COURT FILE NO.: CR-18-1358 DATE: 20200309

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

Between:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Counsel: Mr. G. Hendry, for the Crown

And:

MUHAMMAD ASIF Counsel: Ms. U. Kancharla, for Mr. Asif

HEARD: January 17, 2020

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

Stribopoulos J.

Introduction

[1] A jury found Mr. Asif guilty of ten offences: possession of property obtained by crime of a value not exceeding $5,000; three counts of robbery; robbery using a firearm; possession of a firearm without a licence; and four counts of wearing a disguise to commit an indictable offence. After trial, Mr. Asif also pleaded guilty to a charge of breaching a weapons prohibition order.

[2] These reasons will proceed in four parts. Part one will provide a summary of Mr. Asif's offences. Part two will detail Mr. Asif's circumstances. Part three will summarize the positions of the parties. Finally, part four will turn to the governing legal principles and apply them to the circumstances of these offences and this offender to determine the appropriate sentence in this case.

I. Circumstances of the Offences

[3] At 8:10 p.m. on the evening of January 18, 2018, an Audi SUV was stolen from the owner's driveway, where he had left it running while inside his residence.

[4] Approximately two hours later, using that same vehicle, two masked assailants carried out a robbery at a technology store in Vaughan. Video surveillance captured the entirety of the robbery, which lasted a few minutes.

[5] The surveillance video shows two masked assailants entering the store, one carrying a piece of metal wrapped in fabric held as though it was a firearm, and the second brandishing a knife. The robbers broke glass display cases and stole various electronics before fleeing the store in the stolen SUV.

[6] At the time of the robbery, there was a lone employee in the store, along with a single customer. Soon after the robbers entered, the employee fled through the back of the store. The customer was blocked by the robbers when she tried to exit through the front door. The surveillance video shows her in a state of abject fear, cowering on the floor until the robbers finally fled.

[7] Later that evening, two masked assailants, using the same stolen SUV, wearing the same clothing, and brandishing the same weapons, robbed a Petro Canada gas station in North York of $176, followed by a Shell gas station in Mississauga of $110. Video surveillance recorded both gas station robberies. Each took place relatively quickly, with neither lasting more than a minute.

[8] The very next day, at 2:15 p.m. on Friday, January 19, 2018, two masked assailants arrived at an RBC bank in Brampton in the same stolen SUV used in the three robberies from the night before. The robbers entered the bank, one carrying a bag and the other a loaded sawed-off shotgun.

[9] At the time of the robbery, there were approximately 12 people in the bank, including customers and employees. The robber holding the sawed-off shotgun pointed it in the direction of a bank teller and demanded money. At the same time, the robber carrying the bag went behind the counter.

[10] While demanding money, the robber with the gun began to bang it on the teller's counter. The firearm discharged. Thankfully, the shot missed the teller. It struck the counter before damaging a cabinet and some equipment and leaving a fist-sized hole in the wall.

[11] Two bank employees then unlocked the central cash tray, which was carried away by the robber who had gone behind the counter. The two robbers then fled the bank in the stolen SUV. The robbers stole $2,392.45 from the RBC.

[12] The robbers fled to a nearby residential street, about a kilometre from the bank, where they quickly abandoned the stolen SUV and entered a waiting vehicle driven by a third person (Mr. Brar) before making their escape.

[13] The Crown presented a circumstantial case against Mr. Asif, consisting of text messages, phone records, cellular tower location evidence, and the testimony of Mr. Brar. Given the verdicts, the jury was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Asif was one of the two masked individuals responsible for the robberies at the technology store, the two gas stations, and the RBC bank.

[14] The jury also found Mr. Asif not guilty of discharging a firearm with the intent to endanger life. Based on the evidence, that verdict is consistent with the jury having a reasonable doubt as to whether the discharge of the shotgun during the RBC robbery was intentional.

[15] In pleading guilty to the charge of breaching the terms of a weapons prohibition order, Mr. Asif expressly acknowledged his participation in the RBC robbery involving a firearm while also being subject to a weapons prohibition.

II. Circumstances of the Offender

[16] Mr. Asif is 24 years old. He was born in Pakistan and immigrated to Canada with his parents when he was just four years old. He is the second oldest of four siblings.

