Possession of a Schedule I or II substance for the purpose of trafficking, Importing or exporting a Schedule I or II substance
R. v. Chahal
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
Sarbjit Singh Chahal was convicted by a jury of importing about 30 kg of methamphetamine across the Pacific Highway border crossing in a truck and of possessing it for the purpose of trafficking. The Crown sought nine years; the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day, or four years in the alternative. Justice Macintosh imposed four years on the importing count and two and a half years concurrent on the possession count, finding that threats against him and his children, although rejected as a defence by the jury, were a significant mitigating factor along with his blameless personal life.
In the judge's words
1But I have found that Mr. Chahal feared for his life and the lives of his children. The two dominant mitigating factors for him are the coercion he faced and his blameless personal life.
The record
Sources
- R. v. Chahal, 2022 BCSC 1409 Court decision, CanLII, July 22, 2022
[6] The Crown seeks a sentence of nine years in jail for importing, and five years in jail concurrently for possession for the purpose of trafficking.
[5] Mr. Chahal submits that the duress he faced should result in a sentence of two years less a day, to be served as a conditional sentence. Alternatively, if duress is not found as a mitigating factor, he submits that a sentence of four years is appropriate.
[1] Mr. Chahal was convicted by a jury on December 4, 2021, of importing into Canada methamphetamine, contrary to s. 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 [CDSA]; and of possessing methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(2) of the same statute.
[32] Mr. Chahal is now 56. He was 52 at the time of the offence and had no criminal record.
[45] … But I have found that Mr. Chahal feared for his life and the lives of his children. The two dominant mitigating factors for him are the coercion he faced and his blameless personal life.
[47] Balancing in Mr. Chahal's case the need for denunciation and deterrence with the principles of proportionality and restraint, and Mr. Chahal's mitigating personal background and the coercion he experienced, causes me to conclude that the proper sentence on Count 1 is four years, and on Count 2, two-and-a-half years concurrent.
- R. v. Chahal, 2022 BCSC 1409 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia