R. v. Persaud

Court Information

Court: Ontario Court of Justice

Before: Justice M.H. Bloomenfeld

Heard: April 11, 2014 and May 15, 2014

Sentence Imposed: June 12, 2014

Written Reasons Released: July 3, 2014

Parties and Counsel

Crown: B. Moreira

Defence: C. Hanson (for the accused Randy Persaud)

BLOOMENFELD J.:

INTRODUCTION

[1] In the early morning hours of December 8, 2013, Randy Persaud attempted to murder Wayne Rochester by shooting him in the face with a sawed-off shotgun. Mr. Persaud was almost immediately sorry for what he had done, and contacted his youth worker that night to confess and to say that he was suicidal. The youth worker called the police, who identified Mr. Persaud and made arrangements with his lawyer for Mr. Persaud to turn himself in at 4:00 that afternoon. Mr. Persaud gave the police an inculpatory statement and was charged with several offences, including attempted murder with a firearm, contrary to s. 239 of the Criminal Code.

[2] On April 11, 2014, after a judicial pretrial and before any preliminary inquiry or trial dates could be set, Mr. Persaud pleaded guilty to attempted murder. The case was adjourned to May 15, 2014, to allow for the preparation of a pre-sentence report and to enable counsel to formulate their sentencing submissions. The Crown sought a sentence of ten years' imprisonment. Defence counsel submitted that the applicable sentencing principles and objectives could be satisfied with a sentence of three to four years. The distance between their viewpoints reflects the striking contrast between the gravity of the offence and the mitigating elements of Mr. Persaud's personal circumstances. Having thoroughly considered and weighed all of the facts, the information in the pre-sentence report, the jurisprudence, the submissions of counsel, Mr. Persaud's comments and the applicable sentencing principles, I have determined that the appropriate sentence in this case is the equivalent of 8 ½ years' imprisonment.

Circumstances of the Offence

[3] On December 7, 2013, Mr. Persaud and his brother went out to a pub for the evening. At the pub, they met and started drinking with some people they knew, including the victim, Mr. Rochester. After the pub, the group went to the apartment of Tora Grayer to continue to drink and socialize. At Ms. Grayer's apartment, Mr. Persaud and Mr. Rochester got into an altercation. Mr. Persaud felt that Mr. Rochester was harassing him and not for the first time.

[4] As a result of the altercation and perceived harassment, Mr. Persaud left Ms. Grayer's apartment. He went home and dug up a sawed-off shotgun that had been buried in his backyard. The gun was loaded with birdshot. Mr. Persaud then called a friend to pick him up and had the friend drive him to the rear of Mr. Rochester's home where he waited for Mr. Rochester to come outside. At about 3:30 in the morning, Mr. Rochester emerged to walk his dog in the parking lot beside his home. As he walked, he passed a parked mini-van. Mr. Persaud, who had been hidden between the mini-van and another automobile, rose up and fired the shotgun at Mr. Rochester's head.

[5] The shotgun pellets grazed the side of Mr. Rochester's head and knocked him to the ground. Mr. Rochester started bleeding from lacerations to his forehead and the side of his face, but was able to get up and chase Mr. Persaud. Mr. Persaud got back into the same car that he had arrived in and fled the scene, leaving the gun behind. Mr. Rochester returned to Ms. Grayer's apartment. Ms. Grayer found the firearm and took it to the police. She provided a description of Mr. Persaud to the police, having seen him being chased by Mr. Rochester.

[6] Mr. Rochester sustained lacerations to his forehead and the side of his face. He was taken to the hospital and was treated and released that night. He declined to make a victim impact statement, and I am advised by the Crown that he has made a full recovery.

[7] The next day, Mr. Persaud called his youth worker, Andrea Misener. Ms. Misener works with at-risk youth and had been Mr. Persaud's worker for three years. Mr. Persaud told Ms. Misener that he had shot somebody and done something bad the previous night. The muzzle flash from the gun had burned Mr. Persaud's right hand and the kickback had struck him in the forehead, leaving a mark. He texted photographs of these injuries to Ms. Misener. Mr. Persaud also indicated to Ms. Misener that he was suicidal. Fearing for Mr. Persaud's life, Ms. Misener felt compelled to contact the authorities.

Circumstances of the Offender

[8] Mr. Persaud was only 19 years old when he committed this offence and is still only 19 years old. His life has been marked with significant turbulence, challenge and dysfunction. His father was deported twice to Guyana for drug trafficking, the second time when Mr. Persaud was about four years old. He was raised primarily by his mother, Tara Mercer. Ms. Mercer had three other children, Mr. Persaud's two older brothers and his 14-year-old half-sister. Ms. Mercer worked several jobs to support her family, mainly factory and labour work. Her mother helped look after Mr. Persaud and his siblings, especially when Ms. Mercer had to work the night shift. In addition to the challenge of supporting four children, Ms. Mercer had had turbulent relationships that included physical abuse and other conflicts. At one point, she lived in a shelter. Nevertheless, according to Ms. Misener, Mr. Persaud was never left alone without an adult because his mother, aunt or grandmother were always at home. Further, Mr. Persaud never lacked necessities, even though the family did not have much money.

[9] Mr. Persaud and his two brothers all had some involvement in the criminal justice system. His eldest brother never went to high school, but now works fulltime and is in a stable relationship and raising two children. The middle brother completed high school but was described by the family as introverted and needing Mr. Persaud's protection. Ms. Mercer told the author of the pre-sentence report that Mr. Persaud had no positive male role model growing up. He now has more telephone contact with his father, but only since he was arrested for this offence.

[10] In addition to the trauma and dysfunction in his home environment, Mr. Persaud witnessed a deadly shooting in 2010 at a church basement party. He refused to cooperate with the police investigation and no suspect was ever apprehended. Mr. Persaud says that he is still frightened because he was a witness. Further, Mr. Persaud told the author of the pre-sentence report that he had grappled with bullying on social media and through graffiti because he had been seen shaking hands with a police officer.

[11] This is also not the first time that Mr. Persaud has found himself on the wrong side of the law. He has a youth record with findings of guilt from three years ago for assault causing bodily harm, weapons dangerous, failing to comply with an undertaking and failing to comply with probation. For those offences he was sentenced to a six-month custody and supervision order plus probation. The weapon involved in the prior offences was a pellet gun. It is significant that, even though Mr. Persaud has only one set of previous findings of guilt, his past criminal conduct also involved violence and the use of a weapon.

[12] Mr. Persaud has made efforts over the years to pursue an education and a pro-social lifestyle. Unfortunately, he has always encountered setbacks, many of his own making. He began receiving school suspensions in grade school for fighting. In grade 8, Mr. Persaud was referred to Ms. Misener, due to poor school attendance, academic challenges and possible gang involvement. Until he committed this attempted murder, Ms. Misener believed that Mr. Persaud had been making gains towards a crime-free lifestyle. When he was serving his youth sentence in open custody, Mr. Persaud began applying himself academically and successfully completed a variety of rehabilitative programs. Unfortunately, he was unable to sustain this momentum when he returned to the community. He has never completed any high school credits or job skills training. Mr. Persaud attended college in Oshawa between November 2012 and January 2013, supporting himself with Ontario Student Assistance Program ("OSAP") loans. Unfortunately, he then became ill and began collecting social assistance to pay the rent and failed to earn any type of diploma or degree. At the time that the pre-sentence report was prepared, Mr. Persaud said that he was several thousands of dollars in debt to OSAP, a credit card company, the phone company and the government.

[13] Mr. Persaud's employment history appeared to follow the same pattern as his educational efforts. When motivated, he was capable of working hard and had held a number of part time or temporary jobs, some of which had been offered by friends and relatives. Once his motivation waned, the employment evaporated.

[14] Despite the turbulence in his life, Mr. Persaud has garnered and maintained love and extensive and loyal support within his family, circle of friends and community. The bond between himself and his mother was evident when he entered his guilty plea. His one request upon leaving the courtroom was to be able to hug her. On the day of Mr. Persaud's sentencing hearing, twenty-five people filled the courtroom on his behalf, including his mother, his aunt, his grandmother and even a city councillor. Mr. Persaud's counsel advised that Ms. Mercer was so deeply affected by her son's commission of this crime that she attempted suicide in January, consuming an overdose of Tylenol and drinking Pine Sol household cleaner. As a result, she was hospitalized for six weeks and has undergone surgery. Still, she was in the courtroom to support Mr. Persaud. Mr. Persaud's grandmother has had two heart attacks and three strokes since January, yet she was in the courtroom for Mr. Persaud as well. The bond between Mr. Persaud and those who love him is palpable and strong.

[15] Mr. Persaud took advantage of the public courtroom forum to express his remorse for this crime and to apologize to the victim and his family. He first asked to apologize on the date of his guilty plea. Then, at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, Mr. Persaud said, "I thank you for my family and my friends that are here to support me today. I want to apologize to the victim and his family for what I've done. I'm 19 years old. I'm a young man. I have a whole life ahead of me. I'm taking responsibility for the actions I chose to make on December 8th. I'm truthfully wrong for what I did. I'm asking God and yourself, Your Honour, for a second chance in life. I'm really sorry for what I've done, Your Honour, and I'm mentally depressed every day for what I've done. My mind cannot function and cope for what I've done. I know that I've done a very big mistake in life and all I'm asking for is a second chance. Thank you, you guys for being here today, I really appreciate that." In my view, Mr. Persaud's remarks poignantly summarize his youth, his gratitude for the devotion of his family, his recognition of the gravity of his crime, his remorse, his acknowledgment of responsibility and the beginnings of an appreciation of the consequences that he now faces.

