Possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, Possession of a weapon contrary to a prohibition order, Possession of explosive substance without lawful excuse, Unauthorized possession of a firearm

R. v. Haynes

Sentence and the Crown's position

Crown asked54 months less a day in custody1
Judge imposed54 months less one day in jail (global), less 30 months' credit, leaving 24 months less one day1

What the law allows

Maximum14 years
Crown asked54 months less a day in custody
Judge imposed54 months less a day in custody
Defence asked54 months less a day in custody
For possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm (CC 95(1)), the Criminal Code currently allows up to 14 years when the Crown proceeds by indictment, with no mandatory minimum. The sentence imposed is 32% of the maximum. Read the section.

Brett Haynes pleaded guilty to possessing a loaded prohibited firearm, possessing firearms without a licence, possessing an explosive substance, and possessing firearms while prohibited, all found in Kamloops in June 2020. Crown and defence jointly proposed a global sentence of 54 months less one day. Justice Weatherill accepted the joint submission, giving credit for 30 months served and leaving 24 months less one day to serve, saying that although it was close to the line, it gave effect to the principles of sentencing.

In the judge's words

There are significant aggravating factors in this case, primarily involving his previous convictions and his steadfast failure to recognize that a lifetime prohibition of the possession of firearms is just that. … Although it is close to the line, I find that, in the circumstances, it does give effect to the principles of sentencing that I have mentioned earlier.

1

The record

Prior convictions
64 prior convictions1
At the time of the offence
Not stated1
Defence asked for
54 months less a day in custody1
Appeal
Not yet checked
Counsel
Crown: A. Varesi
Defence: J. Michi

Sources

  1. R. v. Haynes, 2022 BCSC 1186 Court decision, CanLII, February 14, 2022[9] Counsel for the Crown and counsel for the accused, Mr. Haynes, put forward to the court a joint submission or a joint sentence proposal. … [29] THE COURT: The joint submission is as follows: that under Indictment Number 109789-1, there be a global sentence of 54 months in jail less one day with credit for 30 months' jail time served resulting in 24-months-less-one-day new jail time to be served.[9] Counsel for the Crown and counsel for the accused, Mr. Haynes, put forward to the court a joint submission or a joint sentence proposal. … [29] THE COURT: The joint submission is as follows: that under Indictment Number 109789-1, there be a global sentence of 54 months in jail less one day with credit for 30 months' jail time served resulting in 24-months-less-one-day new jail time to be served.Brett Kiichi HAYNES, on or about the 10th day of June, 2020, at or near Unit A20 - 1271 Salish Road, in the City of Kamloops, in the Province of British Columbia, did unlawfully possess a loaded prohibited firearm[5] Mr. Haynes has a lengthy criminal record comprising no less than 64 previous convictions.[7] There are significant aggravating factors in this case, primarily involving his previous convictions and his steadfast failure to recognize that a lifetime prohibition of the possession of firearms is just that. … [15] … Although it is close to the line, I find that, in the circumstances, it does give effect to the principles of sentencing that I have mentioned earlier.[29] THE COURT: The joint submission is as follows: that under Indictment Number 109789-1, there be a global sentence of 54 months in jail less one day with credit for 30 months' jail time served resulting in 24-months-less-one-day new jail time to be served. … [15] All that said, though, I acknowledge the work that Crown counsel and your defence counsel, Mr. Haynes, have done and no doubt it was difficult, but at the end of the day, they have arrived at a joint recommendation that sets out a proposed sentence that is within the recognized range and, in my view, in the circumstances, is not contrary to the public interest and would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
  2. R. v. Haynes, 2022 BCSC 1186 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia

publicly
Sentence Watch is part of Publicly: sites built from government and court records, with every fact linked to its source. Publicly is not affiliated with any government. Visits are counted with Google Analytics, which sets cookies.