Possession of a Schedule I or II substance for the purpose of trafficking, Trafficking or possession for trafficking (Schedule III or V substance)
R. v. Karaim
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
Alina Karaim was convicted after trial of four counts of possession of controlled substances, including heroin/fentanyl, for the purpose of trafficking. The Crown and defence both proposed two years plus one day. Justice Verhoeven imposed two years plus one day, concurrent on all counts, giving considerable weight to the parties' agreement and noting her drug addiction and stated intention to use federal programs.
In the judge's words
1[13] I am satisfied that the sentence that is proposed is appropriate. As noted during the course of the submissions, R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 may not exactly relate because this is not a joint submission relating to a guilty plea or resolution, but nonetheless I give considerable weight to the fact that the Crown and defence agree on the appropriate sentence.
The record
- Convicted of
- Possession of a Schedule I or II substance for the purpose of trafficking (CDSA 5(2), 3 counts)
- Trafficking or possession for trafficking (Schedule III or V substance) (CDSA 5(3)(b))
- Prior convictions
- Not recorded
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- 731 days in custody1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: T.I. McFadgen
Defence: B. Movassaghi
Sources
- R. v. Karaim, 2023 BCSC 2117 Court decision, CanLII, October 23, 2023
[8] The Crown's position is that a sentence of two years plus one day is the appropriate disposition, and that it should be noted that the sentence is consecutive to any other sentence she is serving.
[12] The defence position is that the proposed sentence of two years plus one day is appropriate.
[3] The offences are those set out in the indictment, four counts of possession of controlled substances for purposes of trafficking, including methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin/fentanyl, and GHB. The Crown submissions make reference to those offences and Ms. Karaim's criminal record and the relevant sentencing principles.
[13] I am satisfied that the sentence that is proposed is appropriate. As noted during the course of the submissions, R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 may not exactly relate because this is not a joint submission relating to a guilty plea or resolution, but nonetheless I give considerable weight to the fact that the Crown and defence agree on the appropriate sentence.
[31] THE COURT: Yes. So the word consecutive probably is not necessary. There is no deduction. It is a sentence of two years plus one day without -- without any credit of any kind. … [37] THE COURT: The sentence is concurrent on all four counts.
- R. v. Karaim, 2023 BCSC 2117 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia