R. v. Reid (D.R.), (2008) 266 N.S.R.(2d) 295 (PC)

• Judge: Williams, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: June 23, 2008
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2008), 266 N.S.R.(2d) 295 (PC);2008 NSPC 41

R. v. Reid (D.R.) (2008), 266 N.S.R.(2d) 295 (PC);

    851 A.P.R. 295

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.010

Her Majesty the Queen v. Dana Ross Reid

(1610858; 1610072; 1610075; 2008 NSPC 41)

Indexed As: R. v. Reid (D.R.)

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Williams, P.C.J.

June 23, 2008.

Summary:

Reid pled guilty to possession of MDMA (ecstasy) and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and to possession of cannabis, contrary to ss. 5(2) and 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Nova Scotia Provincial Court sentenced Reid to 48 months' imprisonment for the MDMA, 24 months for the cocaine and 24 months for the cannabis, all running concurrently, for a global sentence of 43 months' imprisonment (48 months less five months' credit for time served in remand).

Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4

Punishments (sentence) - Conditional sentence - When available or appropriate - Reid pled guilty to possession of MDMA (ecstasy) and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and to possession of cannabis, contrary to ss. 5(2) and 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court sentenced Reid to 48 months' imprisonment for the MDMA, 24 months for the cocaine and 24 months for the cannabis, all running concurrently, for a global sentence of 43 months' imprisonment (48 months less five months' credit for time served in remand) - The court rejected Reid's submission that a conditional sentence was appropriate - Reid was a street level dealer in cocaine and a high level operative in the MDMA distribution chain - The offences were planned and premeditated - The target group was young persons - The guilty plea was a mitigating factor - However, the variety and quantity of drugs found (the largest seizure of MDMA in the city) was aggravating - Deterrence and denunciation were the most important considerations - This was a high-level drug activity in a dangerous drug - The volume and variety of the drugs involved when weighed with the motive of greed and the desire to make a quick dollar persuaded the court to impose a sentence that would adequately denounce the conduct and deter others - The court also imposed a DNA order (Criminal Code, s. 487.051) and the mandatory ten year weapons prohibition (Criminal Code, s. 109) and ordered forfeiture of the offence related property (CDSA, s. 16) - See paragraphs 17 to 25.

Criminal Law - Topic 5830.8

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Drug and narcotic offences - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5833

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Deterrence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5848.7

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Denunciation or repudiation of conduct - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

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 5720.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5878

Sentence - Possession, cultivation or production of a narcotic or a controlled drug or substance - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5720.4 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Bercier (T.J.) (2004), 184 Man.R.(2d) 106; 318 W.A.C. 106 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Scott (S.D.), [2006] B.C.T.C. 678; 2006 BCSC 678, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Bamdad (A.R.), [2005] B.C.T.C. 755; 2005 BCSC 755, refd to. [para. 14].

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

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. 18].

R. v. Brady (J.R.) (1998), 209 A.R. 321; 160 W.A.C. 321; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 504 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Maheu (1997), 116 C.C.C.(3d) 361 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Orazio (M.) (2004), 377 A.R. 186; 2004 ABPC 206, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Renaud (K.R.) (2006), 232 B.C.A.C. 300; 385 W.A.C. 300 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Smith (G.H.) (1992),115 N.S.R.(2d) 24; 314 A.P.R. 24 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Kraps (I.), [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. A04; 2008 BCSC 56, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Desmond, 2004 NSSC 33, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Jesso (T.M.) (2006), 245 N.S.R.(2d) 193; 777 A.P.R. 193; 2006 NSPC 30, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Mercier (R.E.) (2008), 266 N.S.R.(2d) 114; 851 A.P.R. 114; 2008 NSPC 35, refd to. [para. 21].

Counsel:

Mark Covan, for the Crown;

Kevin Burke, for the accused.

This matter was heard by Williams, P.C.J., of the Nova Scotia Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on June 23, 2008.