Court File and Parties
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: 2022 06 08 COURT FILE No.: Metro North, Toronto Region 21-15001368 21-15001369
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
— AND —
Nakhari HENRY-ROBINSON
Before: Justice Cidalia Faria
Heard on: October 26, 2021, May 12, June 1, 2022
Reasons for Sentence released on: June 8, 2022
Counsel: Sharna Reid, counsel for the Crown Stephen DiClemente, counsel for the accused Nakhari HENRY-ROBINSON
Faria J.:
I. Overview
[1] On October 26, 2021 Nakhari Henry-Robinson pled guilty before me to Possession of a loaded Restricted Firearm, Careless Storage of a Firearm, Fail to Comply with a Release Order, and Fail to Comply with a Probation Order. The matter was adjourned for Mr. Henry-Robinson to obtain an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report.
[2] On May 12, 2022, both Counsel made submissions, filed exhibits, and provided caselaw for consideration. The parties were significantly apart, with one recommending additional custody and the other submitting Mr. Henry-Robinson has served his time, and in the alternative, should further custody be required, it be in the form of a Conditional Sentence.
[3] I adjourned the matter for consideration. I received clarification of the Crown’s position on June 1, 2022. What follows are my reasons for sentence.
II. The Facts
[4] On March 8, 2021, at 5:31 Mr. Henry-Robinson was at his girlfriend’s home on Replin Road in the City of Toronto. He got into an argument with her and began smashing items in the apartment. He smashed a mirror, and a section of the drywall plaster. During this argument, Mr. Henry-Robinson cut his hand, which led to heavy bleeding. He left the apartment and entered a taxi that was waiting nearby.
[5] A plainclothes officer in the area at the time observed Mr. Henry-Robinson getting into the taxi and conducted a vehicle stop. Mr. Henry-Robinson exited from the rear passenger side seat of the taxi to speak with the officer. Observing Mr. Henry-Robinson bleeding profusely from his hand, and matching the description provided for the male party involved in the incident on Replin Rd., Mr. Henry-Robinson was placed under investigative detention. As officers approached and attempted to search Mr. Henry-Robinson for weapons, he began struggling to escape from the officers and was taken to the ground.
[6] Upon searching the taxi, officers located a Smith and Wesson handgun in the foot-well of the rear passenger side seat. The firearm was wrapped in a grey pair of underwear covered with blood stains. The firearm is a restricted firearm. It was loaded, and they found a round chambered, and 6 more in the magazine. Three bullets were hollow point rounds. The magazine, which was loaded into the firearm, had the capacity to hold 17 rounds.
[7] At the time, Mr. Henry-Robinson was on a Probation Order with a condition not to possess any weapons dated December 20, 2018, and he was on a Release Order not to possess any weapons dated January 13, 2021.
III. Position of the Parties
[1] The Crown submitted the very lowest fit sentence is 3.5 years minus pre-sentence custody on a 1.5 basis pursuant to R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26. Ms. Reid filed Mr. Henry-Robinson’s criminal record [1] in support of her position that specific deterrence and denunciation are the primary guiding principles in this case. In particular, she emphasized the fact the firearm was loaded in a public place and had the officers not noticed the weapon and seized it, the loaded firearm would have been left to be found by the next cab customer.
[2] Ms. Reid submitted the Court should be cautious in the weight to be given to the Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report. She submitted the Report lacked objectivity and impartiality. She noted the author relied on uncorroborated self-reporting, minimized Mr. Henry-Robinson’s criminal record by not addressing it, made unsubstantiated generalizations that were not linked to Mr. Henry-Robinson’s experience, and made pronouncements and sweeping statements.
[3] Rather, the Crown pointed to the strong familial support Mr. Henry-Robinson has, the athletic support he received for his basketball talent, and the efforts made to benefit him which he squandered. She submitted Mr. Henry-Robinson has not been a victim, but rather a predator as demonstrated by his admissions of misconduct to the author of the Report, his criminal record, and the very nature of the offence of possession of a loaded firearm.
[4] The Crown agreed the difficult conditions of incarceration Mr. Henry-Robinson has experienced is a mitigating factor in the determination of his sentence, such that it would reduce it. She submitted she has taken those conditions into account in her 3.5 year sentencing recommendation.
[5] The Defence submitted a fit sentence to be 2 years and 9 months (33 months), reduced to 1 year and 9 months (21months) for the harsh custodial lockdown conditions Mr. Henry-Robinson has experienced [2] at the Toronto South Detention Centre [3], the challenging circumstances of his upbringing as outlined in the Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report [4], and his potential for rehabilitation. As Mr. Henry-Robinson has been in custody since March 8, 2022, with Summers credit, he is in a time served position. In the alternative, Mr. DiClemente submits any further custody should be served in the form of a Conditional Sentence.
[6] Counsel submitted these offences are on the lower end of the firearm spectrum as the firearm was not used, or brandished. He relied on the Pre-Sentence Report to submit Mr. Henry-Robinson had the firearm for his protection as he was scared for his safety given the environment of gun violence that surrounded him. He also pointed to his rehabilitation potential as Mr. Henry-Robinson is willing to work with Road 2 Freedom [5], a Tubman Community Organization Reintegration program for African/Caribbean identified Toronto youth.
IV. Circumstances of Mr. Henry-Robinson
[7] Mr. Henry-Robinson was 21 years old when he got into that cab with a loaded firearm. He is 22 now.
[8] The Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report (EPSR) prepared by the Sentencing and Parole Project (SPP) is very detailed. The Report informs me that Mr. Henry-Robinson was born in Toronto, the eldest of four siblings, to his mother, Ms. Tenicia Henry, who was 20 years old at the time of his birth. Her relationship with Mr. Henry-Robinson’s father was short-lived. Housing was transient from the beginning: living in an apartment in Flemington Park; moving in with his grandparents in the Victoria Park and Finch area; homeless for a period; housed in a shelter in Scarborough for nine months; and then different Toronto Housing locations.
[9] Mr. Henry-Robinson was in middle school when he, his siblings and his mother lived in the shelter. The experience traumatized him. He was embarrassed, had no privacy, and had to live with strangers.
[10] Although Mr. Henry-Robinson’s mother completed a college course and went on to complete her degree at York University, she was unable to obtain work in her field. Her journey has been one through poverty. There have been periods of dependance on social welfare, food banks, food vouchers, and the charity of family to survive. Though now the owner and operator of her own business as a cook and caterer, the experience and stigma of poverty permeates through Mr. Henry-Robinson’s perspective.
[11] His father was of no assistance. If anything, his absence, then his “flash appearances”, including an invitation to a strip club on the last occasion, only made Mr. Henry-Robinson more vulnerable to the bad influences of older men in the neighbourhood. Mr. Henry-Robinson does have a relationship with his younger brother (19) and sister (14) who have the same father, but less so with his youngest sibling (9) whose father Glen, has tried to mentor Mr. Henry-Robinson, to no avail. Ultimately, the pull of nefarious strangers has been stronger than that of his family.
[12] Mr. Henry-Robinson experienced the violence of the neighbourhood first-hand in his adolescence. He saw a friend shot. He perceived seeking help for such trauma would make him a ‘snitch’. He felt community policing in his area targeted him as a young Black man. His relationship with law enforcement is not positive.
[13] He has had academic challenges and required extra support. He was suspended, he felt targeted and surveilled more than his peers.
[14] However, Mr. Henry-Robinson has also experienced significant success as an athlete. He was identified and developed as a talented basketball player at an early age. He played competitively and was well treated by a coach who supported him on the court and off, practically, financially, emotionally, and even tried to mentor him during the difficult times. Mr. Henry-Robinson was so talented, he played for Team Canada. Basketball however was insufficient to save Mr. Henry-Robinson from involvement in the criminal justice system. His success was therefore derailed, both academically and athletically.
