Decision Content
R v Simpson, 2018 NWTSC 61 S-1-CR-2015-000052
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
IN THE MATTER OF:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- v -
WILLIAM JOSEPH SIMPSON
_________________________________________________________ Transcript of the Reasons for Sentence delivered by The Honourable Justice L.A. Charbonneau, sitting in Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories, on the 17th day of September, 2018.
_________________________________________________________. APPEARANCES:
Ms. A. Piché: Counsel for the Crown
Mr. P. Harte: Counsel for the Accused,
William Joseph Simpson
(Charges under s. 5(3)(a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act)
1 THE COURT: As counsel know, it is my
2 usual practice, after I hear sentencing
3 submissions, to take some time to formulate
4 reasons to put the sentencing decision in
5 context.
6 In this particular case, this matter has
7 been going on for a very long time, and I think
8 it would be best to bring it to a close this
9 afternoon. Accordingly, I am going to give a
10 brief decision.
11 Rather than have you come back, Mr. Simpson,
12 prolong this any longer, I think the best thing
13 for me to do today is to impose sentence now. I
14 do not think there is any benefit in me issuing a
15 very long decision or making you wait any longer
16 for the outcome of these long proceedings.
17 This is a very unusual case, and part of the
18 reason why I do not see a need to write a long
19 decision is that I cannot imagine circumstances
20 coming up where quite the same factors would be
21 at play.
22 The first thing I need to say is that the
23 law is very clear that, when counsel present a
24 joint submission, unless the Court finds it to be
25 completely unreasonable and something that would
26 bring the administration of justice into
27 disrepute, the Court is required to follow it.
1 As Crown counsel has said, and as I think
2 both counsel realize, what is being proposed here
3 is very much on the lenient side when one takes
4 into account the starting point that applies to
5 wholesale trafficking of cocaine, the fact that
6 Mr. Simpson has been convicted several times in
7 the past for drug-related offences, and the
8 significant harm that trafficking in hard drugs
9 has caused in this community.
10 I talked about that in one of the cases
11 counsel referred to, R v Baker 2009, NWTSC 75.
12 Mr. Baker had no prior record. He had tremendous
13 support from various people in the community.
14 Mr. Baker made one very, very bad mistake. It
15 was not pleasant to have to sentence him for that
16 crime.
17 In sentencing Mr. Baker, I talked about the
18 very real impact that drug trafficking has caused
19 in this community. And, without repeating
20 everything I said then, I think it is worth
21 repeating that drug trafficking has done harm to
22 this community, and this has manifested in
23 different ways. Those of us who have lived here
24 for a while know the stories of reputable
25 business people whose lives spun completely out
26 of control after developing addictions to drugs.
27 We have heard of gratuitous and very violent
1 things happening and finding out, after the fact,
2 that those crimes were connected with drugs,
3 either because the people committing the offences
4 were under the influence of those drugs, or
5 because they were so desperate to get more that
6 they were ready to do just about anything to get
7 their hands on money to buy more drugs. This is
8 a small community; so, when these things happen,
9 we hear about them.
10 As I said in Baker, anyone who gets
11 themselves involved in any way in this kind of
12 activity is participating in something that
13 causes a lot of harm, and that cannot ever be
14 forgotten. That is why the sentencing regime, in
15 this jurisdiction, has not historically been
16 particularly lenient in drug-trafficking cases.
17 All that remains true, and all that is why people
18 generally get sentenced for significant jail
19 terms when they engage in these activities. That
20 is why the starting point is what it is.
21 Now, having said all of that, as I referred
22 to already, the first question I have to ask
23 myself is whether the joint submission that is
24 being presented here is unreasonable. I cannot
25 say that it is. It is definitely lenient, but it
26 is not unreasonable. I think in fact it is far
27 from unreasonable under these specific
1 circumstances. Sentencing is an individualized
2 exercise, and a judge always has to take into
3 account the specific circumstances of each case.
4 So what are the specific circumstances of
5 the case? Well, first there is the information
6 set out in the Pre-Sentence Report. I will not
7 quote from it, but it discloses that Mr. Simpson
8 faced some major challenges when he was still
9 very young. He was not treated well by those who
10 should have looked after him. He certainly did
11 not start life with the best of chances. Sadly,
12 that is not necessarily unusual, but it does have
13 to be taken into account.
14 The second factor is that this matter has a
15 long, convoluted procedural history; and I agree
16 with what has been said that, under the
17 circumstances, this being a circumstantial case,
18 the guilty plea is significantly mitigating. It
19 is especially mitigating because, given the
20 passage of time and what I have heard, by
21 pleading guilty, Mr. Simpson has given up, not
22 just his right to have a trial and have the Crown
23 prove his guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, but
24 he has given up the opportunity to assert a right
25 that is protected by the Charter, which is to
26 have his trial within a reasonable time.
27 Everyone has been very candid this afternoon
1 that a significant part of the delay in this
2 matter would have been attributed to the Crown if
3 an unreasonable delay application had been made.
4 So, in a very real way, Mr. Simpson gave up his
5 right to ask the Court to order a stay of
6 proceedings based on delay and get out of even
7 having to face trial. That is a very significant
8 thing as well under the present circumstances.
9 There is another aspect that must be
10 considered. There is always impact on family and
11 often a lot of innocent indirect victims of
12 crimes when people are sentenced and sent to
13 jail. In this case, it is very clear that there
14 is a direct victim and someone who bears no
15 responsibility for what happened: Mr. Simpson's
16 daughter. It is very tragic that a 14-year-old
17 is going to be in that situation, and I can only
18 hope that the people who support Mr. Simpson and
19 who have been there for him will be able to be
20 there for her and will find a way to explain to
21 her why her father has to be sent away. But that
22 is a very sad thing, and I have a feeling that
23 knowing that this is going to happen is going to
24 be, in all of this, probably the worst punishment
25 of all for Mr. Simpson.
26 Mr. Baker received a sentence of
27 two-and-a-half years' imprisonment for his
1 offence. What is being proposed here is very
2 close to that. I think I still have to take into
3 account parity and proportionality and the
4 quantity of drugs and the criminal record. For
5 that reason, the sentence I impose will be at the
6 high end of the jointly proposed range.
7 Mr. Simpson, this will still be a very light
8 sentence considering what this offence is. It
9 probably does not feel like a light sentence to
10 you, but believe me, it could have been a lot
11 worse; and after trial, I do not even want to
12 take a guess as to what the sentence would have
13 been if you had been convicted.
14 But I recognize that you have given up your
15 right to trial; you have given up your right to
16 raise other issues in this case. You are taking
17 responsibility.
18 I am not sure I understand how you got
19 yourself involved in this after such a long
20 stretch of staying out of trouble. You obviously
21 have a very good working record. You are able to
22 lead a responsible lifestyle. You are able to be
23 a good father, and I just hope that this really
24 truly is the last time you make a mistake like
25 this one because they are costly.
26 For these reasons, I am going to go along
27 with the joint submission.
1 Now, Ms. Piché, you did not say, but there
2 are two counts on this Indictment. What had you
3 contemplated as far as the breakdown of the
4 sentence as between those two counts? Or had you
5 thought about this?
6 MS. PICHÉ: Certainly, three years on the
7 cocaine charge. For the marihuana, I would
8 suggest a lesser sentence would be appropriate.
9 THE COURT: But concurrent?
10 MS. PICHÉ: Yes.
11 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
12 Can you stand up with Mr. Simpson? On the
13 charge of possession of cocaine for the purpose
14 of trafficking, the sentence will be three years'
15 imprisonment.
16 And, on the charge for possession for the
17 purpose of trafficking of marihuana, it will be
18 two years concurrent, which means served at the
19 same time. You can sit down.
20 The firearms prohibition order is mandatory
21 in these cases, so it will be commencing today,
22 ending ten years after your release from
23 imprisonment.
24 There is a provision in the Criminal Code
25 that Mr. Harte can explain to you that gives you
26 an opportunity to apply for an exemption for
27 sustenance purposes. In other words, if you are
1 hunting and that is how you are feeding your
2 family, you can make a request to have the ban
3 lifted for that purpose. So that is an option
4 that will be available to you; and Mr. Harte, I
5 am sure, can tell you how to go about doing that.
6 It is something that comes up fairly frequently.
7 There will also be a DNA order. And there
8 will be a Victim of Crime Surcharge on each
9 count.
10 Is there anything I have overlooked in what
11 you have asked?
12 MS. PICHÉ: No, not from the sentencing
13 perspective. But we still have forfeiture to
14 address.
15 THE COURT: Yes. Yes.
16 Mr. Harte, anything I have overlooked from
17 your perspective?
18 MR. HARTE: No, Your Honour. Thank you.
19 THE COURT: All right. So, with respect
20 to the forfeiture and return orders, Ms. Piché?
21 MS. PICHÉ: Yes, I do have an affidavit
22 from Mr. Shushack with respect to property that
23 was -- because everything was seized in his
24 residence, so I will file that.
25 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
26 MS. PICHÉ: And it does give you the basis
27 for the return order part of the order that the
1 Crown is seeking, so I have a draft order here.
2 THE COURT: Now, this -- there is a lot of
3 exhibits listed in there. I -- I can -- I assume
4 counsel have reviewed this carefully and it
5 matches the orders you are going to give me?
|
6 |
MS. |
PICHÉ: Yes, it does, Your Honour. |
|
7 |
THE |
COURT: All right. Thank you. |
|
8 |
MS. |
PICHÉ: And so I have the -- I have |
|
9 |
|
three copies of the draft order. |
|
10 |
THE |
COURT: So this orders the forfeiture |
|
11 |
|
of the items that were mentioned in the Agreed |
|
12 |
|
Statement of Facts, the return of those, |
|
13 |
|
conversely that there is no interest in -- |
|
14 |
MS. |
PICHÉ: Yes. |
|
15 |
THE |
COURT: -- and it matches with |
|
16 |
|
Mr. Shushack's affidavit. |
|
17 |
MS. |
PICHÉ: Yes, it does. |
|
18 |
THE |
COURT: Do you agree, Mr. Harte? |
|
19 |
MR. |
HARTE: Yes, Your Honour. My client |
|
20 |
|
has no interest in any of what was seized. |
|
21 |
THE |
COURT: The affidavit will be filed, |
|
22 |
|
Mr. Clerk. |
|
23 |
THE |
COURT CLERK: Yes, Your Honour. |
|
24 |
THE |
COURT: Not marked as an exhibit, just |
|
25 |
|
filed. |
|
26 |
THE |
COURT CLERK: Yes, Your Honour. |
|
27 |
THE |
COURT: And the forfeiture and return |
|
1 |
|
order will issue. |
|
2 |
|
Is there anything further on this matter? |
|
3 |
MS. |
PICHÉ: No. Thank you, Your Honour. |
|
4 |
THE |
COURT: Anything further from defence? |
|
5 |
MR. |
HARTE: No. Thank you, Your Honour. |
|
6 |
THE |
COURT: Mr. Simpson, I hope things |
|
7 |
|
work out for you. |
|
8 |
THE |
ACCUSED: Yeah. |
|
9 |
THE |
COURT: And I hope we do not have to |
|
10 |
|
see each other again in these circumstances. |
|
11 |
|
Thank you, counsel. |
12 -----------------------------------------------------
13 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT
14
15 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing transcribed pages are a complete and
16 accurate transcript of the digitally recorded proceedings taken herein to the best of my skill and
17 ability.
Dated at the City of Edmonton, Province of
18 Alberta, this 19th day of October, 2018.
19 Certified Pursuant to Rule 723 of the Rules of Court
20
21
__________________________
22 Janet Belma, CSR(A), B.Ed.
Court Reporter
23
24
25
26
27