Court Information

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: October 16, 2020

Court File No.: Region of Niagara 998 20 SR1993

Parties

Between:

Her Majesty the Queen

— And —

Roel Lloyd

Judicial Officer and Counsel

Before: Justice J. De Filippis

Heard on: August 14 & September 1, 2020

Reasons for Sentence released on: October 16, 2020

Counsel:

• Mr. Leach – counsel for the Crown
• Mr. Nissio – counsel for the accused

Reasons for Sentence

De Filippis, J.:

[1] The defendant pleaded guilty to attempt robbery, robbery, use imitation firearm and flight from police. At the time of these events, he was 18 years old and was accompanied by three male youths; two were 17 years old and one was 15 years old. None of these individuals are from Niagara Region. They came from Toronto and Peel Region in a stolen car to commit the crimes. The three youths are presently awaiting trial.

[2] The attempt robbery occurred on January 30, 2020 in the early morning and was captured by a surveillance camera. The defendant, carrying an imitation firearm, followed by three others, entered the vestibule of a Scotia Bank at the Fairview Mall in St. Catharines. All had their faces masked. They left immediately, after finding the main door locked.

[3] The next day, at 4:50 pm, the defendant and two others entered the Bank of Montreal in downtown, St. Catharines. Again, this was captured on camera. A third person occupied the driver's seat of the stolen car that was stopped just outside the bank entrance. The defendant carried a gun and all had their faces masked. The bank was crowded with staff and customers. The defendant pushed one of the customers and ordered everyone to "get down". He pointed the gun at several people as he shouted. The culprits obtained $1,500.00 and fled to the waiting car. A marked police cruiser happened to drive by the bank and was flagged down by a member of the public as the culprits sped away.

[4] The police officer followed the bandits as they drove the wrong way on a street for about two blocks, before turning onto St Paul Street. This is one of the city's main streets with many restaurants and bars. The chase was abandoned by the police as a public safety measure. However, the fleeing car was soon seen in Thorold. It swerved into opposing traffic and ran a red light as a dozen police cruisers followed, with sirens and flashing lights.

[5] During the chase, a wheel on the stolen car was damaged. It was abandoned on the southbound ramp to Highway 406. The four culprits fled on foot up a hill and jumped over a fence. This area is near Brock University and part of what followed was captured on video by several civilians. One officer drove to the area to intercept the bandits. On arrival, he left his cruiser and tackled the defendant to the ground. As he did so, one of the fleeing youths jumped into the cruiser and began driving away. The officer left the defendant to try and prevent this. The defendant got up to run away but was again tackled by the same officer, with the assistance of a bystander. The imitation firearm was later seized by police in the stolen car.

Sentencing Principles

[6] In imposing sentence, I am guided by Part XXIII of the Criminal Code. The following provisions are particularly important:

Section 718 – The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;

(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

Section 718.1 – A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

Victim Impact

[7] In applying these principles, I have the benefit of two victim impact statements, a statement by the defendant and letters supporting him. I also appreciate the helpful submissions of Crown and Defence counsel.

[8] Two people present in the bank provided statements for me to consider in passing sentence. The Crown accepts that the robbery occurred with an imitation firearm. This, of course, was not known to the many people in the bank. To them it was real, and potentially lethal. This has had a great impact on the victims. Moreover, it is only by chance that the dangerous manner in which the stolen car was driven did not create more victims.

[9] Karlene Clarke has had recurring nightmares of the defendant yelling and waving a gun. She is now fearful around strangers. She added these comments: "That day you decided to make a terrifying crime a priority and a reality involving innocent people and two of my children. I am the only person my children have and you have taken a piece of their mother away from them".

[10] Bryan Taylor wrote, "As I was looking up the barrel of the gun, any sudden movement in the bank could have jolted the assailant and he could have pulled the trigger, thus having a completely different outcome". This man suffers from heart disease and had a defibrillator/pacer implanted in his chest several months before this incident. He noted that this "device could have been triggered, also causing a different outcome". He noted that he fears for his safety because "one day I might run into one of the assailants".

[11] I acknowledge the continuing emotional harm suffered by these victims. It is my hope that, with time, both will heal. It may provide some comfort to these victims to know what the defendant had to say to me – and what I think of him.

Offender Background and Remorse

[12] The defendant was born in the Rexdale area of Toronto. He did not finish high school and has not had stable employment. He does not have a prior criminal record. The defendant told me he is "truly sorry" for the harm he has caused to other people. Jail has been difficult; because of COVID, he could not receive visits from his family for the four months of March to July. The defendant said this experience has taught him a lesson that he will never forget. Upon his release from custody, he wants to finish high school and get a job.

[13] I am aware that a man facing a jail sentence may say things to a judge that are not true. I have, on occasion, witnessed this. However, I listened and watched carefully as this young man spoke and I am confident his remorse is genuine.

[14] I received letters written by the defendant's girlfriend (Sydney Stefura), mother (Lepearl Lloyd), aunt (Primrose Thurston) and cousin (Mario von Beckford). All express shock that the defendant committed the present offences. They assert that this is not the person they know and remain supportive of him. All say the defendant has told them jail has been hard, that he never wants to return, and he has pledged to be a productive citizen going forward. His parents are committed to assisting him, financially and otherwise, in returning to school and learning a trade.

Sentencing Analysis

[15] Crown and Defence counsel provided me with relevant caselaw. I need not review it in these reasons. It will suffice to say that the courts treat bank robberies as serious matters that require lengthy sentences so as to deter others from committing the crime. Crown and Defence counsel differ in the emphasis placed on the applicable sentencing principles. The Crown highlighted the need for denunciation and deterrence and the Defence focused on the prospects for rehabilitation.

[16] The Crown argues for a period of custody in the range of 36 to 48 months. The Defence suggests 28 months. The parties agree that presentence custody is to be deducted from this.

[17] I accept the Defence position. It is a measured response to the offence and offender. Two years and four months in jail for an 18-year-old, first time offender, properly denounces his misconduct and serves as a warning to others who might commit such crimes. The sentence also reflects the promising prospects for rehabilitation; the defendant is remorseful, motivated to be a better person, and has strong family support.

Sentence Imposed

[18] The defendant has been in custody since the date of his arrest. By the date of sentencing, he will have served 260 days in jail. At 1.5 to 1, this amounts to 390 days or just under 13 months. The defendant is sentenced to 15 months in addition to the presentence custody of 13 months, for an effective sentence of 28 months.

[19] Following this, the defendant is on probation for two years. He will keep the peace and be of good behaviour, report as required to a probation officer, and take counselling as directed. He will be in full time attendance at school or seek and obtain full time employment. He is not to associate or communicate, directly or indirectly, with Karlene Clarke and Bryan Taylor or any member of their immediate families.

[20] The Crown sought a two year driving prohibition. I decline this request. The defendant pleaded guilty to flight from police as a party to the offence. He was not the driver. A driving prohibition will be an unnecessary hurdle to rehabilitation.

[21] The defendant will provide a sample of his DNA. He is also bound by an order, pursuant to section 109 of the Criminal Code, banning him from possessing prohibited or restricted firearms or devices for the rest of his life. Lastly, he must pay a victim fine surcharge in the amount of $200.00 for each count.

[22] At the request of the Defence, I recommend that the defendant serve his sentence at the Maplehurst Institution, as this will better accommodate family visits.

Released: October 16, 2020

Signed: Justice J. De Filippis