[15] Mr. Henry-Robinson, aside from requiring academic assistance, has no cognitive challenges, no mental diagnosis, no physical ailments, and no addictions. Throughout his life, Mr. Henry-Robinson has had the unwavering support of his mother. This support however has not enabled him to overcome the stigma of poverty, the sense of abandonment by his father, his susceptibility to peer pressure, and his exposure to gun-violence. The result has been that since he was 14 years old, Mr. Henry-Robinson has been in and out of jail for serious offences. At the time of this offence, he had been out of custody for what I estimate to have been about a year and half.
V. The Objectives of Sentencing
[16] The criminal law is a system of values and sentencing is meant to reflect and reinforce the basic values of our society. The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender pursuant to s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code. In this case, the offence of possessing a loaded restricted weapon is one of the most serious. The tragedy and devastation of gun violence in Toronto is well known and well documented.
[17] The sanction I impose is to have the following objectives:
- to denounce unlawful conduct
- to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences
- to separate offenders from society, where necessary
- to assist in rehabilitating offenders
- to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community
- to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.
[18] How much emphasis I place on each of these objectives will vary according to the nature of these offences and the circumstances of Mr. Henry-Robinson. I must consider and balance aggravating factors, mitigating factors and all relevant sentencing principles to fashion a fit sentence for Mr. Henry-Robinson.
Aggravating Factors
Criminal Record
[19] Mr. Henry-Robinson has a significant, related, and recent criminal record.
[20] He was convicted of 4 counts of Armed Robbery and one count of Robbery in October 2015 just before he turned 16 years old. He was sentenced to 16 months and 8 months supervision in the community with a 2-year probation.
[21] Only 8 months later, in June of 2016 he was again convicted of Armed Robbery and Fail to Comply with a Recognizance for which he was sentenced to 10 months, 20 days and 5 months 10 days under supervision, and another 2-year probation term.
[22] As an adult, Mr. Henry-Robinson was convicted of Possession of scheduled substance and possession of proceeds of crime for which he was sentenced with fines in November 2018, just before his 19th birthday.
[23] A month later, after he turned 19, on December 12, 2018, Mr. Henry-Robinson was convicted of Aggravated Assault for which he was sentenced to 381 days custody, after 279 days of pre-sentence credit.
[24] It is with this record, one where in addition to the probation and release orders prohibiting the possession of weapons, he was also on three prohibition orders that he comes before the Court in possession of a loaded restricted firearm.
Nature and Circumstances of the offences
[25] The most important aggravating factor is that Mr. Henry-Robinson was in possession of a loaded restricted firearm in a public place.
[26] He took his loaded firearm from his girlfriend’s residence with whom he’d had a dispute violent enough to injure his own hand significantly enough for it to “bleed profusely.” Anger and violence in a domestic dispute situation where one party is in possession of a loaded firearm is certainly a dangerously volatile situation.
[27] Ms. Reid is correct that the careless manner with which Mr. Henry-Robinson handled his loaded firearm is aggravating. He was transporting it wrapped in underwear, and he had left it in the footwell of the rear passenger seat of the taxi. Indeed, had the police not seen it, the loaded firearm would have been easily accessible to the public particularly the next passenger into the cab.
[28] Mr. DiClemente argues these offences are on the lower end of the ‘spectrum’ so to speak of firearms offences. I disagree.
[29] It is perilous to consider the possession of a loaded restricted firearm with a round in the chamber, and 6 more in the magazine – three of which were hollow point rounds, to be anything but dangerous. This firearm was set to shoot. Replin Road is a residential city street, with mid-rise buildings, townhomes, and single-family homes. Mr. Henry-Robinson handled this firearm with no appreciation or regard for the devastation and tragedy it is capable of inflicting.
