Canada Judgment

Supreme Court of British Columbia

R. v. Medwedrich

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Because the accused was convicted of first degree murder, s.745(1) mandated a life sentence with no parole eligibility for 25 years; the statutory ancillary orders (lifetime weapons prohibition under s.109(3), DNA order under s.487.051, and forfeiture under s.490(9)) were appropriate and unobjectionable and therefore were made.

Court disposition

Accused convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole until 25 years; ancillary orders granted

Orders

  • Sentence: Life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole until expiry of 25 years (s.745(1))
  • Firearms and weapons prohibition for life pursuant to s.109(3) of the Criminal Code
  • DNA order pursuant to s.487.051 of the Criminal Code; bodily samples to be taken while in custody
  • Forfeiture of exhibits listed in Appendices A-H pursuant to s.490(9) of the Criminal Code to be disposed of as the Attorney General directs
  • Publication ban under s.486.5(1) of the Criminal Code restraining identification of witness X, indefinite

02

Material facts

Parties

Rex

Crown Counsel: R.C. Fowler; C.M.F. Jennings, K.C.

Damien James Medwedrich

Accused Counsel: S.J. Runyon

Alex William Knatchbell

Victim

Amounts and remedies

  • Number of Gunshots: 12
  • Parole Ineligibility (years): 25

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal First Degree Murder / Sentencing

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Crown relied on the conviction for first degree murder, victim impact statements, and the statutory mandatory sentence under s.745(1) for life imprisonment with 25 years parole ineligibility. Crown sought ancillary orders: lifetime weapons prohibition under s.109(3), DNA order under s.487.051, and forfeiture of exhibits under s.490(9). Crown advised defendant has prior firearms convictions.
Respondent
Defence did not dispute the prior firearms convictions and did not object to the ancillary orders. No substantive mitigation contrary to mandatory sentence was advanced at sentencing; defence accepted the statutory consequences and raised no objection to proposed orders.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Criminal Code s.745(1)

    Conviction for first degree murder attracts a mandatory life sentence with 25 years parole ineligibility

  2. 02

    Criminal Code s.109(3)

    Mandatory lifetime prohibition on possession of firearms, prohibited or restricted weapons where s.109(3) applies

  3. 03

    Criminal Code s.487.051

    Court may authorize taking of bodily samples where offence is a primary designated offence

  4. 04

    Criminal Code s.490(9)

    Court may order forfeiture of exhibits seized where they are no longer required under the Code

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Because the accused was convicted of first degree murder, s.745(1) mandated a life sentence with no parole eligibility for 25 years; the statutory ancillary orders (lifetime weapons prohibition under s.109(3), DNA order under s.487.051, and forfeiture under s.490(9)) were appropriate and unobjectionable and therefore were made.

Obiter and limits

  • Publication ban limiting identification of witness X imposed under s.486.5(1) and applied indefinitely unless otherwise ordered
  • Factual observations that the offender lured the victim to a remote area and shot him twelve times as aggravating conduct were noted by the court

Court disposition

Accused convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole until 25 years; ancillary orders granted

  • Sentence: Life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole until expiry of 25 years (s.745(1))
  • Firearms and weapons prohibition for life pursuant to s.109(3) of the Criminal Code
  • DNA order pursuant to s.487.051 of the Criminal Code; bodily samples to be taken while in custody
  • Forfeiture of exhibits listed in Appendices A-H pursuant to s.490(9) of the Criminal Code to be disposed of as the Attorney General directs
  • Publication ban under s.486.5(1) of the Criminal Code restraining identification of witness X, indefinite

Source and reliance status

Supreme Court of British Columbia · 26 August 2024

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Judgment· 26 August 2024

2024 BCSC 1851

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Medwedrich, 2024 BCSC 1851 Date: 20240826 Docket: 183771-2 Registry: Victoria Rex v. Damien James Medwedrich Restriction on publication: A publication ban has been imposed under s. 486.5(1) of the Criminal Code restricting the publication, broadcasting, or transmission in any way of any information that could identify the witness referred to in these reasons as X (the Witness) including the names of parents of the Witness. This publication ban applies indefinitely unless otherwise ordered. Before: The Honourable Madam Justice V. Jackson Oral Reasons for Sentence Counsel for the Crown: R.C. Fowler C.M.F. Jennings, K.C. Counsel for the Accused: S.J. Runyon Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: Victoria, B.C. August 26, 2024 Place and Date of Judgment: Victoria, B.C. August 26, 2024 THE COURT: This decision was delivered in the form of oral reasons for judgment. The reasons have since been edited for publication without changing the substance. [1] These are my reasons for sentence. [2] On April 19, 2024, I convicted Mr. Medwedrich of the sole count on the indictment, the first degree murder of Alex William Knatchbell, on or about the 20th day of January, 2020, at or near Langford, British Columbia, contrary to s. 235(1) of the Criminal Code. [3] Mr. Medwedrich shot Mr. Knatchbell 12 times after luring him to a dark, remote,

isolated area on Humpback Road late at night. [4] At the sentencing hearing, I have received from Crown counsel the victim impact statements of four members of Mr. Knatchbell's family, two of whom read their statements to the Court. [5] Having found Mr. Medwedrich guilty of the first degree murder of Mr. Knatchbell, s. 745(1) of the Code requires he be sentenced to imprisonment for life without eligibility of parole until he has served 25 years of that sentence. [6] Mr. Medwedrich, would you stand, please, sir. In respect of Count 1, the first degree murder of Alex William Knatchbell, I sentence you to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole until the expiry of 25 years. You can be seated, sir. [7] The Crown has asked for several ancillary orders which I am satisfied are appropriate. The first is the firearms weapon prohibition, and that is a mandatory weapons prohibition under s.

109. This indicates it as having been a subsequent offence? [8] CNSL C. JENNINGS: That's correct, I have not filed a copy of his criminal record. I apologize, Justice. I can tell you that he was previously convicted of offences with respect to possession of firearms. [9] THE COURT: All right, and that is not disputed, Ms. Runyon? [10] CNSL S. RUNYON: That's not disputed. [11] THE COURT: Thank you very much. So pursuant to s. 109(3) of the Code, Mr. Medwedrich, you are prohibited from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, restricted or prohibited weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, and explosive substance, for life. [12] The Crown has also sought the DNA order under s. 487.051 and I will make that order as well. Count 1 on the indictment is a primary designated offence, and so I authorize the taking of bodily samples from you, Mr. Medwedrich, for that purpose, and the samples will be taken while you are in custody and you must submit to the taking of those samples. [13] The Crown has also sought, with no objection from defence counsel, the forfeiture of items seized under s. 490(9) of the Criminal Code. Upon hearing from Clare Jennings, K.C., and Richard Fowler, counsel for the Crown, and Sarah Runyon, counsel for the defendant, and on being satisfied that peace officers of the Vancouver Island Integrated Major Crime Unit seized the items listed in Appendices A, B, C, D, E, F,

G, H, to the proposed form of order, pursuant to an investigation under Police File Number 2020‑700, and being satisfied that those exhibits will no longer be required for any purpose under ss. 490(1) or 490(4) of the Code, I order, pursuant to s. 490(9) of the Code, that the exhibits listed in those appendices shall be forfeited to the Crown to be disposed of as the Attorney General of British Columbia directs. [14] Those are my reasons. "V. Jackson J."

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s.235(1)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Criminal Code s.745(1)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Criminal Code s.109(3)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Criminal Code s.487.051

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Criminal Code s.490(9)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Criminal Code s.486.5(1)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.