R. v. Younis

2018 BCSC 1006 R. v. Younis

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Younis, 2018 BCSC 1006 Date: 20180510 Docket: 40460 Registry: Courtenay Regina v. Ahmed Najih Younis Eian Mackenzie Gravell Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice A. Saunders Oral Reasons for Sentence re Accused Ahmed Najih Younis Counsel for the Crown: R. Ellsay Counsel for the Accused: B. Lynskey Agent for J. Watt Place and Date of Hearing: Nanaimo, B.C. May 8, 2018 Place and Date of Judgment: Nanaimo, B.C. May 10, 2018 [1] THE COURT: I am about to pronounce reasons for sentence in this matter. These reasons are being delivered orally, of course, with me having had the opportunity to deliberate over the last day or so, since submissions were made on Tuesday. If a transcript of these reasons is ordered, as is standard in sentencing cases, I am reserving my right to edit the judgment to correct matters of grammar or syntax. I may also reorder some of what I am saying for the purpose of clarity, or make other editorial changes, just for the purpose of clarity, but there will be nothing substantial and nothing, of course, will change the result. [2] Mr. Ahmed Najih Younis is before me for sentencing, having pleaded guilty to four counts on an eight-count indictment. [3] I will deal first, so that they are not forgotten at the end, with some of the ancillary orders the Crown is seeking: 1. Mr. Younis will be required to provide

bodily samples for forensic DNA purposes under s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code; 2. Mr. Younis will be subject to a ten-year weapons prohibition order under s. 109(1) and (2); 3. Pursuant to s. 743.2, Mr. Younis shall have no contact with Eian Mackenzie Gravell -- that is the co‑accused, Madam Registrar -- or with the victim, whose name also appears in the indictment, Mr. Christian Celman; and 4. Lastly, upon your release from custody, Mr. Younis, you will pay a victim impact surcharge of $200. In default of payment, you will serve an additional one day of prison. [4] So that deals with the ancillary orders. [5] The charges mostly stem from a home invasion-type of break and enter and robbery which occurred on November 13, 2016, at a residence in Comox, British Columbia. The subject charges to which Mr. Younis has pleaded are as follows: · Count 1 was breaking and entering of a dwelling house with intent to commit robbery, contrary to s. 348(1)(b); · Count 4, robbery, specifically of the occupant of the dwelling house, Mr. Celman, contrary to s. 344(1)(b); · Count 5, use of an imitation firearm in the commission of a robbery, contrary to s. 85(2) of the Criminal Code; and · Count 8, trafficking in cocaine, contrary to s. 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19. [6] These are serious crimes. The Criminal Code convictions for breaking and entering and

robbery each carry with them liability for up to a life sentence, as does the trafficking offence. The use of the imitation firearm during the robbery carries with it a minimum sentence of one year imprisonment and a maximum of 14 years for a first offence, which must be imposed as a sentence consecutive to any other punishment imposed for an offence arising out of the same events. [7] Judges, however, are not free to impose any sentence within these maximum or minimum and maximum ranges. Instead, we are obligated to impose a sentence that reflects the principles and purposes of sentencing as set out in the Criminal Code, recognizing the unique circumstances of the case, and recognizing the needs of society, the harm to victims, and the needs of the offender. [8] The Code provides in s. 718 that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect of the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that meet one or more of several stated objectives. These objectives include the denunciation of unlawful conduct; the specific deterrence of the offender and the general deterrence of other persons from committing offences; the separation of offenders from society where necessary; the rehabilitation of offenders; the making of just reparations to the victim and to society; and the promotion of a sense of responsibility and

acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community. [9] Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code sets out the further fundamental principle of what we call proportionality. The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offences and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [10] Further principles prescribed by the Code are set out in s. 718.2. Those that are potentially relevant to the present case include the recognition of aggravating and mitigating factors, what is referred to as the parity principle, which is the need to impose a sentence similar to those imposed upon similar offenders for similar offences in similar circumstances, and the need to follow what is referred to as the totality principle - that is when consecutive sentences are imposed, to avoid a combined total sentence that is unduly long or harsh. [11] Overlying all of these principles, of course, is the necessity of determining a sentence suitable to the particular circumstances. Sentencing is a highly individuated process. Weighing the various factors and comparing features of this case to other cases is not done in any kind of mechanical fashion. [12] As to the circumstances of these particular offences, we are unquestionably dealing with serious crimes. The circumstances were described by the Crown as follows. [13] The victim, Mr. Celman, and a group of his friends, including a young