[30] Moreover, Mr. Henry-Robinson was not new to the issue of weapons. He had prohibited from possessing a weapon the very first time he was convicted on October 28, 2015. He was prohibited again 8 months later when he was convicted on June 22, 2016. And yet again on December 20, 2018. He was on both a Probation Order and a Release Order to not be in possession of a weapon. It is disingenuous for him to tell the author of the EPSR that he “forgot about his condition until he got into trouble again.” [6].
Mitigating Factors
Guilty Plea
[31] Mr. Henry-Robinson has pled guilty and signaled his intention to do so quite early. This is a demonstration of remorse and accountability, even in the face of a strong Crown case. He specifically expressed remorse to the author of the EPSR and was aware of the “risks and destruction that comes with having a gun” [7].
[32] The plea also saves judicial resources when such resources are particularly strained because of the pandemic Covid-19 court closures.
Age
[33] Of significance is Mr. Henry-Robinson’s age. He is only 22. He is a very young man. Granted he is not a first offender, but he is youthful enough and his potential for rehabilitation is substantial. Granted for firearms offences, rehabilitation may not be the paramount guiding principle, but it is relevant and must be weighed in his favour, particularly for a healthy young man, who has the support of his family, no addictions, and no mental health issues. He has talent and skill that can lead to a successful and productive life. So much so, that his former coach Mr. Waithe reported that “there may still be opportunities to “play basketball even on an international stage, given that he has not yet reached his peak.” [8]
[34] In addition, there are organizations in the community that can address Mr. Henry-Robinson’s needs in age and culturally appropriate ways should he avail himself of this assistance. Counsel has provided information, though limited, about the Road 2 Freedom Reintegration. It supports Toronto youth ‘reintegration and rehabilitation through an African/Caribbean identified support system”. It provides “culturally reflective counselling, culturally specific intervention, pre-employment, and family counselling” which appreciates “behaviours that are conditioned through their childhood experiences”. [9]
Pre-Sentence Custody, Lockdowns, and Pandemic Conditions
[35] Mr. Henry-Robinson has been in custody since the day of his arrest, March 8, 2021. That is 15 months today. Both parties agree that should be enhanced pursuant to Summers on a 1.5 basis and he is to receive credit for 22.5 months.
[36] Of the 15 months Mr. Henry-Robinson has spent at the Toronto South Detention Center, from March 8, 2021, to March 31, 2022, there have been 242 lockdowns, both partial and full. Only 2 of those were for maintenance. “Staff Shortage” is the reason provided for 240 lockdowns, of which 33 of those are labeled a combination of “Isolation Protocols/Staff Shortage”. Given the pattern, I doubt there have been no ‘Staff Shortages’ since March 31 to today’s date, another 2.5 months.
[37] During lockdowns Mr. Henry-Robinson’s access to fresh air, the use of the telephone, showers, and visits from family and friends were restricted, if he had it at all. The Superintendent may cancel phone use and shower availability. When Mr. Henry-Robinson did have access to the phone and a shower during lockdowns, he may have to choose one or the other, as during lockdowns inmates only have such access for 30 minutes. [10]
[38] Mr. Henry-Robinson’s Affidavit speaks to these conditions and their effect on him. During lockdowns, Mr. Henry-Robinson feels “trapped and depressed”, he relives “traumatic events” in his life, and has great difficulty sleeping. He has been in segregation units and hears “screaming from other unwell inmates all day”. His access to showers and hygiene products is insufficient, and he is unable to “clean or disinfect inside” his cell during these lockdowns. [11]
[39] It is noteworthy these lockdowns for “Staff Shortages” are a human resources management issue. Courts have repeatedly articulated the detrimental effect of such conditions on those awaiting trial and that these conditions are punitive and inhumane, R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754 and R. v. Persad, 2020 ONSC 188.
