R. v. Patrick (R.S.), (2006) 402 A.R. 231 (PC)

• Judge: Wilkins, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: March 21, 2006
• Citations: (2006), 402 A.R. 231 (PC);2006 ABPC 124

R. v. Patrick (R.S.) (2006), 402 A.R. 231 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] A.R. TBEd. JN.067

Her Majesty the Queen v. Russell Stephen Patrick (040252827P10101-03; 2006 ABPC 124)

Indexed As: R. v. Patrick (R.S.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Wilkins, P.C.J.

June 1, 2006.

Summary:

The accused was charged with production of ecstasy, possession of ecstasy for the purpose of trafficking and trafficking in ecstasy. The police obtained a search warrant on the basis of, inter alia, informant information and evidence seized as a result of warrantless searches of the accused's garbage. The police executed the search and discovered a clandestine lab. The accused asserted that his ss. 8 and 10(b) Charter rights were violated and that all the evidence seized as a result of the searches should be excluded.

The Alberta Provincial Court, in a decision reported at 388 A.R. 202; 2005 ABPC 242, rejected the accused's argument. There were no Charter breaches. The court found the accused guilty.

The Alberta Provincial Court sentenced the accused to four years’ imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently. The court ordered the accused to pay a $48,635 fine; ordered that all drugs, precursors and equipment seized be forfeited to the police; and imposed a 10 year firearm prohibition.

Criminal Law - Topic 5629

Punishments (sentence) - Fines, penalties and compensation orders - Considerations on imposing fine (incl. ability to pay) - The accused was found guilty of production of ecstasy, possession of ecstasy for the purpose of trafficking and trafficking in ecstasy - The Alberta Provincial Court ordered the accused to pay a fine of $48,635 - The calculation of what the accused actually received from his illegal drug activities was simple - The accused received $88,500 from the sale of the illicit drugs - The accused voluntarily paid income taxes on this amount to the extent of $39,865 making the "value of the property" $48,635 (i.e., $88,500 - $39,865) - The court had to impose a fine of $48,635 rather than an arbitrary amount - See paragraphs 42 to 49.

Criminal Law - Topic 5830.8

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Drug and narcotic offences - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5850 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5850

Sentence - Trafficking in a narcotic or a controlled drug or substance (incl. possession for the purpose of trafficking) - The accused was found guilty of production of ecstasy, possession of ecstasy for the purpose of trafficking and trafficking in ecstasy - The Alberta Provincial Court sentenced the accused to four years' imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently - The accused was a highly intelligent, well educated 31 year old who was responsible for the production and trafficking of a large amount (4.9 kilos produced into 86,300 tablets of 58 mg of active ingredient) of an extremely dangerous drug; which use was targeted for young people and from which the accused, motivated by greed, realized significant financial gain ($88,500) - In his favour, the accused had entered a guilty plea; was extremely remorseful and took full responsibility for his illegal activities; acknowledged the harm he had done to others; was highly supported by family and friends; had a solid work ethic; and had taken positive steps to rehabilitate himself.

Criminal Law - Topic 5878

Sentence - Possession, cultivation or production of a narcotic or a controlled drug or substance - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5850 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; 194 N.R. 321; 73 B.C.A.C. 81; 120 W.A.C. 81; 46 C.R.(4th) 269; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 327, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Bouaban (B.I.) (2002), 309 A.R. 325; 2002 ABQB 128, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Russell (M.C.) et al. (2000), 27 B.C.T.C. 321 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Dhalla (A.) (2001), 304 A.R. 384 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Overacker (W.) (2005), 367 A.R. 250; 346 W.A.C. 250 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Ostertag (T.K.) (2000), 266 A.R. 57; 228 W.A.C. 57; 35 C.R.(5th) 350; 2000 ABCA 232, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Revizada, [2005] O.J. No. 421 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Carbert (C.) (2001), 290 A.R. 172 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Bercier (2004), 184 Man.R.(2d) 106; 318 W.A.C. 106 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Bedford (R.) (2000), 189 N.S.R.(2d) 25; 590 A.P.R. 25; 2000 NSCA 100, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Sand, [1998] B.C.J. No. 3251 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

R v. Van Der Heyden (P.), [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. J76 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Bamdad (A.R.), [2005] B.C.T.C. 755 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Huang, [2005] O.J. No. 1855 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Chow (K.Y.) (2003), 340 A.R. 311 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Comesino (G.) et al., [2004] A.R. Uned. 567 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Orazio (M.) (2004), 377 A.R. 186 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Russell (M.C.) et al. (2000), 27 B.C.T.C. 321 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Ma (R.Y.P.), [2005] B.C.T.C. 493 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Hoang (C.L.), [2002] O.T.C. 229 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Naqvi, [2005] A.J. No. 1593 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Ferguson (L.J.), [2005] A.R. Uned. 318  (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Kwok, [2001] O.J. No. 5816 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Neil, 2001 BCPC 142, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Risi, 2001 J. Can. 20436 (Q.C.C.Q.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Rosales, 2001 Can. L. 11 21315 (Q.C.C.Q.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Lavigne (R.) (2006), 346 N.R. 160; 2006 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 35].

Counsel:

N. Devlin, for the Crown;

C.R. Stewart, for the accused.

This case was heard on March 21, 2006, by Wilkins, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following reasons for sentence on June 1, 2006.