R. v. Zhang

2017 BCSC 2619 R. v. Zhang

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Zhang, 2017 BCSC 2619 Date: 20170221 Docket: 26986-7 Registry: Vancouver Regina v. Tian Yi Eddie Zhang - and - Docket: 27162-4 Registry: Vancouver Regina v. Casey James Hiscoe Tian Yi Eddie Zhang The initials F.G. are used to conform to a ban (pursuant to s. 486.5(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada) on the publication of information identifying that person. Before: The Honourable Madam Justice H. Holmes Oral Reasons for Sentence (Re Accused Tian Yi Zhang) Counsel for the Crown: J.P. Hermanson J.A. Dyck Counsel for the Accused Zhang: D.G. Milburn J.A. Michaels For the Accused Hiscoe: No appearance Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. February 21, 2017 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. February 21, 2017 [1] THE COURT: Mr. Zhang pleads guilty to three offences arising from events of September 27 through 29, 2015. Two of those offences are manslaughter, relating to Mr. Peng Sun, who was 22 years old at the time, and the unlawful confinement of Mr. Sun before his death. The third offence is the extortion of Mr. Sun's parents. Mr. Zhang also pleads guilty to the unlawful confinement of F.G. on September 9, 2015. [2] The Crown and the defence make a joint submission for a sentence of 14 years' imprisonment for the manslaughter offence, with shorter, concurrent periods of imprisonment for the other offences. [3]

The Crown's and the defence's written submissions are filed as exhibits 3 and 4, respectively. Counsel also presented those submissions as they made their oral submissions in court today. Those submissions ably describe the circumstances, and set out the law that applies. Nothing in any of the submissions is disputed by the opposing party, and there is no need for me to repeat them. They are fresh in everyone's minds. [4] The Crown and the defence also prepared an agreed statement of facts (exhibit 1), and Mr. Hermanson, Crown counsel, took me through it this morning in his oral submissions. There is no need for me to repeat the facts as agreed. They, too, are fresh in everyone's minds. They are horrendous and very sad. [5] The proposed sentence for manslaughter is toward the higher end of the range. Counsel explain that this sentence is proposed even though Mr. Zhang did not commit the physical act that caused Mr. Sun's death, and even though Mr. Zhang did not expect that the death would take place, and was not present for it. The proposed sentence is lengthy even though Mr. Zhang is young, and even though he has no criminal record. [6] The lengthy sentence is proposed to reflect the very serious nature of the offence of manslaughter, and Mr. Zhang's high moral culpability for it. The offences against Mr. Sun and his parents were planned, and involved ransom and extortion.

They were motivated by greed. They traded on a relationship of trust with Mr. Sun, who was lured to the place where he was confined and, ultimately, died. Indeed, he arrived with gifts for Mr. Zhang. The confinement involved horrifying conditions for Mr. Sun, who must have been terrified. Even after Mr. Zhang knew of Mr. Sun's death, he continued to make ransom calls to Mr. Sun's parents. In some of those calls, he threatened serious harm to Mr. Sun. There is every indication that those calls continued until, essentially, the police were able to sweep in and arrest Mr. Zhang and others. [7] Some of the features I have just described that make the offences against Mr. Sun and his family so serious, apply also to the offence against F.G. Although that offence was not as serious - it did not lead to a death - the confinement must nonetheless have been terrifying for F.G., and, given the circumstances in which the offence was committed, it must have shattered his trust in other people. [8] I mentioned that Mr. Sun was 22 years old at the time of the offences and his death. He had come to Canada to continue his education. He met his wife in 2013, married in the following year, and was living with her in the Lower Mainland at the time of the offences. By all accounts, Mr. Sun was a loving husband, a kind and warm-hearted friend, and a loving son. [9] Mr. Sun's parents and his wife

have provided victim impact statements. Mr. Sun's father's statement makes clear that he is left with a terrible sense of guilt − that, I will observe, he does not deserve − for not being able to save the son who once at a young age had saved Mr. Sun Sr.'s own life and comforted him in a medical emergency. Mr. Sun Sr. is here in the courtroom − I hope he will come to accept that this crime was not his fault in any way. [10] Mr. Sun Sr. advises that the Sun family has been so profoundly affected that they have been unable to continue the family business and are now essentially, if not actually, bankrupt. [11] Mr. Sun's mother is left with a profound and painful loss that permeates her experience all day every day. [12] Mr. Sun's wife is left devastated and utterly confused by the painful events and loss. [13] Central in Mr. Zhang's submissions in this hearing are his apology, his expression of remorse, and his statements that he takes complete responsibility for his actions and his role in the criminal scheme concerning Mr. Sun. Mr. Zhang conveyed these apologies and expressions of remorse through the submissions of counsel and also in his own statement to the Court. He understands that, in light of the terrible loss his conduct has caused, his words may seem empty. [14] I accept that Mr. Zhang is indeed, as he says, sickened by his own conduct. [15] Joint submissions on a

sentence are always worthy of the Court's respect. This joint submission, in particular, is clearly based on substantial time and effort given by highly experienced and capable counsel, with the appropriate considerations and the governing law squarely in view. [16] The guilty pleas associated with the joint submission bring certainty to the case and a just conclusion. They avoid the need for a trial. I have no doubt at all that, in all the circumstances, the proposed sentence is a just and appropriate one, and in no way contrary to the public interest. [17] Would you stand, please, Mr. Zhang. [18] On count 1 of the indictment involving the offences against Mr. Sun and his family, for the offence of manslaughter, I sentence you to 14 years' imprisonment. You will have credit for the 511 days you have spent in pre-sentencing custody at 1.5 credit. That is 767 days. Your remaining sentence on that count is 11 years and 329 days. [19] On count 2, the unlawful confinement of Mr. Sun, and on count 3, the extortion of his parents, I sentence you to 7 years' imprisonment on each of those counts. [20] All sentences on that indictment will be concurrent each to the other and to the sentence on the other indictment to which I will soon turn. As to credit for time served for counts 2 and 3, you will have credit in the same way. I am not going to calculate in days, but instead will say

that, for each of counts 2 and 3, your sentence is 7 years, your time served is 511 days, the credit you will have is 2 years and one-and-a-half months, and that leaves on each count 4 years and 10 ½ months for you to serve [calculation of amount remaining corrected by H. Holmes J.]. [21] On the other indictment, the unlawful confinement of F.G., I sentence you to 3 years' imprisonment. You will have credit for time served on the same basis measured in the same way as for counts 2 and 3 on the other indictment. That leaves you to serve 10 ½ months on that offence. Your sentence on that offence, the unlawful confinement of F.G., will be concurrent to your other sentences because of the totality principle. Taken as a whole, your sentence must be a significant one, but it should not be a crushing one. [22] You are to provide a sample of a bodily substance suitable for DNA analysis. I make that order under s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. [23] You are also prohibited from possessing firearms or weapons or ammunition for life. I make that order under s. 109(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. (PROCEEDINGS ADJOURNED AND RECONVENED) [24] MR. HERMANSON: Yes, Madam Registrar was good enough to remind us about the victim fine surcharge. I think we are in agreement that it is $200 per count on the indictments, and I think there is going to be some time to pay of two

months requested, but we will see. [25] MR. MILBURN: Yes, first of all, apologies for not remembering this. Four counts, $200, total of $800, we are asking for the statutory two months as time to pay. My client will be paying it. [26] THE COURT: Very well. So ordered, and I will take the opportunity, also, to thank counsel for their very high-quality work that you all put into your submissions. It is much appreciated. "The Honourable Madam Justice H. Holmes"