Decision Content
R v Stevens, 2019 NWTSC 32 S-1-CR-2018-000118
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
IN THE MATTER OF:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
-v-
TREYVON JEFFREY STEVENS
________________________________________________________
Transcript of the Sentencing by Honourable Chief Justice L.A. Charbonneau, sitting in Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories, on the 29th day of July, 2019
________________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
T. Johnson: Counsel for the Crown
P. Harte: Counsel for the Accused
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charge(s) under s. 5(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada
I N D E X
PAGE
SUBMISSIONS ON SENTENCING BY MR. JOHNSON 6
SUBMISSIONS ON SENTENCING BY MR. HARTE 11
SENTENCING BY THE COURT 15
EXHIBITS:
NO. DEFINITION PAGE
1 AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS 4
THE CLERK: Order, all rise. This sitting of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories is now in session. The Honourable Justice Charbonneau presiding. Please be seated.
P. HARTE: Good afternoon, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Good morning, counsel. So the matter of Mr. Stevens is for sentencing, this afternoon. Are you ready to proceed?
P. HARTE: Yes, Your Honour. I ask that Mr. Stevens be permitted to join me, if I may, please.
THE COURT: Certainly. I understand that some time ago, a guilty plea was entered to this charge. You can have a seat, sir.
P. HARTE: Yes, that's correct, Your Honour.
THE COURT: And we're at the stage of the facts being presented to the court, correct?
P. HARTE: That's correct.
THE COURT: Can we proceed now? Is there anything preliminary that needs to be addressed?
P. HARTE: I -- I don't think so. The only caveat is I know that the -- the court frequently deals with a 606(1.1) inquiry on the record. I have spoken to Mr. Stevens about that explicitly and have written instructions on that issue. And so I just thought I'd mention that to Your Honour.
THE COURT: Thank you, and I -- I think you must have mentioned it last time as well, because it is recorded in the clerk's notes. So I don't propose to inquire any further into -- into those issues. Mr. Johnson?
T.. JOHNSON: Thank you, Your Honour. The Crown has an agreed statement of facts for Your Honour.
THE COURT: All right.
P. HARTE: I've signed that, Your Honour, as has my client.
THE COURT: Thank you. So that will be marked as Exhibit S1, but I will ask you to read it into the record, please.
EXHIBIT S-1: AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS.
T.. JOHNSON: Certainly, Your Honour. The facts as alleged are that on October 17th, 2017, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police conducted an investigation into cocaine trafficking in the city of Yellowknife. On October 17th, 2017, a Controlled Drugs and Substances Act search warrant was executed on apartment 207, Norseman Apartments, situated at 5009, 52nd Avenue in Yellowknife. The apartment was being rented by a third party. As police were entering the apartment, the accused, Mr. Stevens, jumped from a second storey balcony to the ground below, injuring his ankle. During his arrest, 12.5 grams of cocaine was found on the ground underneath him. Mr. Stevens had $145 on his person.
Mr. Stevens admits that the cocaine was possessed for the purposes of trafficking. During the search of apartment 207, further indicia of trafficking were located, including a cellphone with text messages consistent with dial-a-dope operation. It is not alleged that the cellphone belongs to Mr. Stevens. In the days prior to the execution of the search warrant, Mr. Stevens had been observed as a passenger in a Kia Rio. The vehicle was parked in the parking place of apartment 207 at the time of the execution of the warrant on October 17th.
Further indicia of trafficking were observed in the car, including a digital scale, a further two-point -- pardon me, 29.1 grams of crack cocaine was located in a small safe in the vehicle. It is not alleged that Mr. Stevens possessed that quantity of cocaine. A handgun and ammunition were found in a vacuum-sealed bag in a hidden compartment in the trunk of the car. It is not alleged that Mr. Stevens possessed the firearm or ammunition.
A number of exhibits were seized in the course of the investigation. They are attached as Appendix A of this agreed statement of facts. Mr. Stevens waives any interest in those items and consents to their forfeiture.
THE COURT: Thank you. Those facts are admitted?
P. HARTE: Yes, Your Honour.
THE COURT: So the plea is based on the possession of the 12.5 grams of cocaine, and, I suppose, the $145, but not anything else?
T. JOHNSON: That's correct, Your Honour.
THE COURT: All right. On that basis I will enter a conviction on the charge of possession for a purpose of trafficking of cocaine. Is there any further evidence from the Crown at this hearing?
T. JOHNSON: No, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Any evidence from defence?
P. HARTE: Just submissions, Your Honour.
THE COURT: All right. Then I'll hear from the Crown.
SUBMISSIONS ON SENTENCING BY MR. JOHNSON:
T.. JOHNSON: Thank you, Your Honour. Crown takes a position in this case, Your Honour, that in light of the circumstances of this case, an appropriate sentence would be a custodial sentence in the range of two years. Crown will also be asking for a DNA order, as well as a firearms prohibition under Section 109 of the Criminal Code.
I will start by noting, Your Honour, that Crown is not alleging a criminal record in this case. As far as Crown is aware, Mr. Stevens comes before you with no -- no admissible criminal record.
In the Crown's submission, the -- the sentence that is being proposed is reasonable, and -- and necessary to achieve the goals of denunciation and deterrence that are -- are necessary in this case, owing to a number of aggravating factors, which are present in this case.
In particular I note that while we are dealing with a -- an offence under Section 5 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, of course that covers a wide range of substances. We are here dealing with cocaine, which is a -- a hard drug, and a drug which has very serious impact in the community. As well, we are dealing with commercial scale trafficking. Notwithstanding the relatively small amount found on Mr. Stevens, all evidence indicates that he was a -- a small part of a larger, more sophisticated operation.
So in the Crown's submission, that too is an aggravating factor, which calls for a strong denunciatory and deterrent sentence. And then of course finally, there is the impact of these sort of offences on the community. This sort of offence is all too prevalent in this community. And in the Crown's submission, judges faced with commercial trafficking in such sophisticated operations should be sending a long -- or should be sending a strong message to both the accused before them, in this case Mr. Stevens, as well as the community at large, that trafficking in hard drugs in this community will not be acceptable, and it will be met with long custodial sentences.
There is, of course, a guilty plea in this case, which is mitigating. However, I -- I would suggest that this is a -- while it is certainly mitigating that Mr. Stevens takes responsibility for his actions, this is a guilty plea in the face of a -- a strong Crown case. That is to say, it's not a guilty plea where there were the same sort of substantial triable issues that you sometimes see in these sort of cases. So in that sense, while it is certainly something Mr. Stevens ought to get credit for, that is perhaps not -- not as much credit as might be the case, where there were serious, triable issues.
Ultimately, Your Honour, what I expect you to hear today is a position from defence that they will be joining the Crown's position of two years. So I won't dwell too much more on the aggravating factors that I think bring this into the two-year range, unless Your Honour feels it necessary to justify that two-year range. I -- I would simply note, again, that we are dealing with commercial trafficking of a -- of a hard drug, of a sophisticated operation, and as Your Honour knows all too well, the impact that has on the community. And so I would ask for a -- a lengthy period of custody here today. The --
THE COURT: You're -- you're taking the position, or the -- the -- the joint submission assumes the three-year starting point for this type of offence? Is -- is that --
T. JOHNSON: It --
THE COURT: -- and then you've taken into account the guilty plea, and that's how you got there?
T. JOHNSON: That's correct, Your Honour. The -- the guilty plea, and the fact that Mr. Stevens is a first offender. Now of course, that is taken into account in the starting point. But in this case, I think it -- it certainly justifies with the guilty plea going down from that three-year starting point. And so that is where the two-year comes from, Your Honour.
THE COURT: All right.
T. JOHNSON: There is a small amount of pretrial credit in this case. My understanding is that Mr. Stevens was arrested on October 17th, 2017, and released on October 23rd, 2017. For reasons I suspect my friend will address more fully, defence is not going to be asking for any credit for that time, and so Crown is not seeking credit for that time. So ultimately, what I am asking for is for Your Honour, today, to impose two years on -- on top of the time that Mr. Stevens has already served.
THE COURT: And you're not seeking -- I mean, I see that there's a waiver of any interest in some of the -- in the property seized. You're not seeking anything in that regard, because there are ongoing proceedings, I take it?
T. JOHNSON: That's correct, yes. There is still a co-accused that is coming up for trial in October. I don't remember the exact date right off-hand, but those will be dealt with at that time. This simply establishes that Mr. Stevens won't have any issue with the forfeiture at that point.
THE COURT: Okay. And just because I wasn't the judge when the plea was entered, was the plea entered on the joint indictment? Or did -- did the Crown file a separate indictment? I'm just -- it's -- it's -- is the existing indictment is the only one I need to be concerned about?
P. HARTE: That's my recollection, Your Honour.
T. JOHNSON: That's --
THE COURT: All right.
T. JOHNSON: -- my understanding, I wasn't the one that dealt with that at that time, but my understanding is it was on a joint indictment, Your Honour.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
T. JOHNSON: Subject to any questions from Your Honour, that -- those would be the Crown's submissions on sentence. I recognize they are somewhat short, but we are here dealing with a -- a -- a joint submission, and so I -- I'm certainly prepared to -- to go further and justify that further, if Your Honour feels it necessary. But I -- I do -- I think that the position that's being put forward by both Crown and defence is well within the acceptable range for this sort of offence, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Yes. I don't have any questions, thank you. Mr. Harte?
SUBMISSIONS ON SENTENCING BY MR. HARTE:
P. HARTE: Your Honour, my friend is correct. This is a joint submission. And with respect to the range, I'll -- for the -- the -- the -- non-request, if I can put it that way, for any credit with respect to time in custody. Mr. Stevens is here with his partner today. They've flown up from Edmonton to be dealt with before Your Honour. She's here for support, which is reciprocated, if you will, in the request that Mr. Stevens makes to serve his time in a federal institution, because that will give him an opportunity to serve his time closer to where his partner resides.
In any event, with that by way of explanation for the -- the waiver of any request for credit in relation to pretrial custody, I'll provide to you with the rest of my submissions. Mr. Stevens was born in Toronto, and grew up in the Morningside area. Shortly after he was born, his father departed for Edmonton, leaving his mother as a single mother with, ultimately, five kids. He had six siblings, one on his step -- sibling on his father's side, but he -- his -- his father left his mother with five children and was not paying support.
Unfortunately, as a result of that, and -- and maybe not surprisingly, he ended up in foster care for the whole of grade 10, and -- and that didn't do -- or didn't ultimately result in a very successful school year, and school after that became problematic.
He has other family members who have had similar struggles. His youngest brother is in trouble with the law in Toronto, and as I say, perhaps because of the factual situation, and a mom with five kids, it's not surprising that Treyvon finds himself where he does.
At -- at about age 20 -- he's 26 now -- at about age 20, he made a connection with his father, sort of out of the blue, ended up moving to Edmonton and -- and was initially employed at one of the Superstores in the -- on the road leading in from the airport to Edmonton, and worked there for a time, and then decided he -- he had more to offer, and frankly, from my dealings with him, that's clear. And ended up looking for work and other educational opportunities, found himself unfortunately coming up to Yellowknife to look for work. He had resumes with him, but he ended up making connections with people from Edmonton who were in a position to offer him money that he wasn't able to secure by way of employment.
And at -- at the end of the day, the critical variable in terms of the -- identifying the person you're dealing with is, after he was released he went back to NAIT. He did the upgrading that was required to get himself into the carpentry program there, then completed the academic portion of the carpentry program, and worked as an apprentice -- a first-year apprentice carpenter until November.
Now, he ended up laid off and he was looking for work, but then decided that -- and he -- and he found a job, but he decided it didn't make sense to try and get back into an apprenticeship program, because he wouldn't be able to finish the year, as a result of the period of time that he's going to spend in custody. So he's been working, sort of, at what's become available, but at the end of the day, the -- the bottom line for him is, he wants to get back into carpentry.
The -- the fact of the matter is, in my submission, the fact that -- there's too many facts in that sentence. But in any event, he's -- the -- the proof in -- in the pudding is that he's gone back to NAIT, got himself qualified to work as an apprentice, learned his lesson from the -- the idiocy that he's found himself involved in here in Yellowknife. I think on the basis of that, I can represent that it's unlikely that he's going to find himself before the court again.
The relationship that he has with Ms. McCauley (phonetic), the strength of that relationship, it's about -- they've been together -- they've known each other for about five years, but been together as a couple for about two-and-a-half. And the fact that she's here with him today speaks to the strength of that relationship.
So on the basis of the fact that he's gone back to school, has earned himself a position as an apprentice -- a carpenter, as a result of the work that he's done academically, the fact that he's here with somebody who flew up from Edmonton to be with him in court, suggests -- and -- and it's on the basis of those two facts that I represent to the Court that it's unlikely that you'll find Mr. Stevens before the court again, Your Honour.
THE COURT: You're in agreement with the Crown's request for the DNA order, and the Section 109 order?
P. HARTE: I -- the Section 109 order, I know is mandatory. I think the DNA order is mandatory as well, so I have no submissions with respect to that.
THE COURT: I don't think the DNA order is on drug cases, because I seem to recall refusing to grant them on occasion. But I -- they've also been granted on many other occasions too, so.
P. HARTE: I -- I -- I -- Your Honour, the only experience that I've had with DNA was that it resulted in a client being eliminated from a pool of potential offenders, so it's difficult to -- it's difficult to make a strenuous objection to the -- to the request of the Crown that a DNA order be grant -- be granted.
THE COURT: It works both ways, I guess. Mr. Johnson, are you able to assist me?
T. JOHNSON: I am in the process of looking to do that right now, Your Honour.
THE COURT: I know the Crown usually seeks it. But I don't think it's mandatory.
T. JOHNSON: No, Your Honour, it appears that it is a secondary designated offence.
THE COURT: Yes, a s. 487.04, paragraph -- well actually, Paragraph B of the secondary designated defence definition is what I’m looking at. Is that what you're looking at?
T. JOHNSON: It -- it -- yes, Your Honour.
THE COURT: All right.
T. JOHNSON: Paragraph B(i) of that. And it appears that then under s. 487.051(3) --
THE COURT: It is discretionary.
T. JOHNSON: It is discretionary, yes.
THE COURT: All right. So this is a secondary designated offence. Do you have anything you want to add to your -- what you've already said?
T. JOHNSON: No, Your Honour.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Stevens, if there's anything you'd like to tell me directly, this is your opportunity.
THE ACCUSED: No, Your Honour.
SENTENCING BY THE COURT:
THE COURT: All right. You can sit down. Well, it's often said that sentencing is a difficult task, and it's certainly never pleasant to impose a jail term on someone who is obviously smart and has potential, and whose time could be much better spent than in jail. That being said, when the court is presented with a joint submission that is well within the range, that makes the decision less difficult, perhaps, than in some other cases.
The law is that when a joint submission is presented, the court has to follow it, unless it is clearly unreasonable. There is nothing unreasonable about the joint submission that is being presented to me today. For these types of offences, and this has been stated in many cases in this jurisdiction, the starting point is three years' imprisonment. That comes from originally a case in the Alberta Court of Appeal, but it has been applied in many, many cases in this jurisdiction. And considering that Mr. Stevens has entered a guilty plea, that he is still relatively young and has no prior record, it makes complete sense to me to impose the sentence that is being jointly proposed, which is a sentence of two years.
Ordinarily, the time Mr. Stevens has already spent in custody would be credited against that sentence, but in this case I am being specifically asked not to do that, because Mr. Stevens wishes to, as I understand the submissions of his counsel, receive a sentence that actually is in the penitentiary range. He wants to be able to serve it in southern Canada, because of his own circumstances.
I will just add that the reason the starting point for these types of offences is high, is because this type of activity causes immense harm in our communities. Against this is something that has been said in many cases that I won't refer to specifically now, but the fact that people use these drugs and develop, often, addictions to them, leads to all sorts of other crimes. It harms the lives of the people who become addicted, but it also causes a lot of harm to what we sometimes refer to as indirect victims.
Indirect victims are the people whose houses get broken into, so that items can be obtained and sold so that people can support their habits. Indirect victims are the children of addicts who find themselves not cared for the way they should be. Indirect victims are other members of the community who have to deal with the aftermath and the consequences of the social problems that come from people becoming addicted to these drugs. And we see manifestations of that every day on the streets of Yellowknife, on the streets of some of our other communities, and the same is true everywhere in the country.
This court and others have been imposing significant jail terms for trafficking in hard drugs for many years for that reason, and this court will continue to impose significant sentences to try to continue to convey the message that this is highly harmful conduct. Although it is a way to make money quickly, there is a price to pay for those who get caught.
I really wish Mr. Stevens had chosen to go back to school, and start this carpentry program before succumbing to the temptation of making money quickly. I am sure that those who encouraged him to get involved with this, talked about the rapid profits and that no harm is done because this is being sold to people who want to consume it. I really hope that he understands now that that's not the case. There are many, many ways to make a living, and this is not one of them.
I am very glad to hear that he has taken steps to further his education and pursue lawful means of employment. I am also very glad to hear he has the support of his spouse. That says a lot. You are very lucky. Many people appear in this court to be sentenced, and they have no one supporting them. So you're very lucky, and I hope that you will prove worthy of your partner's support.
For these reasons, I will impose a sentence of two years, as has been suggested. There will be a firearms prohibition order under Section 109 commencing today, and expiring 10 years after Mr. Stevens' release from imprisonment.
I will also issue a DNA order. This is a secondary designated offence, and the order is not mandatory, but in the authorities' efforts to investigate and put a stop to drug trafficking, the ability to use this technology can be very helpful, and as defence counsel has pointed out, it can also sometimes be very helpful in excluding persons from the group of people being investigated. So both orders will issue.
There will be no order today with respect to any items seized in relation to this matter, because there are ongoing proceedings, and my understanding is that that will be dealt with at some later point. Is there anything else that I need to address this afternoon from the Crown's perspective?
T. JOHNSON: No, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Anything from defence?
T. HARTE: No. Thank you, Your Honour.
THE COURT: I hope things work out for you, Mr. Stevens, and I hope we never see you again in this courtroom for anything of the sort, because it does cause a lot of harm.
I want to thank counsel for their work in resolving this matter. A case that resolves is always a good thing. And guilty pleas are also always a good thing, because they represent the start, one has to hope, of a person changing the course of their life. Thank you. Close court.
THE CLERK: All rise.
(PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED)
Neesons, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing pages are a complete and accurate transcript of the proceedings transcribed from the audio recording to the best of our skill and ability. Judicial amendments have been applied to this transcript.
Dated at the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, this 4th day of September, 2019.
____________________________________
Kim Neeson
Principal