woman whom I will refer to as "F.", were partying at Mr. Celman's home on the evening of November 12 and early morning hours of November 13, 2016. At some point, people at the party indicated a wish to buy drugs. F. called Mr. Younis. He came to Mr. Celman's home and sold people there about $200 worth of cocaine. [14] The next morning, Mr. Celman went off to work, and then at the end of the day came home and went to bed early, at about 6:00 p.m. He had locked the doors to his home before retiring for the night. He was awakened at about 8:00 p.m. by Mr. Younis and his accomplice, the co‑accused Mr. Eian Gravell. They had kicked in the door to Mr. Celman's home and entered his bedroom. Mr. Younis had with him something that looked to Mr. Celman like, and that he believed was, a handgun. The two of them claimed that F. had had a ring worth $9,000 stolen out of her purse while at the party, and they demanded compensation. [15] During the entire confrontation, Mr. Younis repeatedly threatened Mr. Celman with the gun - I will refer to it as the gun, recognizing that it simply appeared to be a gun and that the plea was as to the use of an imitation gun. Mr. Younis held the gun to Mr. Celman's temple. He threatened to shoot Mr. Celman in the knee. He hit Mr. Celman twice with the gun, including once on the nose, which drew blood. [16] The two of them were able to extort cash from Mr.

Celman, getting him to e‑transfer $3,000 to an account in Mr. Younis' name by using a banking app on Mr. Celman's cell phone. They took $120 cash from him. They took his wallet, his bank card, his social insurance card, and his B.C.I.D. card. [17] Later that day, after leaving Mr. Celman, they then used Mr. Celman's bank card to make a series of eight purchases with a total value of $4,500, presumably as they had discovered that the pin number for the bank card was the same as the pin number they had used to access Mr. Celman's phone. [18] During the incident, Mr. Celman was ordered to remain on his bed. Mr. Younis and Mr. Gravell produced some cocaine at one point and began to use it. Mr. Younis became more aggressive. At one point, while waiting for the e‑transfer to clear, Mr. Younis threatened to shoot Mr. Celman to "tie up loose ends". Mr. Gravell repeatedly tried to reason with Mr. Younis and calm him down. The two of them also threatened that they knew people who would hurt or kill Mr. Celman if he called the police, and they threatened that if he called the police, they would use his social insurance number to commit identity theft. The whole ordeal lasted about 90 minutes. [19] F. has denied to the police that any ring of hers was ever taken. [20] Mr. Celman understandably was traumatized. No gun was ever recovered; hence, the charge is only for the use of an imitation

handgun. What is important is that Mr. Celman thought the gun was real. He thought he was going to be shot. He has since suffered panic attacks. He did not provide a victim impact statement, but he was very disturbed by having to testify at the preliminary inquiry in this matter, panicking, shaking and even vomiting before he testified. He sought and was granted testimonial assistance, being able to testify from another room. He has left the Comox Valley, and has no wish to return. [21] It appears that Mr. Younis comes from a close-knit family. His parents immigrated to Canada in the early 1990s. He and his siblings were born in Calgary. He was just 19 years old at the time of these offences, and has just now turned 21. Mr. Younis completed Grade 9 and then dropped out of high school. He has since the age of 11 worked part-time, including in fields such as sales, landscaping and painting. His family moved within Alberta when he was 12 years old. He found it difficult to form close, stable ties with a good peer group. [22] He became depressed, and at the age of 14 began using drugs. He first began using marihuana recreationally, then leading to casual use of cocaine, which accelerated to regular use of cocaine, and then a serious addiction. Regular use of other drugs followed - Percocet, oxycodone, Xanax and MDMA, and finally heroin. He developed a tolerance for these drugs and

to support his growing addiction, he turned to drug dealing. He moved with his family to the Comox Valley in 2015. [23] Mr. Younis has a very limited criminal record - youth offences dating back to 2012 in Alberta, including weapons charges, possession of a Schedule II substance and failing to comply with a recognizance, all apparently at the same time, resulting in concurrent sentences of nine months probation on each charge. [24] His conviction record was clean until about three years later, when he was convicted in British Columbia of uttering threats and breach of an undertaking. The effective sentence was 12 days in custody plus six months probation. [25] It is a sign of how badly Mr. Younis' drug use has got a hold of him that when released into a recovery house as a term of bail on very strict conditions, per an order made on a bail review in April 2017 following about five months of pretrial detention, Mr. Younis seems to have been able to stay clean for more than another five months, but then relapsed, testing positive on a random drug test, and being found in possession of a Suboxone pill and, in breach of his bail terms, a cellular phone with internet access. [26] Mr. Younis, without seeking to avoid responsibility, attributes these offences we are dealing with to his drug use and the effect of the drugs on him. I accept that explanation without any hesitation. The

