Trafficking in a Schedule I or II substance, Possession of a Schedule I or II substance for the purpose of trafficking, Possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, Possession of a weapon contrary to a prohibition order, Unauthorized possession of a firearm
R. v. Pham
Sentence and the Crown's position
What the law allows
Kien Trung Pham was convicted after trial of four counts of trafficking methamphetamine bound for New Zealand, possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and four firearms offences, and was also convicted of four counts of possessing firearms while prohibited. The Crown sought a global sentence of 15 years and the defence 9 years. Justice Baird imposed an aggregate of 17 years, reduced to 15 years for totality, finding that 9 years would be demonstrably unfit given the scale of the operation and Mr. Pham's role as its directing mind.
In the judge's words
1In my overall view, the Crown's position on this sentencing is sustainable and even quite reasonable given recent trends in the law, notably the clear and firm instructions given to trial judges in Parranto. By contrast, it is my considered opinion that a global sentence of only 9 years would be demonstrably unfit.
The record
- Convicted of
- Trafficking in a Schedule I or II substance (CDSA 5(1), 4 counts)
- 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), 2 counts)
- Possession of a weapon contrary to a prohibition order (CC 117.01(1), 4 counts)
- Unauthorized possession of a firearm (CC 91(1), 2 counts)
- Prior convictions
- Not recorded
- At the time of the offence
- Not stated1
- Defence asked for
- 9 years in custody1
- Appeal
- Not yet checked
- Counsel
- Crown: T. McFadgen
Defence: J. Dosanjh
Sources
- R. v. Pham, 2024 BCSC 467 Court decision, CanLII, March 4, 2024
[4] There is no doubt that the offences at bar are serious and merit a significant punitive, denunciatory and deterrent sentence. The difference between the respective positions of Crown and defence counsel is a matter of 6 years: Crown counsel, Mr. McFadgen, seeks a global sentence of 15 years' imprisonment, while defence counsel, Mr. Dosanjh, argues that a fit global sentence would be one of 9 years.
[4] There is no doubt that the offences at bar are serious and merit a significant punitive, denunciatory and deterrent sentence. The difference between the respective positions of Crown and defence counsel is a matter of 6 years: Crown counsel, Mr. McFadgen, seeks a global sentence of 15 years' imprisonment, while defence counsel, Mr. Dosanjh, argues that a fit global sentence would be one of 9 years.
[1] On July 31, 2023, after a lengthy trial on indictment 86452 (the "trial indictment"), I found Mr. Pham guilty of four counts of trafficking in methamphetamine (Counts 1-4)
[34] In my overall view, the Crown's position on this sentencing is sustainable and even quite reasonable given recent trends in the law, notably the clear and firm instructions given to trial judges in Parranto. By contrast, it is my considered opinion that a global sentence of only 9 years would be demonstrably unfit.
[36] An aggregate sentence of 17 years is the result. Whether such a penalty in all the circumstances is unduly harsh or excessive is a question about which reasonable people might disagree. I will only say that in the name of finality, I am prepared to accept the Crown's overall submission and reduce your sentence to one of 15 years in total.
- R. v. Pham, 2024 BCSC 467 Court decision, Courts of British Columbia