Trafficking in a Schedule I or II substance, Possession of a Schedule I or II substance for the purpose of trafficking, Conspiracy to commit an indictable offence
R. v. Z.C.
A publication ban applies. The offender is not named.
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
The offender pleaded guilty to trafficking cocaine, conspiracy to traffic fentanyl and carfentanil, and possession of fentanyl and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, after supplying drugs to other traffickers in Kamloops in 2019. The Crown sought a global sentence of 12 years, and the defence proposed five to six years. Justice Donegan imposed 12 years in custody on concurrent counts, finding the offender's moral blameworthiness extremely high because he was motivated solely by financial gain and showed disregard for human life.
In the judge's words
1I find that the sentences are commensurate with the gravity of your offences and your degree of responsibility in committing them. They are sentences that consider all of the aggravating and mitigating factors, are crafted to achieve the primary objectives of denunciation and deterrence, while not losing sight of your good prospects for rehabilitation and the need for restraint. Were it not for the mitigating factors present in this case and your good rehabilitative prospects, a higher sentence would have been imposed.
The record
- Convicted of
- Trafficking in a Schedule I or II substance (CDSA 5(1))
- Possession of a Schedule I or II substance for the purpose of trafficking (CDSA 5(2), 2 counts)
- Conspiracy to commit an indictable offence (CC 465(1)(c))
- Prior convictions
- 0 prior convictions1
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- 5 years in custody1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: O.L. Bick, L.S. Marchione
Defence: J. Jensen, M. Putnam
Sources
- R. v. Z.C., 2024 BCSC 1485 Court decision, CanLII, July 18, 2024
[73] The Crown takes the position that the following sentences are appropriate to each count before the court: Count 4: three years incarceration; Count 5: 12 years incarceration; Count 8: seven years incarceration; and Count 10, five years incarceration, all to run concurrently to one another, for a global sentence of 12 years.
[77] The defence takes the position that the following sentences are appropriate in relation to each count before the court: Count 4: two years imprisonment; Count 5: five to six years imprisonment; Count 8: four to five years imprisonment; and Count 10: two to three years imprisonment, all concurrent, for a global sentence of five to six years imprisonment.
[38] … was 50 years old at the time of his arrest. He is now 55. He has no prior criminal record.
[148] I find that the sentences are commensurate with the gravity of your offences and your degree of responsibility in committing them. They are sentences that consider all of the aggravating and mitigating factors, are crafted to achieve the primary objectives of denunciation and deterrence, while not losing sight of your good prospects for rehabilitation and the need for restraint. Were it not for the mitigating factors present in this case and your good rehabilitative prospects, a higher sentence would have been imposed.
[147] … I find that three years incarceration is a proportionate sentence in respect of Count 4 of this Indictment. I find that 12 years incarceration is a proportionate sentence in respect of Count 5 of this Indictment. I find that seven years incarceration is a proportionate sentence in respect of Count 8 of this Indictment. I find that five years incarceration is a proportionate sentence in respect of Count 10. I am satisfied that it is appropriate for these sentences to run concurrently to one another, for a global total sentence of 12 years incarceration.
- R. v. Z.C., 2024 BCSC 1485 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia