Supreme Court
Decision Information
Decision information:
Abstract: Transcript of the Reasons for Sentence
Decision Content
R. v. Mullins, 2007 NWTSC 74
S-1-CR2007000028
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
IN THE MATTER OF:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- vs. -
PHILLIP EDWARD MULLINS
_________________________________________________________
Transcript of the Reasons for Sentence by The Honourable
Justice J.Z. Vertes, at Yellowknife in the Northwest
Territories, on September 18th A.D., 2007.
_________________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
Ms. S. Tkatch: Counsel for the Crown
Mr. J. Brydon: Counsel for the Accused
----------------------------------------
Charge under s. 465(1)(c) Criminal Code of Canada
Charge under s. 5(1) Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
Official Court Reporters
1 THE COURT: Phillip Edward Mullins has
2 entered guilty pleas to two charges: one of
3 conspiracy to traffic in cocaine; the other of
4 trafficking in marijuana.
5 The charges arose from an extensive
6 undercover police operation in 2005. The accused
7 was part of an ongoing commercial drug supply
8 network involving a number of other individuals
9 and centered around an establishment in
10 Yellowknife known as "The Right Spot" bar. The
11 details of the activity and the undercover
12 operation are set out in an agreed statement of
13 facts. The accused was not the major player in
14 this drug trafficking ring but he was a key
15 component of it. He acted as a middleman between
16 the supplier of the cocaine and the eventual
17 seller and, with respect to the marijuana charge,
18 he participated in the actual sale to other
19 dealers.
20 This accused is one of a number of people
21 already sentenced for their part in this criminal
22 enterprise. They have all received significant
23 sentences. As many of those cases highlighted,
24 crack cocaine in particular has become a blight
25 on this community. And these people played a
26 significant part in the spread of this blight, a
27 part played out because of their own greed and
Official Court Reporters 1
1 lack of concern for others.
2 The accused is 29 years old. He has a
3 history of odd jobs. He is not originally from
4 this community. He also has a criminal record.
5 In the past nine years, he has been convicted of
6 eight offences, six of them for possession of
7 drugs. In 2000 he was convicted, in Edmonton, of
8 trafficking and sentenced to 12 months in jail.
9 None of this seemed to have had an effect on him.
10 I take into account as a mitigating factor
11 the accused's guilty plea. While it does not
12 come at an early stage, it is still worthy of
13 credit since it saves the administration of
14 justice a considerable amount of time and expense
15 in processing him through a trial.
16 The Crown has recommended a sentence of five
17 to six years. Crown counsel has however left to
18 my discretion the amount of time to be credited
19 toward time spent in pre-sentence custody. That
20 issue requires some explanation.
21 The accused was originally arrested on
22 October 13th, 2005. In January 2006, he was
23 granted bail. At that time his counsel, not his
24 counsel here today but his counsel at that time,
25 made a strong argument in favour of bail so that
26 the accused could receive treatment for what was
27 termed his drug addiction problems. Arrangements
Official Court Reporters 2
1 were made at a residential treatment program in
2 Edmonton. The accused was eventually released to
3 that treatment program when a bed became
4 available in April of 2006. In July, he breached
5 the terms of his bail conditions. The treatment
6 centre was going to reject him from the program.
7 He then took off. He was subsequently rearrested
8 in September of 2006. When he was, he was found
9 with a quantity of crack cocaine and marijuana on
10 him.
11 The total pre-sentence custody amounts to
12 574 days, or the equivalent of approximately 19
13 months.
14 Case law has long recognized that, as a rule
15 of thumb, pre-sentence custody should be credited
16 at a rate of two-for-one because people serving
17 in pre-sentence custody, awaiting trial, are not
18 eligible for statutory remission, nor in most
19 cases are they eligible to participate in the
20 various programs provided to sentence-serving
21 inmates. But that rule of thumb is just as I
22 described it - a rule of thumb. It is a
23 discretionary exercise, one that has to take into
24 account all of the relevant factors.
25 The accused's counsel has argued that the
26 usual approach should be applied in this case.
27 With respect, I do not agree.
Official Court Reporters 3
1 The reason this accused spent the last 12
2 months in custody is because of his own
3 deliberate violation of his bail conditions. In
4 that circumstance, I fail to see why he should be
5 credited at two-for-one for this time period. I
6 do recognize that he should be given some credit,
7 but I am not prepared to credit him for the full
8 two-for-one for the period of time since his
9 rearrest. He made a choice. He knew what the
10 risks were when he took off. No one can say what
11 would have happened if he had been either
12 rejected from the program or if, in the first
13 place, he had followed the rules of the program.
14 He has not been charged for that breach. No
15 sentence has been imposed on him for that breach
16 so it is not a question of double punishment.
17 I will give him credit for these 12 months
18 but not at the full two-for-one. In the exercise
19 of my discretion, I will credit the accused with
20 the equivalent of 30 months, two and a half
21 years, for the 19 months of pre-sentence custody.
22 In my opinion, the only mitigating factor
23 present here is the guilty plea. This accused,
24 someone who has been punished previously for
25 similar crimes, played an extensive role in a
26 long-running criminal operation. He was not the
27 mastermind but his role was significant
Official Court Reporters 4
1 nevertheless.
2 The principles of sentencing, as applied to
3 this case, call for a sentence that emphasizes
4 deterrence and denunciation.
5 I have concluded that an appropriate
6 sentence would be on Count 3, the conspiracy
7 charge, three years imprisonment; on Count 4, the
8 trafficking charge, two years to be served
9 consecutively. That is a total of five years
10 imprisonment. From that, I deduct the 30 months
11 credit that I have already indicated I would for
12 pre-sentence custody. The net sentence that I
13 impose is therefore one of two and a half years,
14 or 30 months imprisonment.
15 In addition there will be the usual order,
16 pursuant to Section 109 of the Criminal Code,
17 prohibiting the accused from having in his
18 possession or control any firearms for a period
19 of no less than ten years.
20 Is there anything else that is required, Ms.
21 Tkatch?
22 MS. TKATCH: No, Your Honour.
23 MR. BRYDON: Victims of Crime surcharge to
24 be waived?
25 THE COURT: The Victim of Crime fine
26 surcharge is waived, yes, under the
27 circumstances.
Official Court Reporters 5
1 THE CLERK: The firearm prohibition is ten
2 years from release, sir?
3 THE COURT: In the usual terms of the
4 order, Madam Clerk.
5 Thank you, counsel, we will close court.
6 ------------------------------------
7
8
9 Certified to be a true and
accurate transcript pursuant
10 to Rules 723 and 724 of the
Supreme Court Rules,
11
12
13
14 ____________________________
15 Lois Hewitt, CSR(A), RPR, CRR
Court Reporter
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Official Court Reporters 6
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.