[17] Mr. Asif comes from a loving and supportive family. He grew up in an environment free of abuse or neglect. His parents are both gainfully employed. Neither his parents nor his three siblings have had any involvement with the criminal justice system.

[18] Mr. Asif continues to enjoy a close relationship with his parents and his siblings. They describe him as a caring and supportive member of the family. The only apparent source of friction in their relationship would appear to be the family's frustration with Mr. Asif's repeated involvement in recent years with the criminal justice system.

[19] Mr. Asif graduated from high school. Although never diagnosed with a learning disability, he struggled academically. After high school, Mr. Asif has only had sporadic employment. He reports working in car maintenance for a year but losing that job when he went to jail.

[20] Mr. Asif does not appear to have any issues with alcohol or illicit substances. That said, he has been a regular user of marihuana since his mid-teens. He denies that his marihuana use is problematic. His parents feel differently, and they have encouraged him to stop using it.

[21] Although Mr. Asif did not have any involvement with the criminal justice system as a youth, he has been before the courts on 11 separate occasions over the past four-and-a-half years. He has 19 prior convictions, including four convictions for property-related offences, two assaults, discharging an air gun or pistol with intent, obstructing a police officer, being unlawfully at large, and ten convictions for breaching court orders. Mr. Asif has previously received short-sharp custodial sentences, as well as much longer sentences of imprisonment. In late 2016, he received a sentence that credited him for 12 months of pre-sentence custody.

[22] On January 18 and 19, 2018, Mr. Asif was in the midst of serving a 21-day intermittent sentence. Under that sentence, he was to surrender at the detention centre on the very evening of the RBC robbery.

[23] Mr. Asif was found guilty after trial of ten offences associated with the four robberies. As noted, he also pleaded guilty to breaching a weapons prohibition. In doing so, he expressly acknowledged his participation in the RBC robbery.

[24] At the end of the sentencing hearing, Mr. Asif read a statement he wrote in which he admitted making mistakes in the past, expressed his remorse, and pledged to the court and his parents that he would do better in the future.

III. Positions of the Parties

[25] There are certain matters concerning the sentencing of Mr. Asif that are not in dispute between the parties. As part of the sentence, the parties agree that the court must issue both a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition order.

[26] They also agree that a custodial sentence is necessary because Mr. Asif was found guilty of robbery using a firearm. In this case, the sawed-off shotgun is a prohibited firearm. As a result, a mandatory minimum five-year sentence applies. The parties disagree, however, on the length of the custodial sentence the court should impose.

[27] On behalf of the Crown, Mr. Hendry submits that there are numerous aggravating factors in this case. These include: Mr. Asif's lengthy criminal record; the planned and somewhat sophisticated nature of these crimes; the fact that each of the robberies involved weapons, including a loaded firearm that discharged during the RBC robbery; and the fact that Mr. Asif was at large in the community while serving an intermittent sentence when he committed his offences.

[28] Emphasizing this collection of aggravating factors, while also acknowledging the need to take totality into account, Mr. Hendry submits that the court should impose a global sentence of 12-years imprisonment. He argues that given Mr. Asif’s very serious crimes, only a sentence of that duration will adequately serve the objectives of deterrence and denunciation.

[29] On behalf of Mr. Asif, defence counsel submits that a global sentence of six years imprisonment is appropriate. Ms. Kancharla makes three principal submissions in support of her position. First, while conceding that Mr. Asif is not entitled to the full mitigation of a guilty plea, she submits that his admission of responsibility for his crimes during the sentencing hearing reflects positively on his prospects for rehabilitation. Second, she argues that a six-year sentence is within the range of sentences for these offences. Finally, she reminds the court that Mr. Asif is a relatively youthful offender facing his first penitentiary sentence.

[30] Defence counsel submits that Mr. Asif is entitled to credit at the ordinary rate for his time spent in pre-sentence custody. Further, she argues that there should be some enhanced credit for the periods during which Mr. Asif was subject to lockdown.

