated in many life skills programs while in custody.

3. At 25 years of age, Mr. Campbell was a relatively young adult offender at the time of the offence.

4. Mr. Campbell's difficult upbringing included his unstable circumstances and his exposure to violence.

5. Mr. Campbell's Métis heritage on his mother's side is a mitigating factor in that he faced significant disadvantage in his life which contributed to his contact with the criminal justice system. [37] This last factor merits additional consideration. Section 718.2(e) of the Code states explicitly that sentencing courts must apply the principle of restraint with particular attention to the personal circumstances of Indigenous offenders. [38] Here, I take into account the unique, systemic and background factors that may have played a part in bringing Mr. Campbell before the court: R. v. Kehoe, 2023 BCCA 2, at para.

40. Mr. Campbell was removed from his biological family at an early age and raised in many foster homes. In his case, a number of adverse factors that affect Indigenous persons in general because of systemic discrimination are specifically present. These include: (1) familial dislocation, fragmentation and resulting cultural dislocation; (2) early and ongoing exposure to substance abuse; (3) early and ongoing exposure to violence; and (4) institutionalization. [39] I note that Justice Walkem, in another decision involving Mr. Campbell reported at 2023 BCSC 753, canvassed the relevance of Mr. Campbell's heritage and upbringing in sentencing him on two offences in 2023: [23] Mitigating factors specific to this case include Mr. Campbell's experience with parental neglect and violence, familial and cultural dislocation. Mr. Campbell has spent much of his life institutionalized. He was raised in and out of a number of different foster homes. It is fair to say, that Mr. Campbell was taken into care and institutionalized nearly at birth. He then transitioned from the foster system into the criminal justice system. I think that this reflects a sad pipelining effect that occurs for many Indigenous children who are taken into care, and then graduate into the criminal justice system. [24] Mr. Campbell's life was marked by a series of transitions from institution to institution. Mr.

Campbell's life trajectory represents examples of the severe impacts of our shared colonial history on Indigenous peoples and families. Mr. Campbell experienced multiple, and ongoing, traumas due to numerous foster care placements, the suicide of his mom, addictions within his family, as well as the physical and sexual violence and abuse he was subjected to. The early and ongoing substance abuse, both of his family members and his own, are added to, and exacerbated by, that history. Mr. Campbell's diagnosis of FASD is also a factor to be considered. [25] Given this history and combined set of factors, I have no doubt that Mr. Campbell experiences continuing and ongoing trauma. The circumstances of Mr. Campbell's life, overall, are extreme. The compounding effects of his parents' addiction, life in foster care, his mother's death, abuse, and neglect he suffered leading to his own addictions, and involvement within the criminal subculture, clearly fall within the context contemplated within Ipeelee, Gladue, Kehoe, and that Parliament had in mind in enacting s. 718.2(e). [40] I would adopt these considerations here. [41] Finally, I consider that Mr. Campbell briefly addressed the court at sentencing and apologized to the victim's family. Although his apology was short and inadequate in so many ways, it may represent the start of an acknowledgement of the harm that he has

caused. Discussion [42] The offence here was very serious. It involved taking the life of an innocent man. The offence itself involved intentional risk-taking by Mr. Campbell, including his involvement in a joint plan by three offenders to confront Mr. Goldstein in his home and make demands of him connected apparently to the drug trade. The group brought a firearm and viciously shot Mr. Goldstein without provocation. [43] After the offence, the group stole from Mr. Goldstein and Ms. Howard. The loss of Mr. Goldstein has had far-reaching effects on his family, upon Ms. Howard who witnessed the offence, and upon Mr. Goldstein's community. Mr. Campbell's conduct in joining this senseless assault on Mr. Goldstein and taking his life carries a relatively high degree of moral blameworthiness. [44] The Crown characterized Mr. Campbell at one point as youthful. I do not entirely agree. He had a criminal record, which included several crimes of violence and other offences even prior to 2022. By the age of 25, he had had enough contact with the criminal justice system to know better than to engage again in activities which could lead to violence. His difficult background may partially explain, but does not in any way justify his actions. [45] The most important principles applicable here are deterrence, retribution and denunciation. His sentence must reflect our community's rejection of

gun violence as inexcusable and intolerable. It must also reflect society's condemnation of the attack on a person confronted in their own home. Most importantly, the sentence I impose must convey a message of deterrence and denunciation to dissuade others who might be similarly tempted to engage in such violence. [46] I must also consider Mr. Campbell's rehabilitation, in particular his modest age, his guilty plea, his Métis status and the background factors that have brought him before the court as part of his prospects for rehabilitation. That said, Mr. Campbell's many convictions for breaching court orders and his violation of a release order on the date of this offence do not bode well for his rehabilitation. Although I would not lose sight of the principle of rehabilitation and the need to promote a sense of responsibility in Mr. Campbell for the harm he has done, rehabilitation, while still a consideration, is not a primary factor here given the gravity of the offence. [47] I have taken into account that the proposed penalty here was arrived at after considerable discussions and negotiations between Crown and defence counsel, all of whom have been actively involved in this case for a long time. Counsel appear to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the respective cases, and the joint submission reflects significant benefits to, and concessions by, both the Crown

and defence. Significantly, it also reflects the limitations inherent in the Crown's case of proving additional aggravating circumstances or a greater degree of involvement by Mr. Campbell, which could have justified a significantly higher sentence. [48] In the circumstances, I cannot find that the joint submission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or run contrary to the public interest. I find that the sentence counsel have agreed to is appropriate in the circumstances. [49] Mr. Campbell, please stand up. [50] I am horrified by your appalling actions in involving yourself in this deeply misguided, drug-fueled plan to confront Mr. Goldstein in his own home and make demands of him. Mr. Goldstein did nothing to deserve this. There is absolutely no excuse for your behaviour in joining in this plan with two of your goon-like accomplices to enter a man's home and confine him by your actions, and take part in this sort of gratuitous violence. This kind of tragic, senseless violence is destructive not only to Mr. Goldstein's family and friends but to the harmony of our community itself. [51] The sentence I will impose will encourage you in addition to deterring you to take responsibility for your actions. I am not sure what is going to happen with your other murder conviction, but regardless, I would encourage you to work on your rehabilitation so that one day

if you are released you will never fall back into this kind of lifestyle or offending pattern again. [52] You are sentenced to five years' imprisonment. From this will be subtracted credit for 733 actual days served on this charge, reflecting 1,100 days of credit for time served at the usual rate. The sentence left to be served is 725 days, which is just under two years in custody. [53] Have a seat, please, and I will make the secondary orders sought by counsel. [54] There will be a probation order of 24 months following your release. The terms will be as follows: 1) You will, first, keep the peace and be of good behaviour; 2) You must appear before the court when required to do so by the court; 3) You must notify the court or the probation officer in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the court or the officer of any change of employment or occupation; 4) If you are not in custody during this order, you must report in person to a probation officer at Suite 102, 14245 56 Avenue, Surrey, B.C., within two business days after your release from custody unless you have obtained before your release from custody written permission from your probation officer to report elsewhere or within a different timeframe. After that you must report as, when and where directed by your probation officer; 5) You must have no contact or communication, directly or indirectly,

with K.C. or Jessica Howard; 6) You must not be found within 100 metres of any place where K.C. or Jessica Howard lives, works, attends school, worships, or happens to be. If you see them, you must leave their presence immediately without any words or gestures; 7) If you are not in custody during the term of this order, you must attend, participate in and complete any intake, assessment, counselling or education program as directed by your probation officer; and 8) You must not possess, directly or indirectly, any weapon as defined by the Code, including: (a) firearms and ammunition; (b) cross-bows, prohibited or restricted weapons or devices, or explosive substances; (c) anything used, designed to be used or intended for use in causing death or injury to any person, or to threaten or intimidate any person; (d) any imitation of all the above, including any compressed air guns or BB/pellet guns; and finally, (e) any related authorizations, licences and registration certificates, and you must not apply for any of these. [55] That is the end of the probationary conditions. [56] There are ancillary orders I will impose as sought by counsel: 1) There will be a lifetime firearms prohibition pursuant to s. 109(1)(a) and (d) of the Code; 2) There will be a DNA order. As this is a primary designated offence, it is mandatory pursuant to s. 487.04 of the Code; and 3) I make an order

pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Code that you not have any contact with Jessica Howard or K.C. while in custody. [57] The victim surcharge will be waived because I am satisfied that the offender has no ability to pay. [58] Is there anything else I have omitted, counsel? [59] CNSL M. BUSSANICH: No, thank you, Justice. [60] CNSL J. DOSANJH: I would just ask that the remaining dates be vacated. [61] THE COURT: Yes. I will vacate the remaining trial dates. [62] THE CLERK: Sorry, Justice. Is Mr. Campbell to sign the documents? [63] THE COURT: Yes, he should sign them. He should sign the documents. [64] All right. Counsel, thank you for your helpful submissions. We will adjourn. "Brundrett J."