R. v. Wilson-Hives
- Citation
- 2020 BCSC 1488
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 8 September 2020
- Posture
- Criminal Robbery and Use of an Imitation Firearm / Sentencing (oral Reasons)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 8 September 2020
- Posture
- Criminal Robbery and Use of an Imitation Firearm / Sentencing (oral Reasons)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court accepted the joint submission because it found the proposed sentence complied with sentencing principles and would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and imposed consecutive sentences of 30 days for robbery and the mandatory one-year term for using an imitation firearm (total 13 months), followed by 12 months probation and ancillary orders including firearm prohibition and DNA sample.
Court disposition
Accused pleaded guilty to Counts 3 and 4; Counts 1 and 2 stayed; sentence imposed as jointly recommended.
Orders
- Sentence on Count 3 (robbery): 30 days imprisonment
- Sentence on Count 4 (use of an imitation firearm): mandatory minimum one year imprisonment
- Sentences to be served consecutively for a total of 13 months custody
- Probation for 12 months on release with terms: keep the peace and be of good behaviour, appear when required, notify court or probation officer of name/address/employment changes
- Probation additional terms: do not enter any taxi or ride-share vehicle; report to probation officer within two business days of release by telephone unless otherwise authorized; continue reporting as directed; attend and complete counselling or education programs as directed; not to possess any form of weapon; no contact, direct or indirect, with taxi drivers Sukhdev Pannu and Ranbir Kumar
- Firearm prohibition: 10 year ban on possession of firearms pursuant to s.109(1)(a) of the Criminal Code; lifetime prohibition for restricted or prohibited weapons
- Order to provide a bodily sample suitable for DNA analysis
- Stay of proceedings on Counts 1 and 2
02
Material facts
Parties
Regina
Crown Counsel: J. MachekDallas Wilson-Hives
Accused Counsel: M. BeckettAmounts and remedies
- Imprisonment Total Months: 13
- Robbery Sentence Days: 30
- Imitation Firearm Mandatory Months: 12
- Probation Months: 12
- Firearm Ban Years: 10
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Robbery and Use of an Imitation Firearm / Sentencing (oral Reasons)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the joint submission on sentence is appropriate and conforms to sentencing principles
- 02
Application of mandatory minimum imprisonment for using an imitation firearm during a robbery
- 03
Whether sentences should be consecutive or concurrent
- 04
Appropriate probation terms and ancillary orders including firearm prohibition and DNA order
- 05
Effect of pandemic constraints on reporting requirements
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Accused (through counsel) urged acceptance of a joint recommendation for sentence set out in a written brief and oral submissions, emphasizing the accused's circumstances, mitigation, rehabilitative prospects and that the proposed sentence meets sentencing principles.
- Respondent
- Crown advised it takes no issue with the defence written brief and agreed to the joint submission; Crown directed a stay on Counts 1 and 2 and confirmed reporting and continuous reporting language.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal law and jurisprudence cited by the court
Sentencing principles of proportionality, denunciation, deterrence and rehabilitation
- 02
Criminal Code (mandatory minimum provision referenced by the court)
Mandatory minimum imprisonment applies to the offence of using an imitation firearm in the circumstances of this case
- 03
Criminal Code s.109(1)(a)
Section 109(1)(a) firearm prohibition on possession post-conviction
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court accepted the joint submission because it found the proposed sentence complied with sentencing principles and would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and imposed consecutive sentences of 30 days for robbery and the mandatory one-year term for using an imitation firearm (total 13 months), followed by 12 months probation and ancillary orders including firearm prohibition and DNA sample.
Obiter and limits
- Judge encouraged the accused to participate in custody programs for addiction treatment and highlighted family support and rehabilitation prospects
- Court adjusted reporting requirements to accommodate pandemic constraints, allowing initial telephone reporting within two business days of release unless otherwise arranged
- Court noted the presentence report was available in the court file though not formally marked as an exhibit
Court disposition
Accused pleaded guilty to Counts 3 and 4; Counts 1 and 2 stayed; sentence imposed as jointly recommended.
- Sentence on Count 3 (robbery): 30 days imprisonment
- Sentence on Count 4 (use of an imitation firearm): mandatory minimum one year imprisonment
- Sentences to be served consecutively for a total of 13 months custody
- Probation for 12 months on release with terms: keep the peace and be of good behaviour, appear when required, notify court or probation officer of name/address/employment changes
- Probation additional terms: do not enter any taxi or ride-share vehicle; report to probation officer within two business days of release by telephone unless otherwise authorized; continue reporting as directed; attend and complete counselling or education programs as directed; not to possess any form of weapon; no contact, direct or indirect, with taxi drivers Sukhdev Pannu and Ranbir Kumar
- Firearm prohibition: 10 year ban on possession of firearms pursuant to s.109(1)(a) of the Criminal Code; lifetime prohibition for restricted or prohibited weapons
- Order to provide a bodily sample suitable for DNA analysis
- Stay of proceedings on Counts 1 and 2
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of British Columbia · 8 September 2020
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.
