Possession of a Schedule I or II substance for the purpose of trafficking, Possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, Failure to attend court
R. v. C.M.R.T.
A publication ban applies. The offender is not named.
- Below the Crown's ask
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing fentanyl and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, possessing a loaded sawed-off prohibited rifle, and failing to attend court. The Crown sought five years' imprisonment on the drug and firearm counts and the defence a conditional sentence of two years less a day. Justice Ross imposed 36 months, reduced by one year from 48 months to reflect Gladue factors, plus 15 days consecutive for the failure to attend, and rejected a conditional sentence because of the offender's repeated breaches of release conditions.
In the judge's words
1First, as I have outlined above, having taken all factors into consideration, I do not believe that the appropriate sentence is less than two years. … Second, I am not at all satisfied that a sentence served in the community would not endanger the safety of the community.
The record
- Convicted of
- Possession of a Schedule I or II substance for the purpose of trafficking (CDSA 5(2), 2 counts)
- Possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm (CC 95(1))
- Failure to attend court (CC 145(2))
- Prior convictions
- 0 prior convictions1
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- 2 years less a day conditional sentence1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: J.A. Cramer
Defence: O. Whynot
Sources
- R. v. C.M.R.T., 2023 BCSC 1810 Court decision, CanLII, September 8, 2023
[6] On the first three offences, there was a significant discrepancy between the sentence sought by the Crown and the sentence proposed by the defence. … The Crown submits that a sentence of five years' incarceration is appropriate.
[6] On the first three offences, there was a significant discrepancy between the sentence sought by the Crown and the sentence proposed by the defence. … The defence proposes a CSO ("CSO") of two years less a day plus three years of probation.
[71] The prior mandatory minimum sentence for offences under s. 95(1) were recently repealed by Parliament in 2022.
[40] … has no prior convictions.
[134] First, as I have outlined above, having taken all factors into consideration, I do not believe that the appropriate sentence is less than two years. … [135] Second, I am not at all satisfied that a sentence served in the community would not endanger the safety of the community.
[127] Thus, in my opinion, the appropriate concurrent sentence for … is an effective sentence of 48 months in prison, reduced by 12 months to comply with the Gladue principles. Hence, I am imposing an effective overall sentence of 36 months. … [128] On the breach charge, I do not accept that an absolute discharge is warranted. … I impose a sentence of 15 days for that offence. That sentence will be consecutive to the other sentences. … [142] You have been in presentence custody since April 11, 2023. By my calculation, that constitutes 150 days as of today, September 8, 2023, and you are entitled to credit for time served of 225 days.
- R. v. C.M.R.T., 2023 BCSC 1810 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia