R. v. P.F., (2011) 529 A.R. 366 (QB)

• Judge: Manderscheid, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 16, 2011
• Citations: (2011), 529 A.R. 366 (QB);2011 ABQB 628

R. v. P.F. (2011), 529 A.R. 366 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] A.R. TBEd. DE.108

Her Majesty the Queen Crown v. P.F. (accused)

(080529688Q1; 2011 ABQB 628)

Indexed As: R. v. P.F.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Manderscheid, J.

October 12, 2011.

Summary:

Mr. P.F. pled guilty to two charges of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking. The Crown asked for a three year term in jail for possession of cocaine, and a concurrent 18 month sentence for marijuana possession. The defence suggested a conditional sentence.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench sentenced P.F. to a term of 90 days in custody, for each offence, served intermittently, followed by one year's probation, with both sentences to be served concurrently, in light of his "considerable post-offence progress, his genuine remorse, guilty plea, and the substantial time he has spent in detention or under strict 'house arrest' conditions. The time in custody serves to provide specific and general deterrence." P.F. was subject to the same probation order when serving the 90 day intermittent sentence but not in custody. Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a lifetime firearm prohibition, and forfeiture of the items seized.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Criminal Law - Topic 5664

Punishments (sentence) - Imprisonment and parole - Intermittent imprisonment - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5853 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5853 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5830.8

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Drug and narcotic offences - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5853 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5832

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Rehabilitation - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5853 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5846.5

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Sentence precedents (incl. starting point principle and sentencing ranges) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5853 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5850

Sentence - Trafficking in a narcotic or a controlled drug or substance (incl. possession for the purpose of trafficking) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5853 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5853

Sentence - Trafficking in hashish or marijuana - Possession for purposes of trafficking - The accused pled guilty to two charges of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking - He was liable to imprisonment for life - The Crown asked for a three year term in jail for possession of cocaine, and a concurrent 18 month sentence for marijuana possession - The defence suggested a conditional sentence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench sentenced the accused to 90 days in custody for each offence, served intermittently, with both sentences to be served concurrently, followed by one year's probation (same probation order when serving the intermittent sentence) - Deterrence was the primary objective - History of family disruption - Favourable pre-sentence report - In a familial relationship - Steady employment (personal care attendant) - No substance abuse - Remorseful - On recognizance for 3.5 years; no breaches of very strict terms or conditions - Extensive criminal record included three convictions for trafficking - Conditional sentence not appropriate (if incorrect, the court would have imposed a conditional sentence of 1.5 years, followed by one year of probation) - Starting point of three years - Six months added to the "starting point": repeated misconduct and the offences required deterrence - Commendable post-offence conduct warranted a reduction - A sentence of 30 months was appropriate - 92 days spent in pre-trial custody; credited 184 days (2:1 basis), leaving slightly less than a 24 month sentence - Sentence further reduced to 90 days, given the "very strict" pre-trial recognizance - An intermittent sentence was appropriate: enhanced ongoing rehabilitation; allowed further close family bonds; permitted ongoing employment.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Penner (C.J.) (2009), 465 A.R. 279; 2009 ABQB 535, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Maskill (1981), 29 A.R. 107; 58 C.C.C.(2d) 408 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Rahime (S.) et al. (2001), 286 A.R. 377; 253 W.A.C. 377; 95 Alta. L.R.(3d) 237; 2001 ABCA 203, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Marchesi (R.J.) (2009), 460 A.R. 294; 462 W.A.C. 294; 2009 ABCA 304, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Wilson (C.R.) (2009), 457 A.R. 373; 457 W.A.C. 373; 2009 ABCA 257, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Chung (S.B.) (1993), 135 A.R. 351; 33 W.A.C. 351; 18 W.C.B.(2d) 611 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Ostertag (T.K.) (2000), 266 A.R. 57; 228 W.A.C. 57; 2000 ABCA 232, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Liparoti (O.) (2011), 513 A.R. 97; 530 W.A.C. 97; 2011 ABCA 250, consd. [para. 44].

R. v. Lau (W.T.) (2004), 357 A.R. 312; 334 W.A.C. 312; 193 C.C.C.(3d) 51; 2004 ABCA 408, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Hilderman (A.E.D.) et al. (2005), 371 A.R. 4; 354 W.A.C. 4; 2005 ABCA 249, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Fice (L.), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 742; 333 N.R. 243; 198 O.A.C. 146; 2005 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. K.M.L. (2009), 448 A.R. 289; 447 W.A.C. 289; 2009 ABCA 71, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Koma (C.D.), [2008] A.R. Uned. 133; 2008 ABCA 206, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61; 249 N.R. 201; 142 Man.R.(2d) 161; 212 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. D.D.T. (2009), 467 A.R. 341; 2009 ABQB 362, affd. (2010), 493 A.R. 167; 502 W.A.C. 167; 2010 ABCA 365, leave to appeal refused (2011), 424 N.R. 396, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. C.K. (2006), 211 C.C.C.(3d) 426; 2006 ONCJ 283, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. White (S.C.) (2008), 440 A.R. 43; 438 W.A.C. 43; 2008 ABCA 328, refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. J.L.M.A. (2010), 499 A.R. 1; 514 W.A.C. 1; 264 C.C.C.(3d) 134; 2010 ABCA 363, refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Downey (L.W.) (2006), 384 A.R. 99; 367 W.A.C. 99; 2006 ABCA 108, refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. Nicholson (J.C.) (2008), 432 A.R. 391; 424 W.A.C. 391; 2008 ABCA 256, refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. Sawatsky (N.R.) (2007), 417 A.R. 362; 410 W.A.C. 362; 2007 ABCA 353, refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Hennessey (S.W.) et al. (2010), 490 A.R. 35; 497 W.A.C. 35; 2010 ABCA 274; leave to appeal refused (2011), 426 N.R. 400 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 97].

R. v. Downes (C.) (2006), 208 O.A.C. 324; 79 O.R.(3d) 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 100].

R. v. Coupal (D.P.) (2010), 488 A.R. 139; 2010 ABQB 229, refd to. [para. 100].

R. v. Hennessey (S.W.) et al. (2009), 458 A.R. 260; 2009 ABQB 60, affd. (2010), 490 A.R. 35; 497 W.A.C. 35; 2010 ABCA 274; leave to appeal refused (2011), 426 N.R. 400 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 100].

R. v. Conlon (S.K.) (2011), 517 A.R. 365; 2011 ABPC 259, refd to. [para. 100].

R. v. Brady (J.R.) (1998), 209 A.R. 321; 160 W.A.C. 321; 1998 ABCA 7, refd to. [para. 112].

R. v. Price (T.L.) (2007), 412 A.R. 168; 404 W.A.C. 168; 2007 ABCA 242, refd to. [para. 112].

R. v. Chalifoux (K.J.) (2010), 493 A.R. 397; 502 W.A.C. 397; 2010 ABCA 237, refd to. [para. 112]. Counsel:

Donald R. Smith (Clements & Smith Barristers & Solicitors), for the Crown;

Ronald A. Morin, for the accused.

This sentencing matter was heard on September 16, 2011, before Manderscheid, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, who orally delivered the following decision, dated at Edmonton, Alberta, on October 12, 2011.