Supreme Court

R. v. Thistle, 2003 NWTSC 36
Date: 20030702
Docket: S-1-CR-2003000006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

IN THE MATTER OF:


HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN


- v -


KEITH DESMOND THISTLE


Transcript of the Oral Reasons for Sentence by The Honourable Justice J. Z. Vertes, sitting in Hay River, in the Northwest Territories, on the 20th day of June, A.D., 2003.


APPEARANCES:

Mr. A. Bernard:   Counsel for the Crown

Mr. M. Hansen:   Counsel for the Defence


THE COURT:   In this case Keith Desmond Thistle has entered a plea of guilty to operating a motor vehicle while having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration thereof in his blood exceeded 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood.

I was told that on November 29th, 2002, here at Hay River, at about noon, several people observed Mr. Thistle driving, and also observed him park his vehicle and get out. They formed the impression that he was impaired and contacted the RCMP. The RCMP attended at the scene where they found his vehicle parked; they confronted Mr. Thistle. The officers formed the opinion that he had been drinking and took him to the detachment, where Mr. Thistle provided two breath samples. The readings of those breath samples were 270 and 260 milligrams of alcohol in 100 milliliters of blood.

As noted by Crown Counsel, these readings are over three times the legal limit. Also as noted by Crown Counsel, this is highly significant, because Section 255.1 of the Criminal Code specifically states and directs the Court to the effect that evidence that the accused's blood alcohol level exceeds 160 at the time that the offence was committed is deemed to be an aggravating factor on sentencing.

This is an express direction to the Courts by the

[Page 1]

Parliament of Canada that situations such as this, where someone gets behind the wheel of a car, having consumed a significant quantity of alcohol, and thereby increasing the danger to public safety, in such a situation the Courts must consider it to be an aggravating factor, which means that a deterrent sentence is required.

When I say “deterrent,” I mean deterrence not just for Mr. Thistle himself, so that he realizes that this type of conduct will be met with grave consequences, but deterrence for others so that they realize as well that this type of conduct, while seemingly innocuous, and the type of conduct that happens all over the country by people of all classes and backgrounds, that this type of conduct will be treated seriously. I cannot ignore that explicit direction from Parliament.

Also aggravating is the fact that the accused has a record of 18 criminal convictions from 1975 to 1996; most significant is the fact that eight of those convictions are for related offences. The last one was a conviction for impaired driving in 1996, and at that time he was sentenced to four months imprisonment and prohibited from driving for two years.

The accused is 50 years old. He has been described to me as a chronic alcoholic. He is able to hold down steady employment. I was told that he was

[Page 2]

able to deal with his alcoholism for several years, but then slid back. He has other significant health issues.

I must say that I was quite impressed listening to the accused. I thought he expressed himself very eloquently and clearly. He stated to me a recognition that he has to come to grips with not only his problems with alcohol abuse, but other significant underlying issues that only now he is becoming aware of. Of course it is easy to say those words; it is another thing to follow through and actually do something about them.

I have no alternative but to impose a significant sentence for this offence, because of the aggravating factors I have noted. I am, however, inclined to moderate that sentence to a certain extent based on what I have heard, and considering the fact that, notwithstanding that there are eight prior related offences, the last one was seven years ago. Stand up, Mr. Thistle.

I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 12 months. In addition, I place you on probation for a period of one year from the date of your release. The conditions of your probation are that you are to report to and be under the supervision of a probation officer; that you are to abstain absolutely from the consumption and possession of alcohol and

[Page 3]

nonprescription drugs of any sort; that you are to submit, on demand of a peace officer, to providing a sample of your breath for analysis; that you are to attend any treatment or counselling programs as recommended and advised by your probation officer. Do you understand those terms and conditions?

THE ACCUSED:  Yes, Your Honour.

THE COURT:   Now, I should advise you, Mr. Thistle, that if you breach any of those terms and conditions you can be charged for that. That is a criminal offence, and you can be brought into court and sentenced. Do you understand that?

THE ACCUSED:  Yes.

THE COURT:   In addition, I impose a driving prohibition for a period of three years. That is the statutory minimum. I had been inclined to impose a condition even longer. I just hope that your good words, your eloquent words, have some substance to them and that you will actually follow up on them. Under the circumstances there will be no victim of crime fine surcharge. You may have a seat.


Certified to be a true and accurate transcript, pursuant to Rules 723 and 724 of the Supreme Court Rules

Joel Bowker
Court Reporter

[Page 4]