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Judgment· 8 September 2020
2020 BCSC 1488 R. v. Wilson-Hives
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Wilson-Hives, 2020 BCSC 1488 Date: 20200908 Docket: 28282‑2 Registry: Vancouver Regina v. Dallas Wilson-Hives Before: The Honourable Associate Chief Justice H. Holmes Oral Reasons for Sentence Counsel for the Crown: J. Machek Counsel for the Accused: M. Beckett Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. September 8, 2020 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. September 8, 2020 [1] THE COURT: Mr. Wilson‑Hives has pleaded guilty to Counts 3 and 4 on the indictment. Count 3 charges robbery. Count 4 charges, essentially, that he committed the robbery by using an imitation firearm. Those events were on May 10, 2018. [2] It is clear to me that counsel have given this matter a great deal of consideration, as has Mr. Wilson‑Hives. I am not going to repeat the content of the excellent oral submissions made this morning, or Mr. Beckett's extensive and helpful written sentencing brief delivered earlier, most or perhaps all of which the Crown takes no issue with. [3] A joint submission is always a submission to be taken very seriously by the court. In this case, I have no reason at all to be concerned that the joint submission would lead the Court to impose a sentence that would not accord with the sentencing principles, or that would in any way bring the administration of justice into disrepute. I am satisfied that the sentence
jointly proposed is entirely appropriate. It satisfies the principles of sentencing as they apply in this case, taking into account the circumstances of these offences and their effects, and Mr. Wilson‑Hives' circumstances. [4] I am not going to repeat the descriptions of those circumstances. They are set out in the defence written brief, which is Exhibit 1. There is also a very helpful presentencing report. The portions of that report that I consider to be the most material are quoted in the defence sentencing brief, so it is not necessary, in my view, for the presentence report to also be marked, although it is available in the court file if it is ever required. [5] Mr. Wilson‑Hives, could you stand, please. [6] Your sentence will be as jointly proposed. [7] On Count 3, which is the charge of robbery, you are sentenced to 30 days' imprisonment. [8] On Count 4, which is the charge of using an imitation firearm while committing the robbery, you are sentenced to the mandatory minimum period of imprisonment, which, in the circumstances of your case, is one year. [9] Those sentences are to be served consecutively, making for 13 months in total. [10] On your release from imprisonment, you will be subject to a probation order for a period of 12 months. [11] The terms will be as proposed in the defence sentencing brief - and I know you have gone over them with your counsel. They will
be reviewed with you in the court registry. [12] In addition to the mandatory terms that you keep the peace and be of good behaviour, and that you appear before the court when required to do so, you are also to notify the court or your probation officer if you change your name or your address, or if you change employment or take up employment or an occupation. [13] You are not to enter any taxi cab or ride‑share vehicle. [14] This next term will be slightly different from what was proposed in the written sentencing brief, because it will take account of some of the constraints of the pandemic. You are to report regularly as directed to a probation officer, but the term will say that you are to report within two business days of your release from custody, unless before then you have obtained written permission from your probation officer to report in a different way. You are to make that first report by telephone unless there has been an arrangement for a different form of reporting. You are to report by telephone to [redacted]. After that first report by telephone, you are to report in whatever manner your probation officer directs. [15] You must attend, participate in, and complete any type of counselling or education program your probation officer directs. This may include for alcohol or, in your case, drug addiction or mental health. [16] You are not to possess any form of
weapon. There will be more detail to that term. [17] You are to have no contact, directly or indirectly, with the two taxi drivers named in the charge to which you pleaded guilty and the other charge that was on the indictment. Their names are Sukhdev Pannu and Ranbir Kumar. And Madam Registrar, the spelling of Sukhdev is a bit different from in the presentencing report. The indictment has the correct spelling. [18] Those are the terms of the probation order. [19] You will be subject to a ban on possessing any type of firearm for 10 years, according to s. 109 (1)(a) of the Criminal Code. For restricted or prohibited weapons, you are prohibited for the rest of your life from having them in your possession. [20] You are to provide a sample of a bodily substance that is suitable for DNA analysis. That, too, is a stand-alone order. [21] I expect that when you are in custody, you will be offered programs designed to help you with your addiction. I strongly encourage you to get everything you can out of those programs. You appear to be motivated to overcome your addiction. You have good support in your family. You have a daughter who needs you. You have the will to do it, and I wish you all the best in overcoming what has been severely limiting your ability to get all the good things out of life and give back in the way you should be able to do. Take advantage of those supports. I
wish you the best in doing so. [22] Is there anything I need to address? [23] MS. MACHEK: Just to make sure that that we end with "and when directed". So Your Ladyship, he could first report by telephone, unless there's been a different arrangement, to the phone number, and in whatever manner directed, and then when directed. To make sure he doesn't miss it. [24] THE COURT: Yes. There is to be continual reporting as directed. [25] MS. MACHEK: Thank you. You made that clear. [26] THE COURT: Thank you for raising that. Nothing else? [27] MS. MACHEK: I just need to direct, Your Ladyship, a stay of proceedings with respect to Counts 1 and 2, and I do so at this time. "The Honourable Associate Chief Justice H. Holmes"
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.