violent aggressive behaviour seems entirely consistent with what we know of the long-term effects of cocaine abuse, and is in stark contrast to the mild-mannered, polite and fundamentally decent person portrayed in numerous letters of support from his immediate and extended family members. [27] Mr. Younis read a statement to me that was simple and eloquent. I accept that he is sincerely remorseful, determined to stay drug-free, and highly motivated to re‑integrate into his family and into society. He is saddened by and accepts full responsibility for the pain and suffering he has caused for the victim, for his co‑accused and for his family. Mr. Younis has been while in pretrial detention a model detainee. He has completed Grade 12 through the Surrey School Board with high marks, and he has successfully completed many life-skills programs. [28] Mr. Younis, sir, to address you and your family directly for a moment. I am impressed by your sincere desire to remain drug-free, and by your family's determination to assist you in every way possible. I note that you are regularly attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings. I hope you continue your involvement with 12‑step or similar programs for the remainder of your sentence and on your release. I hope you find and maintain a close relationship with a sponsor, if you stay in the 12‑step program. [29] However, as I am sure has been

explained to you in Narcotics Anonymous, staying clean is not going to be easy, and this is something that your family needs to understand. You face a life-long risk of relapse into addiction. You are going to have to fight against it every day, and the moment you stop fighting and take your sobriety for granted will be the moment you are most at risk. Scientists now know that when someone starts down the path of addiction at such a young age as you did, their brain chemistry is changed, possibly permanently, making them particularly vulnerable. I want to acknowledge the steps you have taken, and I want to encourage you, but I also want to warn you and your family. Families of addicts often benefit from attending specialized 12‑step programs such as Narc‑Anon or Al‑Anon. I encourage your family in supporting you to investigate the availability of such programs and other similar forms of support in their communities. [30] Let me move on now more directly to a discussion of the specific factors that I view as significant in determining Mr. Younis' sentence. His youth is a significant mitigating factor. So is his remorse. His guilty plea is evidence of his remorse. It is also a factor in its own right, given that it saved the victim the trauma of testifying and saved the judicial system the use of court time and the time of the Crown and police witnesses. [31] Mr. Younis has every

potential - although as I say, it will not be easy - to be rehabilitated. That is a very positive sign and a mitigating factor as well. The fact of Mr. Younis' drug use as a precursor to these offences also lessens his moral culpability somewhat, although only to a limited degree. [32] There are also significant aggravating factors here. A home invasion-style break and enter and robbery is judged to be a serious offence, meriting a significant penitentiary sentence. Our Court of Appeal in R. v. Bernier, 2003 BCCA 134 [Bernier], has suggested that the range of appropriate sentences usual for the majority of home invasion-type cases will be five to eight or nine years. [33] A range, we are repeatedly told, is not a hard-and-fast maximum and minimum. Furthermore "home invasion" is not a specific codified crime, but describes as a catch‑all many types of breaking and entering of a dwelling house within intent to commit robbery or theft, with knowledge or reckless indifference as to whether a dwelling house is occupied. There are cases that fall outside the range, both at the lower and upper ends. [34] Mr. Younis' knowledge of Mr. Celman's presence in his house and his desire to carry out the breaking and entering for the purpose of robbing him are themselves aggravating circumstances with respect to the charge of breaking and entering, by virtue of s. 348.1. That has no real effect

on where this case falls in the range I have mentioned, because those aggravating factors are what essentially make this a home invasion-type of break and entering case. [35] The means by which Mr. Younis used what was at least an imitation handgun is also a significant aggravating factor. The use, as I say, of the gun, simply calling it that, of course carries with it its own mandatory term of a minimum of one year. But there is no double-counting in considering this to be an aggravating factor as well with respect to the break and entering and robbery charges, because here I am considering only the means by which the gun was used; in this case, with specific, repeated threats against the victim, instilling real fear. [36] The impact on the victim is also an aggravating factor. So is the offender's use of the proceeds of the robbery. [37] Mr. Younis' criminal record is a factor that I give little weight to except that it is a distinguishing factor. Mr. Younis is not a first offender, unlike some of the cases I have referred to which deal with first offenders. It is true that Mr. Younis has never previously had to endure anything like a significant prison sentence, but he has had encounters with the justice system. He has already been given second chances. It is appropriate to deal with him more severely than we would a first time offender. [38] The last observation I make with

specific respect to sentencing principles is that the Bernier case I have mentioned, and many cases decided since, have clearly established that the primary considerations in home invasion-type cases are the need for deterrence and denunciation. These considerations too call for significant terms of imprisonment, which again is what typically propels home invasion cases into the five to eight-year range. That does not mean that Mr. Younis' rehabilitation is not an important factor also. [39] I turn now to the positions taken by counsel in submissions. [40] The Crown submits that Mr. Younis' youth and his capacity for rehabilitation, as well as the other mitigating factors, can be adequately and appropriately addressed by an effective sentence - that is, before credit for the time served - of four years on each of the break and enter and robbery counts, to be served concurrently; and in addition, four months on the cocaine trafficking, also to be served concurrently, and an additional one year in respect of use of the imitation firearm, for a total effective sentence of five years or 60 months. [41] Against that, it is agreed that Mr. Younis is entitled to 19 months' credit for his 568 days in actual pretrial custody, reducing the actual sentence globally on the Crown's submission to 41 months. [42] It is further submitted that this may best be achieved with concurrent

sentences, after giving credit for time served, of 29 months on each of the break and enter and robbery counts, and four months concurrent on the trafficking, with a further consecutive 12 months on the gun charge, 29 and 12 equaling 41. [43] The defence urges me to arrive at a sentence that will see Mr. Younis serving at a maximum only two years less a day of further prison time, so that he may continue his detention in a provincial institution. Mr. Watt, in a very well argued submission, urged me not to treat the bottom end of the Bernier range as a starting point so that I would, in effect, have to a find enough in the way of mitigating factors to justify a substantial departure downwards from that starting point. Rather, as I received his submission, the strength and significance of the mitigating factors alone point to the appropriate, just, proportionate sentence being two years less a day, coupled with a long period of probation, so as to monitor Mr. Younis' conduct, guard against his relapse, and thereby serve society's interest by most effectively promoting his rehabilitation. It is submitted by the defence that it is in Mr. Younis' interest and in society's interests that the process of rehabilitation that is now working with such good effect in a provincial pretrial detention setting should be allowed to continue in the provincial system. Concern is also expressed as

to how, in contrast, Mr. Younis might fare in a federal penitentiary amongst a population generally of more hardened criminals. [44] Counsel have referred me to a number of cases, both for general principles and for particular points of comparison. They include from the Crown the decisions of Bernier; R. v. Vickers, 2007 BCCA 554; Brossault, 2009 BCSC 464; R. v. I.A., 2012 BCSC 340; R. v. Navas-Rivas, 2013 BCSC 2176; R. v. Soderstrom, 2016 BCSC 303; and R. v. Laramee, 2017 BCSC 1799 [Laramee]; from the defence, the cases of R. v. Gill, [2006] B.C.J. No. 519 (C.A.); R. v. Nakamura, [2012] B.C.J. No. 437 (S.C.); R. v. Delude, [2008] B.C.J. No. 722 (S.C.); R. v. Swanek, [2001] O.J. No. 6033 (S.C.J.); R. v. Monteiro, [2005] B.C.J. No. 1975 (S.C.); and R. v. Borde, [63] O.R. (3d) 417 (C.A.). Of the defence cases, I note that only Monteiro was similar to a home invasion-type of offence or offences. The defence cases largely were primarily focused on more general propositions. [45] With respect to the particular submissions as to the length of sentence, I do want to start with an area where it seems I part company with counsel's submissions, and that is the treatment of the trafficking offence. The Crown has suggested a sentence of four months. That is not opposed by the defence. It seems appropriate to me. Cocaine is a notoriously dangerous drug, and a four-month sentence for

trafficking here is the lightest, or close to the lightest, that could reasonably be imposed in the circumstances. [46] But the Crown has also submitted that the trafficking sentence may be imposed concurrently. I believe it would be a mistake of law to do so. The fundamental question in this regard is whether the acts in question were "part of a linked series of acts within a single endeavour": see R. v. Li, 2009 BCCA 85, at para. 42, citing R. v. G.P.W., [1998] B.C.J. No. 838 (C.A.), at para.

35. There is also suggested in another decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal, R. v. Potts, 2011 BCCA 9, at para. 89, that there is a series of factors the court may look to in determining whether a sentence is to be concurrent or consecutive, such as the nature and quality of the criminal acts, the temporal and spatial proximity, the nature of the harm done and the rights affected, and the manner in which the acts were perpetrated. [47] In this case, the identical setting of the crimes, the trafficking on the one hand and the home invasion offences on the other, and the involvement of Mr. Celman, are merely incidental. The crimes were substantially different. They took place some hours apart. One did not lead naturally to another. There is no suggestion or evidence that Mr. Younis' attendance at the party where he trafficked in cocaine was for the purpose of identifying a home invasion target. They were simply not a single endeavour. [48] Both the trafficking and the s. 85(2) imitation firearm sentences must therefore each be consecutive to each other, and to the sentences for breaking and entering and the robbery. [49] I have considered carefully what guidance I might take from the case authorities presented as to the weight to be given the substantial mitigating factors at work here, especially Mr. Younis' youth, his remorse and acceptance of responsibility, and his prospects

for rehabilitation. In particular, I want to briefly discuss two cases. In R. v. Brossault, a home invasion-style case, and I note a more serious case than the one we are dealing with here, one of the three accused was a Mr. Lagimodiere, an 18-year-old Métis, whom Justice Joyce noted had reportedly had a difficult upbringing and only attended school to Grade 9. He had a youth criminal record for drug and property offences, but no adult record, and no record of violence or threats of violence. He and his co‑accused broke into a residence attempting to commit theft, and they were prepared for the possibility that the residence would be occupied. It was. They threatened the occupant with two guns and a machete. They beat his head with the weapons, at least two or three times, splitting his head open, and one of them stomped on the victim's ear, ripping out an earring. They bound the victim with straps. All three of the offenders entered guilty pleas on counts of breaking and entering and robbery. [50] Justice Joyce found that an effective sentence of about six years would be appropriate for Mr. Lagimodiere, as his involvement in the crime was indistinguishable from that of one of his accomplices, Mr. Brossault, who did receive a six-year term. Justice Joyce noted, however, that Mr. Lagimodiere's younger age, and the fact that it was his first adult offence, meant that the

principle of rehabilitation should factor in more heavily. Justice Joyce was able to give practical effect to that factor because Mr. Lagimodiere had been in pretrial custody for nearly two years and under the sentencing credit model then in effect, he received credit on a two-for-one basis, not one-and-a-half-to-one as now prevails. That allowed the effective sentence to be reduced by 47 months. Justice Joyce was thereby able to impose a sentence of two years less a day, plus probation. [51] So there we have an offender with a background not too dissimilar from Mr. Younis', being involved in a markedly more violent offence with a high degree of culpability, but having no adult record and not facing any additional charges respecting use of a gun or imitation gun, receiving an effective sentence of six years. [52] The other case I find particularly useful for comparison purposes is Laramee. The offender in that case was 20 years old at the time of the home invasion-offences. He had no criminal record. He and his accomplice entered a residence through an unlocked door in order to rob a safe. Mr. Laramee had not taken part in the planning. Justice MacNaughton accepted that he did not know of his accomplices' intent to commit the robbery until they pulled up in front of the condominium, and he did not know his accomplice had a weapon with him. However, he went along with the plan.

Furthermore, he was physically violent with the occupants, specifically when his accomplice fled the scene, Mr. Laramee restrained two of the occupants to prevent them from crying out for help. He punched one of them repeatedly in the face and pushed her face down into a couch so she could not breathe. He did not use a weapon. Mr. Laramee did not flee the scene. He was not violent when neighbours arrived to find out what was going on, and he co‑operated with the police when they arrived. [53] A pre-sentencing report described Mr. Laramee as somewhat naive and vulnerable to dominant personalities. Justice MacNaughton found him to be sincerely ashamed and remorseful. He was supported by members of his extended family. He did not plead guilty. Instead he attempted to establish a defence of duress, not challenging the victim's evidence. That defence did not succeed but Justice MacNaughton did accept that he had been influenced in his conduct by his companions. After surveying the authorities, Justice MacNaughton said, beginning at para. 56: [56] A review of these cases relied on by both the Crown and the defence indicates that the range of sentence for home invasions depends on the nature and the extent of the offender's involvement, the use of a firearm or weapon, the extent of the violence, and the offender's criminal record. In some cases, the reason for the home invasion or the

motive for it was also taken into account. The cases are, however, consistent in their conclusion that in these types of offences, the paramount sentencing consideration is deterrence and denunciation, given that home invasions violate the safety and security of a person's home. [57] This case presents a sentencing dilemma in which I must consider that the offences for which Mr. Laramee has been convicted are serious, requiring a focus on general and specific denunciation and deterrence, and yet Mr. Laramee is young and is an individual who has no prior involvement with the courts or the police, suggesting that there is a strong chance that he can be rehabilitated. [70] In my view, the sentence that I impose must recognize that the offences committed by Mr. Laramee were serious and require a jail sentence to emphasize to Mr. Laramee and others in the community the gravity of entering an occupied dwelling to commit a criminal offence or criminal offences. [54] In consideration of the mitigating factors, in particular Mr. Laramee's prospects for rehabilitation, she sentenced Mr. Laramee to four years. [55] So there we have an accused of similar age to Mr. Younis and just as remorseful, having no record, not using a weapon, and not being involved in planning the offences, but engaging in a somewhat greater degree of violence and not entering a guilty plea, still being sentenced to

a significant term of imprisonment. [56] In the present case, as I say, the defence is asking me to impose a jail term of two years less a day globally, plus probation. Given the time served, that would amount to an effective global sentence of 43 months of imprisonment. However 12 months on the s. 85(2) count is mandatory. Allowing for an additional four months for the drug trafficking, the effective prison sentence on the break and entering and robbery counts, on the defence's submission, would only be 27 months, two years and three months. [57] Even applying the totality principle to the sentence globally, and even recognizing the factor of rehabilitation, that would come nowhere close to the length of prison term necessary in this case to meet the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence. [58] The defence has also submitted the continuation of incarceration in a provincial facility is desirable in order that Mr. Younis may continue the path of rehabilitation he has now undertaken. But there is no evidence before me and no reason for me to conclude that appropriate programs and facilities would not be made available to Mr. Younis in a federal penitentiary setting. [59] In the result, I am going to accede to the Crown's submission of a global sentence of a further 41 months. How I get there is somewhat different than what was suggested. [60] Before application of

the totality principle, I would have found the appropriate sentences to be four years concurrent on each of the robbery and breaking and entering counts, one year consecutive on the s. 85(2) count, and four months consecutive on the trafficking count. Globally that would amount to 64 months. Less credit for 19 months, the sentence would be 45 months. I would, however, view a global effective sentence of more than 60 months in this case to be too harsh, and I would therefore reduce the term of imprisonment accordingly from 45 months to 41 months. [61] On each count therefore, the sentences will be as follows, Madam Registrar: · On Count 1, an effective sentence before credit for time served of 44 months, reduced by credit for 19 months, to 25 months; · On Count 4, the robbery, the same, to be served concurrently; · On Count 5, an additional 12 months, with no further reduction, that 12 months to be served consecutive to the terms for Counts 1 and 4; and · On Count 8, an additional four months, to be served consecutive to Count 5. [62] Mr. Younis, would you please stand. [63] Sir, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 41 months. The offences you committed are serious. You have taken responsibility, and I accept that you are truly remorseful. You are fortunate to have a loving family who will assist you in your rehabilitation. You have a long, hard road ahead of you in terms

of dealing with your drug issues. I applaud your determination to remain clean and sober, and I wish you well. [64] You may be seated. [65] Unless there is anything further, counsel, we are concluded. [66] MR. LYNSKEY: Nothing further, My Lord. Thank you very much. [67] MR. ELLSAY: My Lord, I spoke to my friend about - there is some money that was deposited for bail. I spoke to my friend about dealing with that, if Your Lordship is willing to do that. [SUBMISSIONS] [68] THE COURT: So the order then would be a remission of the bail monies currently being held? [SUBMISSIONS] [69] THE COURT: Oh, all right then. So the order will go then that of the $8,000 posted as cash bail, $3,500 will be escheated to the Crown and the balance of $4,500 will be returnable to the payor, or to his father as his agent. [70] MR. ELLSAY: Thank you, My Lord. [SUBMISSIONS] [71] THE COURT: All right then. Thank you. We are concluded. [72] MR. ELLSAY: Thank you, My Lord. [73] THE CLERK: We still have an outstand counts -- [74] THE COURT: Oh yes, sorry, the outstanding. [75] MR. ELLSAY: Oh yes, thank you. Yes, I will direct stays of proceedings please on Counts 2, 3, 6 and 7. [76] THE COURT: 2, 3, 6 and 7 are to be stayed. [77] MR. ELLSAY: Thank you, My Lord. [78] THE COURT: Very well. We are concluded. "A. Saunders J."