[40] The evidence is that lockdowns have not been the exception, but rather the norm, during Mr. Henry-Robinson’s pre-sentence incarceration, as 242 days accounts for over 62% of the time he has spent in pre-sentence custody. As a result, this is a significant mitigating factor in determining a fit sentence for Mr. Henry-Robinson
[41] Another mitigating factor is the public health restrictions in congregate settings because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Toronto South Detention Centre labels 33 days of full and partial lockdowns because of “Isolation Protocols/Staff Shortages”. While in segregation, Mr. Henry-Robinson stated, “there is no cleaning of the cells at all; no cleaning products or masks are ever provided”. He contracted COVID-19 “twice while in custody” and still feels the after-effects. [12] This evidence was undisputed. All of society experienced limitations, restrictions and hardship during the pandemic, Mr. Henry-Robinson in custody, particularly so.
[42] Unlike the other mitigating factors, Counsel for Mr. Henry-Robinson submits that I find this factor, the harsh conditions experienced by his client in custody, to amount to the credit of 1 year, and reduce his client’s sentence by that amount.
[43] I decline however to make specific mathematical ‘credit’ calculations for these two mitigating factors of lockdown and Covid-19 conditions. As stated in R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 144 at paragraphs 52 and 53:
[52] Particularly punitive pretrial incarceration conditions can be a mitigating factor to be taken into account with the other mitigating and aggravating factors in arriving at the appropriate sentence from which the “Summers” credit will be deducted. Because the “Duncan” credit is one of the mitigating factors to be taken into account, it cannot justify the imposition of a sentence which is inappropriate, having regard to all of the relevant mitigating or aggravating factors.
[53] Often times a specific number of days or months are given as “Duncan” credit. While this quantification is not necessarily inappropriate, it may skew the calculation of the ultimate sentence. By quantifying the “Duncan” credit, only one of presumably several relevant factors, there is a risk the “Duncan” credit will be improperly treated as a deduction from the appropriate sentence in the same way as the “Summers” credit. If treated in that way, the “Duncan” credit can take on an unwarranted significance in fixing the ultimate sentence imposed: R v. J.B. (2004), 187 O.A.C. 307 (C.A.).
Social Context
[44] Mr. Henry-Robinson is a young Black man born and raised in some of Toronto’s most challenged neighbourhoods.
[45] I am mindful of the opening paragraph in R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680 which states:
[1] It is beyond doubt that anti-Black racism, including both overt and systemic anti-Black racism, has been, and continue to be, a reality in Canadian society, and in particular in the Greater Toronto Area. That reality is reflected in many social institutions, most notably the criminal justice system. It is equally clear that anti-Black racism can have a profound and insidious impact on those who must endure it on a daily basis…Anti-Black racism must be acknowledged, confronted, mitigated and, ultimately, erased.
[46] Moreover, “evidence of anti-Black racism and its impact on the specific offender can be an important consideration when determining the appropriate sentence” (Morris, at paragraph 87) and “[w]hereas no one individual should be completely absolved of their own responsibility when it comes to offending behaviour, the social realities that have produced or contributed to such behaviour can be acknowledged and serve to guide judicial decision making” (at paragraph 40).
[47] However, the Ontario Court of Appeal also stated ‘The gravity or seriousness of an offence is determined by its normative wrongfulness and the harm posed or caused by that conduct in the circumstances in which the conduct occurred. Accordingly, unlike when assessing the offender’s degree of personal responsibility, an offender’s experience with anti-Black racism does not impact on the seriousness or gravity of the offence” (Morris at paragraph 13).
[48] Mr. Henry-Robinson’s Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report provides extensive details about his life and history. It does so within the social context of anti-Black racism. He has grown up in an environment of poverty to the point of homelessness. His housing has been inconsistent. His neighbourhoods have been those that experience gun violence. He himself has been exposed to the tragedy of gun violence. He has been exposed to the targeted community policing of those communities. His peer group is one that lives in this environment and reacts to it. His participation in this peer group and his actions and criminal conduct has led to limitations on his education and employment. So much so, it derailed a promising athletic career. This cluster of conditions and experiences have shaped Mr. Henry-Robinson and contributed to his decision-making.
[49] I find Mr. Henry-Robinson’s experience with anti-Black racism and his social context did impact his choices, and it is a mitigating factor for my consideration.
[50] However, I do not accept the EPSR in its entirety. At certain points the Report stretches substantiated academic findings to apply to Mr. Henry-Robinson’s experience where there is only a tenuous connection or none. This is done regarding the documentation of Mr. Henry-Robinson educational experience and his perception of it for instance.
[51] The EPSR also does not address Mr. Henry-Robinson’s criminal antecedents and their very serious nature in a fulsome way, particularly as he has been involved with the criminal justice system since he was quite young. It focuses on his most recent experience of incarceration, rather than all his experiences of incarceration which have been many.
[52] Of note is the EPSR’s comments about why Mr. Henry-Robinson was in possession of a loaded firearm. It states Mr. Henry-Robinson had it “because the mentality that he adopted did not initially consider the destructive factors of gun violence, but rather supported what he believed to be the best method to protect himself. Within his social context, the fear of dying is a prevalent issue that he has to contend with and considered owning a gun to the best option.”
[53] Mr. Henry-Robinson was quite familiar with the destructive reality of gun-violence. “He also witnessed his friend being shot right in front of him and he described this event as traumatizing.” [13].
[54] Mr. Henry-Robinson was well prepared for his “for protection” purpose. His Smith and Wesson was loaded, with a round in the chamber and 6 more in the magazine. The damage he could inflict was of no little consequence for the purpose of protection, given 3 of the bullets were hollow point rounds, and his magazine had the capacity of 17.
[55] Justice Goldstein in R. v. Jama, 2018 ONSC 1252, in a case where that offender had actually been shot at in the back because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and had a firearm for self-defense, stated “even accepting those facts at face value, that is no justification for carrying a dangerous illegal handgun. As I, and others, have observed in numerous gun cases, Mr. Jama does not need a handgun for protection; rather, society needs protection from the likes of those who carry these weapons. I do not treat this as a mitigating factor” (paragraph 10). The Ontario Court of Appeal says the same in R. v. Filian-Jimenez, 2014 ONCA 601.
[56] I agree with Justice Goldstein. It is not a mitigating factor that Mr. Henry-Robinson chose to be part of the gun violence culture and carried a loaded firearm because he had safety concerns.
Sentencing Principles in Gun Possession Cases
[57] The most significant principle in cases of firearms, particularly loaded firearms is that of denunciation and deterrence as stated in R. v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15.
[58] Given Mr. Henry-Robinson’s age, taking responsibility by pleading guilty, family support, and potential, rehabilitation plays a meaningful role. [15]
[59] As already stated, there is authority that the harsh conditions Mr. Henry-Robinson has experienced while incarcerated is a mitigating factor in fashioning a fit sentence for him pursuant to Duncan, and as done in Persad, and R. v. Nsiah, 2017 ONSC 769, R. v. Innis, 2017 ONSC 2779, R. v. Nguyen, 2017 ONCJ 442, and R. v. DeSousa, 2016 ONSC 5493.
[60] Also, to be considered is Mr. Henry-Robinson’s social context as stated in R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680.
[61] Given the nature of the offences, and the criminal record, the 15 months enhanced to 22.5 months Mr. Henry- Robinson has served is insufficient to reflect the level of denunciation and deterrence required in this case even in the context of his mitigating factors.
[62] Mr. DiClemente submitted that should further incarceration be imposed that the Court consider a Conditional Sentence.
[63] The first question is to determine whether a Conditional Sentence is available. The test as articulated by the Supreme Court in R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5 at paragraph 77 states:
Once a sentencing judge has found the offender guilty of an offence for which there is no minimum term of imprisonment, has rejected both a probationary sentence and a penitentiary term as inappropriate, and is satisfied that the offender would not endanger the community, the judge must then consider whether a conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2
[64] There is no minimum term of custody required for these offences. The gravity of the offences I have determined renders time served, or a suspended sentence inappropriate. The circumstances here do indeed normally warrant a penitentiary term. In fact, given the nature of the offences and Mr. Henry-Robinson’s antecedents, that very well could be a fit sentence in addition to pre-sentence custody. In addition, I am not satisfied, at this time, that Mr. Henry-Robinson would not endanger the community. A conditional sentence in this case would not be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in suspended sentence. 718 to 718.2 and is not appropriate.
[65] Given the aggravating factors of the nature of the offences, how careless the loaded firearm was handled, and the criminal record, a fit sentence here could be well over 4 years.
[66] Conversely, given the mitigating factors of a guilty plea, age, social context and harsh pre-sentence conditions, a fit sentence could be under 3 years.
[67] However, neither of those two circumstances are before me here.
[68] Before me are very serious offences committed by a young man with a very challenged history – but one who has potential, talent, support. I have hope for you Mr. Henry-Robinson that you can turn your life around, you can change direction, you can heal from your traumas, and you can surround yourself with new and better options than those you have chosen before.
[69] Therefore, although the Crown is quite right that she is submitting a very reasonable position at the lower end of the spectrum, given all the relevant factors considered, with note of your history and your experience of very harsh custodial conditions, I will reduce the sentence somewhat, but it will still be a sentence that reflects the principles of denunciation and deterrence
VI. Sentence
[70] Mr. Henry-Robinson, I sentence you as follows:
Possession of a Loaded Restricted Firearm: 40 months – 22.5 months PSC = 17.5 months in jail Careless Storage: 8 months (TS) concurrent FTC-R: 6 months (TS) concurrent FTC- P: 6 months (TS) concurrent
[71] I order a s. 109 firearms prohibition for life.
[72] I order forfeiture of the firearm, the backpack with controlled substances, and all items seized at the time of arrest pursuant to s. 490.1(1).
[73] Section 95(1) is a secondary designated offence. I have considered the criminal record, the nature of the offence the minimal impact on the privacy and security of the person and determined that it will be in the best interest of the administration of justice to make the Order. I order you provide a sample of your DNA pursuant to 487.04.
[74] I waive the victim fine surcharge as it would cause undue hardship.
[75] Mr. Henry-Robinson, I hope you become part of basketball again, it may be able to change your life.
Released: June 8, 2022 Signed: Justice Cidalia C. G. Faria
[1] Exhibit 1: Criminal Record of Nakhari Henry-Robinson [2] Exhibit 5: Affidavit, Nakhari Henry-Robinson, April 25, 2022 [3] Exhibit 3: Toronto South Detention Centre Lockdown Summary, March 8, 2021 – March 31, 2022 [4] Exhibit 2a: Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report (EPSR) for Nakhari Henry-Robinson, March 4, 2022, by Jacquie Pemberton M.S.W., R.S.W. & Exhibit 2b: Jacquie Pemberton M.S.W., R. S.W., Curriculum Vitae [5] Exhibit 4: Road 2 Freedom, Reintegration, Tubman Community Organization Pamphlet [6] Exhibit 2a: EPSR at page 14 [7] Exhibit 2a: EPSR at page 14 [8] Exhibit 2a: EPSR at page 7 [9] Exhibit 4: Road 2 Freedom, Reintegration, Tubman Community Organization Pamphlet [10] Exhibit 3: TSDC Lockdown Summary at page 1 [11] Exhibit 5: Affidavit Nakhari Henry-Robinson, April 25, 2022, paragraphs 19, 20, 22 [12] Exhibit 5: Affidavit, Nakhari Henry-Robinson, April 25, 2022, paragraphs 24 and 25 [13] Exhibit 2a: EPSR at page 9 [14] R. v. Filian-Jimenez, 2014 ONCA 601 at para 2 [15] R. v. Borde, [2003] O.J. No 354 (C.A.)