IV. The Appropriate Sentence

[31] Sentencing is not an exact science. To arrive at the appropriate sentence, the court must have regard to the purpose, objectives, and principles of sentencing while also taking due account of the circumstances of the offence(s) and the offender.

a) The Purpose, Objectives, and Principles of Sentencing

[32] The "fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society" and to contribute "to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society": Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s. 718.

[33] Achieving these purposes requires the imposition of "just sanctions" that reflect one or more of the traditional sentencing objectives. These include denunciation, general and specific deterrence, separation of offenders from society, rehabilitation, reparation to victims, and promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and the community: Criminal Code, ss. 718(a)-(f).

[34] The fundamental principle of sentencing is that the sentence imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender: Criminal Code, s. 718.1. In other words, the sentence must fit both the seriousness of the crime and the offender's level of moral blameworthiness in its commission: R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 433, at paras. 36-39.

[35] Proportionality is a function of the circumstances of the offence and the offender, in comparison to sentences imposed in the past on similarly situated offenders. As the Supreme Court of Canada explained, "Individualization and parity of sentences must be reconciled for a sentence to be proportionate": R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 1089, at para. 53.

b) The Range of Sentences for Robbery

[36] The range of sentences available for robbery reflects the varying forms the crime may take. Absent the use of a firearm; robbery does not carry a minimum sentence: Criminal Code, s. 344(1). The use of a firearm changes things, attracting a mandatory minimum sentence of four years of imprisonment: Criminal Code, s. 344(1)(a.1).

[37] The minimum sentence increases to five years through the use of a restricted or prohibited firearm or the use of any firearm if the robbery is also committed at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization: Criminal Code, s. 344(1)(a)(i). In those same circumstances, for a second or subsequent offence, the mandatory minimum sentence increases to seven years of imprisonment: Criminal Code, s. 344(1)(a)(ii).

[38] With or without the use of a firearm, robbery carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment: Criminal Code, s. 344(1)(a), (a.1), and (b).

[39] Depending on the circumstances of the offence and the offender, the range of sentences for robbery can vary widely from a non-custodial sentence to life imprisonment: see, for example, R. v. Nonomura, [2014] O.J. No. 5834 (C.J.) (imposing a suspended sentence); R. v. Fragoso, 2008 ONCA 483 (upholding a life sentence).

[40] Employees of small commercial establishments like variety stores and gas stations, which are open late at night, have cash on hand and often work alone, are especially vulnerable to robbery. Given this, when sentencing offenders who target such victims, deterrence and denunciation are the preeminent sentencing objectives. The Court of Appeal has noted that such robberies "will attract heavy sentences": R. v. Lewis, 2009 ONCA 792, at para. 3.

[41] In such cases, even for youthful first offenders, absent other aggravating factors, the Court of Appeal has endorsed sentences of between one year and two years less one day of imprisonment: see, for example, R. v. Drisdelle, [2002] O.J. No. 3901 (C.A.) (one-year); R. v. Noor, 2009 ONCA 795 (18 months); R. v. Clarke, 2014 ONCA 296 (two years less one day).

[42] Robberies involving firearms have historically resulted in significant penitentiary sentences. That was the case long before Parliament legislated a mandatory minimum sentence for robbery with a firearm: see R. v. Sullivan (1972), 9 C.C.C. (2d) 70 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 70 (noting, almost fifty-years ago, that: “10 years is a proper sentence in the normal case of armed robbery”). Robbery with a firearm is an especially grave offence because of "the threat to human life that is represented even by the accidental discharge of the firearm": R. v. Cadieux (1983), 1 O.A.C. 115 (C.A.), at p. 118.

[43] In Cadieux, the Court of Appeal emphasized the offender's "extreme youth" in imposing a four-year sentence, but observed that for a more mature offender, even with no prior criminal record, "a lengthy penitentiary sentence" would be required: Cadieux, at p. 18. For example, in R. v. Sanko, [1998] O.J. No. 1026 (Gen. Div.), a 24-year-old offender pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery with a firearm, possession of two stolen vehicles used in perpetrating each of the robberies, and one count of possession of a prohibited weapon used to commit the robberies. The offender held up a gas station and a fast food outlet with a sawed-off shotgun. The offender came from a broken home and had a lengthy criminal record. The Court of Appeal ultimately substituted a sentence totalling six years of imprisonment in place of the eight-year sentence initially imposed: R. v. Sanko, [2000] O.J. No. 3694 (C.A.).

[44] The case law also recognizes that banks are especially tempting targets for would-be robbers because they have large amounts of cash on hand. Given this, the need for general deterrence has led the Court of Appeal to impose lengthy penitentiary sentences for bank robberies, even for those involving imitation rather than actual firearms: see, for example, R. v. Marsh, 2008 ONCA 374 (six years for bank robbery using imitation firearm); R. v. Nembhard, 2010 ONCA 420 (seven years for robbery of one bank and attempted robbery of another, both using an imitation firearm and disguise); R. v. Abdi, 2014 ONCA 520 (seven-and-a-half years for four bank robberies involving an imitation firearm).

[45] Bank robberies involving firearms, even absent physical injuries, can result in double-digit penitentiary sentences: see, for example, R. v. Caceres, 2012 ONSC 5214 (ten-year sentence imposed on two youthful offenders who had prior criminal records who pleaded guilty to five bank robberies involving loaded firearms).

c) The Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

[46] In determining the appropriate sentence, the court must consider any relevant aggravating or mitigating factors relating to the offence or the offender: Criminal Code, s. 718.2(a). Doing so assists in ensuring that the sentence imposed is proportionate: R. v. Priest (1996), 30 O.R. (3d) 538 (C.A.), at pp. 297-298.

[47] In my view, there are several significant aggravating factors in this case.

[48] First, there is Mr. Asif's prior criminal record. Over the past four-and-a-half years, Mr. Asif has managed to amass an unenviable criminal record. He has been before the courts on 11 separate occasions, including for property offences and crimes of violence. He has received lengthy custodial sentences, which have failed to deter him from continuing to engage in criminal behaviour. The offences for which this court is sentencing him reflect the culmination of a troubling pattern of increasingly serious criminality.

[49] Second, these robberies involved planning and a degree of sophistication. The evidence establishes that the idea of committing these robberies originated with Mr. Asif. He also played a leadership role in enlisting and organizing his accomplices, including a young person. There were also several deliberate steps taken to prevent Mr. Asif and his accomplices from being identified, including using a stolen vehicle to carry out all four robberies and the wearing of face coverings and gloves.

[50] Third, although there was no charge of forcible confinement, Mr. Asif and his accomplice forcibly confined the customer who was present during the comparatively more prolonged robbery at the technology store. The video recording from that robbery shows that the customer was in a state of considerable distress throughout her ordeal.

[51] Fourth, at the time of these offences, Mr. Asif was serving an intermittent sentence. An offender serving such a sentence is subject to a probation order that requires him to keep the peace and be of good behaviour: Criminal Code, ss. 732(1)(b), 732.1(2)(a). By committing these crimes, Mr. Asif brazenly disregarded that condition. In doing so, he continued his troubling pattern of ignoring court orders.

[52] Finally, the most significant aggravating factor undoubtedly is the discharge of the sawed-off shotgun during the RBC robbery. Of course, the jury had a reasonable doubt about whether the gun was fired intentionally. Nevertheless, this does not lessen Mr. Asif's culpability for choosing to use a loaded firearm to rob a bank.

[53] A loaded firearm, when combined with the unpredictability and volatility of a bank robbery, is a recipe for disaster. The decision to rob a bank with a loaded firearm reflects an utter indifference to public safety. In the circumstances, it is blind luck that no one was seriously injured or killed when the gun went off while being slammed on the teller's counter. For the many victims in the bank that afternoon, the sound of the gun firing would have undoubtedly produced a sense of sheer terror.

[54] At the same time, I am of the view that there are at least a couple of mitigating factors in this case. First, I recognize that at 24 years of age, Mr. Asif is still relatively youthful. As a result, despite his criminal record, there remains at least some hope for his rehabilitation.

[55] Second, Mr. Asif's eventual acknowledgment of responsibility for the RBC robbery at the sentencing hearing, along with his expression of remorse, is deserving of some consideration in mitigation. Hopefully, his professed remorse is genuine. If it is, this, combined with his relative youth, also speaks to his potential for rehabilitation.

d) The Appropriate Sentences

[56] In determining the appropriate sentences, I have considered the purpose, objectives, and principles of sentencing. The range of sentences for robberies of the kind committed by Mr. Asif has also supplied essential guidance. Finally, I have given careful consideration to both the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case.

[57] If Mr. Asif were sentenced separately for each of his offences, the robbery at the technology store would warrant a sentence of two years of imprisonment. Each of the gas station robberies would be deserving of sentences of eighteen months of imprisonment. The robbery at the RBC, involving not only the use of a loaded firearm but also its accidental discharge, would result in an eight-year sentence. These are all separate crimes. Therefore, the sentences for each should run consecutively.

[58] Although many of the other offences associated with the four robberies would attract concurrent sentences, possessing property obtained by crime (the stolen vehicle) and breaching a weapons prohibition are each distinct crimes. As such, given Mr. Asif’s related criminal record, they would each warrant consecutive sentences of six months of imprisonment.

[59] If the court imposed the appropriate individual sentences for all of these offences, the result would be a total sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment.

e) The Principle of Totality

[60] In imposing consecutive sentences, the court must ensure that the combined sentence is not unduly long or harsh: Criminal Code, s. 718.2(c). The global sentence must not exceed the offender’s overall culpability. It must be just and appropriate: R. v. M.(C.A.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at pp. 531-532.

[61] A 14-year sentence would be crushing for Mr. Asif. It would fail to take adequate account of his relative youth. It would also likely serve to extinguish any hope that remains for his rehabilitation. Finally, such a lengthy sentence would exceed Mr. Asif's overall culpability for his role in committing these crimes.

[62] After giving careful consideration to all of the circumstances, I have concluded that a global sentence of nine years of imprisonment is proportionate to the gravity of these crimes and Mr. Asif's degree of responsibility in their commission. In my view, this represents a just and appropriate sentence in all of the circumstances of this case.

f) Pre-Sentence Custody

[63] Since his arrest, Mr. Asif has spent 745 days in pre-sentence custody. There is nothing in the circumstances disentitling him to the ordinary rate of 1.5 days of credit for each day spent in pre-sentence custody: Criminal Code, ss. 719(3), 719(3.1); R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575, at para. 71. As a result, Mr. Asif should receive three years and one month of credit towards his sentences because of his time spent in pre-sentence custody.

[64] Evidence filed on the sentencing hearing also establishes that up to the date of the sentencing hearing (January 17, 2020), Mr. Asif had been locked down in his cell for 76 days. According to the records filed, these lockdowns were the result of staffing shortages and re-deployments, searches, contraband issues, unscheduled maintenance, and repairs. The records reveal that more than half of the lockdowns were attributable to staffing shortages. I find this troubling.

[65] Periodic lockdowns are somewhat unavoidable in any detention facility – for example, those resulting from security incidents or where inclement weather causes an unexpected staff shortage. In recent years, the courts have repeatedly raised concerns about prisoners held in remand facilities in this province being subject to lockdown in their cells due to persistent staffing shortages. Lockdowns resulting from chronic understaffing are concerning because they are preventable.

[66] The government must devote adequate resources to the operation of remand centres. It is required to ensure that the conditions in these facilities comport with those basic standards expected in a modern constitutional democracy like Canada. Anyone subject to incarceration is entitled to humane treatment, especially so in remand facilities where prisoners are mostly awaiting trial and are presumed to be innocent.

[67] Judges have described the continued prevalence of this problem in increasingly alarming terms. They have characterized the situation as "shocking": R. v. Oksem, 2019 ONSC 6283, at para. 28; "unacceptable": R. v. Sanchez, 2019 ONSC 5272, at para. 53; R. v. Elmi, 2017 ONCJ 830, at para. 38; a form of "degradation": R. v. Charley, 2019 ONSC 6490, at para. 67; "close to unconscionable": R. v. Nguyen, 2017 ONCJ 442, at para. 39; "regressive": R. v. Nsiah, 2017 ONSC 769, at para. 19; contrary to "minimum standards established by the United Nations": R. v. Inniss, 2017 ONSC 2779, at para. 38; "inexcusable": R. v. Hussain-Marca, 2017 ONSC 4033, at para. 43; and "oppressive": R. v. Doyle, 2015 ONCJ 492, at para. 53.

[68] Recently, after a careful survey of the many judicial pronouncements calling out this problem, Schreck J. concluded that its persistence, despite repeated condemnation by the judiciary, compels the inescapable conclusion that these “inhumane conditions” are "a form of deliberate state misconduct": R. v. Persad, 2020 ONSC 188, at para. 34.

[69] The records filed at the sentencing hearing indicate that when in lockdown, Mr. Asif was held in a cell measuring just 15 feet by 7.5 feet, with a 9-foot ceiling. One might think the court would be entitled to draw an inference that being locked down in such a confined space for a day at a time, and sometimes longer, would be an extraordinarily unpleasant experience even for the most resilient person. Nevertheless, more is necessary before such conditions can be considered in mitigation of sentence.

[70] The Court of Appeal has recognized that “particularly harsh presentence incarceration conditions can provide mitigation apart from and beyond the 1.5 credit referred to in s. 719(3.1)": R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754, at para. 6. But to obtain such mitigation, it has required there to be "evidence of any adverse effect" on the person "flowing from the locked down conditions": Duncan, at para. 6; see also R. v. Henry, 2016 ONCA 873, at para. 9; R. v. Ledinek, 2018 ONCA 1017, at para. 12.

[71] Records from the detention centres where Mr. Asif was subject to pre-sentence custody were made exhibits during the sentencing hearing. However, there was no evidence (viva voce or affidavit) regarding any adverse effects on Mr. Asif flowing from the lockdown conditions. Absent such evidence, binding precedent prevents me from giving Mr. Asif’s time spent in lockdown any consideration in mitigation of his sentence.

Conclusion

[72] In conclusion, I sentence Mr. Asif to nine years of imprisonment. In doing so, I must apportion this period to the various offences for which sentences are being imposed: R. v. Jewell, [1995] O.J. No. 2213 (C.A.), at p. 279; R. v. R.B., 2014 ONCA 840, at para. 8; R. v. J.S., 2018 ONCA 675, at para. 66. Accordingly, Mr. Asif is sentenced as follows:

• Possession of property obtained by crime (count 1) - 3 months of imprisonment, consecutive;
• Robbery at the technology store (count 2) - 18 months of imprisonment, consecutive;
• Covering his face to rob the technology store (count 3) – 6 months of imprisonment, concurrent to count 2;
• Robbery at the Petro Canada gas station (count 4) - 12 months of imprisonment, consecutive;
• Covering his face to rob the Petro Canada gas station (count 5) - 6 months of imprisonment, concurrent to count 4;
• Robbery at the Shell gas station (count 6) - 12 months of imprisonment, consecutive;
• Covering his face to rob the Shell gas station (count 7) - 6 months of imprisonment, concurrent to count 6;
• Robbery using a firearm (count 8) – 5 years of imprisonment, consecutive;
• Possession of a firearm without a licence (count 9) – 1 year of imprisonment, concurrent to count 8;
• Covering his face to rob the RBC (count 11) – 6 months of imprisonment, concurrent to count 8; and
• Breaching a weapons prohibition order – 3 months of imprisonment, consecutive.

[73] As noted, Mr. Asif is to receive credit for three years and one month spent in pre-sentence custody. Credit for that time will go towards his sentences on counts 8, 9 and 11. As a result, he has now served his sentences for counts 9 and 11. Concerning his sentence for count 8, the offence of robbery with a firearm, his sentence going forward will be 23 months of imprisonment.

[74] In summary, for counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, and for breaching a weapons prohibition, Mr. Asif's total sentences going forward will be five years and eleven months of imprisonment.

[75] In addition, the following ancillary orders shall also issue. First, there will be an order directing the taking of a sample of Mr. Asif's blood for the inclusion of his DNA profile in the National DNA Databank.

[76] Further, there will be an order prohibiting Mr. Asif from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance for the rest of his life.

Signed: Stribopoulos J. Released: March 9, 2020