R. v. Kang

2024 BCSC 656 R. v. Kang

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Kang, 2024 BCSC 656 Date: 20240405 Docket: 32948-1 Registry: Vancouver Rex v. Amandeep Singh Kang Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Riley Oral Reasons for Sentence Counsel for the Crown: T.C. Johnson I. Sattarzadeh Counsel for the Accused Amandeep Singh Kang: V.M. Williams Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. April 5, 2024 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. April 5, 2024 Introduction [1] By way of introduction, the offender, Mr. Kang, is before the court for sentencing in respect of two very serious offences both arising out of the same investigation and underlying circumstances. Mr. Kang entered a guilty plea and the facts are not in dispute between the parties. I will review them very briefly in a moment. [2] This is a case where the Crown and the defence are advancing a joint recommendation as to sentence, and that informs the context here, and it is an explanation why my reasons for sentence will be relatively brief. The law instructs that joint submissions as to sentence serve a vital function in our justice system. Joint submissions give effect to certainty and predictability in the outcome for both the Crown, as the representative of the public, and the accused, the offender. Joint recommendations are often the product of lengthy discussions between counsel who know the case inside and out and, on

that basis, make a joint proposal as to what the disposition should be. The law says that a sentencing judge is to give deference to a joint submission and ought not to depart from it, unless it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest. [3] I am going to say at the outset, to avoid any unnecessary anxiety, that I do not intend to depart from the joint submission here. However, because of the seriousness of the offences and the degree of culpability and the impact on the public, and also because of the length of the proposed sentence, 11 years in total, which is a long time for anyone to spend in jail, and the significant impact that this will have on the offender's liberty, it is necessary for me to make some brief remarks or reasons as to why the sentence that is being requested is being imposed. Facts [4] Mr. Kang has entered guilty pleas to two offences: (i) trafficking in controlled substances for the benefit of a criminal organization and (ii) conspiracy to traffic in controlled substances. The drugs in issue were the worst, most dangerous, and addictive illegal drugs that plague our society, namely fentanyl, heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine in substantial amounts. [5] The criminal organization is a group of individuals. According to the agreed statement of facts, when the police commenced their

investigation, their attention was on the Brothers Keepers. The group or criminal organization that is the subject matter of the charges is a subset or a smaller group that is identified in the agreed statement of facts. It is clear from the underlying circumstances that Mr. Kang was one of the leading members of that organization. [6] The underlying facts are not in dispute and they are set out in an agreed statement of facts that has been tendered. Mr. Kang was one of the leading members of this criminal organization. The illicit drug trafficking that was involved had two facets and Mr. Kang was involved in both. One facet was the distribution of large quantities of drugs via couriers to various communities throughout British Columbia, and the other facet was the operation of dial‑a‑dope trafficking lines or distribution schemes in various communities on Vancouver Island, and two particular communities are referred to in the agreed statement of facts. [7] The agreed statement of facts makes it clear that Mr. Kang was integrally involved in both aspects of this drug distribution operation. These were sophisticated criminal undertakings involving planned and deliberate distribution of illicit drugs clearly for material gain. This kind of conduct is predatory and exploitative, and exacts, as the case law notes, untold misery on the community in terms of drug overdose deaths and

the many other miseries and social ills associated with the drug trade. [8] The drug trafficking activity was concerted, it was prolonged in duration, and it was persistent. I say it was persistent because the trafficking continued after multiple rounds of police enforcement action. Taking enforcement action was not enough to discourage the group, including Mr. Kang, from continuing on with their activities. They were concerned only with or principally with how to continue without further detection from the police. [9] That would be my characterization or overview of the circumstances as they have been related to me. Circumstances of the Offender [10] In terms of Mr. Kang's personal circumstances, I have been given very brief information about his background. He is 31 years old. He is not a first offender. He has a criminal record with a prior drug conviction. That conviction was entered in 2015 and resulted in a provincial jail sentence. Sentencing Objectives and Principles [11] Clearly the key considerations in sentencing an offender for organized criminal activity at this level are denunciation and deterrence. Denunciation is the idea that the sentence should reflect society's disapproval of or condemnation of the offender's conduct. Deterrence is the idea that the offender himself, and others who might be inclined to be involved in such activity, must get the message that

this kind of crime will result in substantial penalties so as to discourage such antisocial conduct in the future. [12] Other sentencing principles like rehabilitation play a lesser role when we are talking about crime at this scale and seriousness. All I can say about rehabilitation in Mr. Kang's case is that one would expect that while serving his sentence, he will reflect on his conduct and not just on how getting caught affected him, but also how his conduct has caused harm to the community. Eleven years in jail will give Mr. Kang the time to contemplate that and to hopefully internalize it. [13] There is also the principle that like cases should be treated alike. This is known as the principle of parity. I have been given a case book that includes sentencing decisions for others involved in what I will call organized commercial trafficking in dangerous and addictive drugs. I can say that while 11 years is a very substantial jail sentence, the sentence being sought here is probably at the low end of the acceptable range, given the nature of the criminal conduct in issue. [14] There is the mitigating feature of the guilty plea and the acceptance of responsibility, and the joint submission. Were it not for the guilty plea, which involves an acceptance of responsibility and an indication of remorse, and a saving of resources to the justice system, and were it not for the joint

submission, it is quite likely that Mr. Kang would have received a lengthier sentence, a much more severe sentence. Now, that is not to be critical of either the Crown or the defence in the position they are advancing. These counsel know the case and the proposal they are making is based on the considerations discussed at the beginning of these reasons. My point here is that both the public and the offender, Mr. Kang, should know that were it not for the guilty plea and the joint recommendation, a more substantial sentence would be quite likely in these circumstances. In any event, all this is to say that having regard to the comments I made earlier about the importance of joint submissions and the standard that I am supposed to apply in considering them, I do intend to follow it. Sentence Imposed [15] With that, Mr. Kang, can you please stand. I sentence you to serve a sentence of 11 years in the penitentiary, and that is specifically nine years on Count 3 and two years consecutive on Count 1. You can have a seat, sir. [16] I am also granting the ancillary orders that are sought by the Crown, namely (i): a lifetime firearms prohibition under s. 109 of the Criminal Code and (ii) a DNA collection order under s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code. [17] That will conclude this sentencing. I am going to say this directly to Mr. Kang: Reflect on the choices that you have made and your

associations and what has brought you to this point in your life. You have a long sentence to serve and time to reflect on those things. If you do not make a decision to take your life in a different direction, likely the best outcome for you is that you will end up back in jail, and the worst outcome is that you will end up being another fatal casualty of organized crime. So, bear all of that in mind when you are serving your sentence, sir. [18] Is there anything else then from the Crown? [Crown stays remaining counts against Mr. Kang] [Parties clarify the sentences to be imposed on the particular counts. Count 3 is to be nine years and Count 2 is two years consecutive]. [19] THE COURT: I stand corrected and the warrant of committal should reflect what counsel has just corrected me on. Thank you. [20] Okay, thank you, Crown counsel. Ms. Williams, is there anything else to be addressed? [21] CNSL V. WILLIAMS: I think the only final thing remaining is of course the court must consider the victim fine surcharge. Given the fact there has been guilty pleas to this matter, the court is imposing a very serious, lengthy sentence for Mr. Kang, I would ask the court to consider waiving it in these circumstances. [22] THE COURT: Yes, I will waive the victim fine surcharge as Mr. Kang will be going into custody for an extended time. "Riley J."