Possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, Possession of a weapon contrary to a prohibition order, Possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized, Occupant of a motor vehicle knowing there is a firearm, Carrying a concealed weapon, Careless use or storage of a firearm
R. v. Robicheau
- Below the Crown's ask
- On release at the time
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
Raphael Robicheau pleaded guilty to six firearms offences, including possession of a loaded restricted firearm, after a handgun was found in the compartment of a sheriff's van where he had been held while being taken to jail. The Crown sought three years of imprisonment. Judge Tax imposed 15 months of imprisonment, which pre-sentence custody credit satisfied, followed by two years of probation, finding his blameworthiness reduced because he had unloaded the gun and it was not proven that he brought it into the van.
In the judge's words
1In those circumstances, I find that a just and appropriate sanction for his possession of the firearm in the circumstances which have been established beyond a reasonable doubt, would be to order a sentence of imprisonment at the lower end of that 15-to-24-month range of sentence of imprisonment for these offences.
The record
- Convicted of
- Possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm (CC 95(1))
- Possession of a weapon contrary to a prohibition order (CC 117.01(1))
- Possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized (CC 92(1))
- Occupant of a motor vehicle knowing there is a firearm (CC 94(1))
- Carrying a concealed weapon (CC 90)
- Careless use or storage of a firearm (CC 86(1))
- Prior convictions
- Not recorded
- At the time of the offence
- On bail1
- Mandatory minimum
- Found unconstitutional or not applied under a binding ruling1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: Tiffany Thorne
Defence: Drew Rogers
Sources
- R. v. Robicheau, 2021 NSPC 62 Court decision, CanLII, December 22, 2021
[5] The Crown Attorney submits that considering the unusual, but very dangerous circumstances in which Mr. Robicheau had possession of a handgun with readily accessible ammunition and the other offences, the Court must emphasize specific and general deterrence as well as the denunciation of the unlawful conduct. … The Crown Attorney recommends a sentence of three years of imprisonment, less remand credit and seeks a DNA order and a section 109 Code firearms prohibition order.
[3] The Crown Attorney and Defence Counsel agree that, as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15, the Court is not bound by the 3-year mandatory minimum sentence stipulated in section 95(2)(a) of the Criminal Code as it violates section 12 of the Charter and has been declared to be of no force and effect under section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
[1] Mr. Raphael Robicheau has entered guilty pleas to six firearms offences contrary to sections 86(1), 90(1), 92(1), 94(1), 117.01(1) and 95(1) of the Criminal Code.
[17] Finally, although Mr. Robicheau had a non-restricted firearms licence, he had been placed on a Release Order, pursuant to section 515 of the Criminal Code on May 25, 2020, as varied on July 27, 2020. The terms and conditions of that Order prohibited him from possessing any firearms.
[66] … In those circumstances, I find that a just and appropriate sanction for his possession of the firearm in the circumstances which have been established beyond a reasonable doubt, would be to order a sentence of imprisonment at the lower end of that 15-to-24-month range of sentence of imprisonment for these offences.
[67] In the final analysis, I conclude that the imposition of a sentence of 15 months of imprisonment is the just and appropriate sanction for the most serious of the offences for which he has entered guilty pleas … [68] Therefore, when I consider Mr. Robicheau’s pre-sentence custody and enhanced custody credits, which equaled 455 days as of today’s date which is roughly equivalent to slightly over 15 months in custody, I find that his presence in court today and those enhanced pre-sentence custody credits place him in a “time served” situation with respect to the custodial sentence ordered by the Court. [69] In addition to the “time served” custodial sentence imposed by the Court, I hereby order Mr. Robicheau to be subject to a period of two years of probation from the date of this order
- R. v. Robicheau, 2021 NSPC 62 Court decision, Courts of Nova Scotia