RANGE OF SENTENCE

[16] Over the past decade, courts at all levels in this province have repeatedly emphasized the extreme danger that gun violence poses to our community and the vital and paramount importance of denunciation and deterrence in sentences for offences involving firearms. Those statements of principle assume even more force when the crime is attempted murder. A sampling of the many cases in which significant sentences of imprisonment have been imposed in order to convey as clearly and emphatically as possible the message that attempted murder or violence with guns must be denounced, renounced and deterred includes:

R. v. Brown

The court of appeal upheld a life sentence for attempted murder with a firearm where the accused had shot the victim six times at point blank range in a parking lot, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down. Whereas Mr. Persaud only shot his victim once and, thankfully, caused only superficial lacerations that healed fully, Mr. Brown discharged his firearm six times and the victim was badly and permanently injured. In a chilling parallel to the instant case, the shooting in Brown was unprovoked and motivated by retaliation for a "minor slight." Like Mr. Persaud, Mr. Brown was youthful. He also had a young child to support. Unlike Mr. Persaud, Mr. Brown was a first offender. He also did not demonstrate remorse in the way that Mr. Persaud has. The court commented that "As this court has repeatedly said, the use of guns in public places in Toronto cries out for lengthy sentences."

R. v. Gordon

The court of appeal upheld the sentence of 10 years' imprisonment for attempted murder with a firearm. Mr. Gordon was angry at the victim because the victim had punched him in an argument about the price of marijuana. The altercation took place outside at night in front of a café. Mr. Gordon left the scene and, like Mr. Persaud, returned with a sawed-off shotgun. He fired three blasts from the shotgun, missing his intended victim but inadvertently striking three innocent bystanders. All of the three victims were injured and one of them lost the sight in his eye. Mr. Gordon was youthful and had a criminal record, but only for non-violent offences. His case is distinguishable from Mr. Persaud's in that he fired three times, not once, wounded three victims and caused at least one devastating and permanent injury. As well, Mr. Gordon did not display remorse and his conviction followed a trial.

R. v. Guedez-Infante

The court of appeal upheld the offender's sentence of 10 years' imprisonment for attempted murder with a firearm. Mr. Guedez-Infante had been kicked out of a bar but went back in with a loaded pistol in his pants pocket. When he was pushed out of the bar for the second time, he went inside again and shot the victim at close range. The victim's bowel was badly and irreparably damaged. Like Mr. Persaud, Mr. Guedez-Infante was youthful. Although he did not benefit from the mitigating factor of remorse that Mr. Persaud has demonstrated, he had no criminal record, whereas Mr. Persaud comes to court with prior findings of guilt for weapons and violence.

These cases provide material examples of the assertion made by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Bellissimo, and reiterated recently in R. v. Jefferson, that the general range for serious, gun-related offences is between seven and eleven years' imprisonment. Collectively, these authorities establish at least a partial digest of aggravating and mitigating factors that situate individual firearms cases within that range, including the following:

Aggravating factors:

• the gravity of the offence for which the firearm is used (with attempted murder being the most serious such offence, other than murder);
• the relative sophistication of the execution of the offence;
• the number of victims;
• the infliction of serious injury or trauma;
• the existence of a criminal record, especially a related one;
• whether the offender was bound by any firearms prohibitions at the time;
• whether the offence was committed in a public place.

Mitigating Factors:

• remorse shown by a guilty plea;
• the youthfulness of the offender;
• the potential for rehabilitation;
• the lack of any serious injury or trauma.

[17] Counsel for Mr. Persaud tendered several cases in support of his able submissions advocating a three- to four-year penitentiary sentence. I have reviewed each of those cases carefully and note that they are all dramatically distinguishable from the circumstances here. First of all, many of the defence cases originate from other jurisdictions. I do not suggest that cases from other provinces or territories cannot provide a useful rubric for establishing an appropriate range of sentence or offer persuasive statements of principle or policy. In this instance, however, none of the extra-provincial jurisprudence bears sufficient factual similarity to the instant case to displace or reduce the relevance of the Ontario authorities tendered by the Crown. The five Ontario cases were:

R. v. Roud

Mrs. Roud was a first offender who assisted her husband, Mr. Roud, in the shooting and attempted murder of their 12-year-old son. In reducing her sentence from six years' imprisonment to two years, the Court of Appeal noted that Mrs. Roud had been substantially dominated by her husband, justifiably frightened of him and had a tragic background. Mr. Roud's sentence of nine years was upheld. There are no useful factual parallels between Mrs. Roud's case and the instant case.

R. v. Boucher

Mr. Boucher was convicted of trying to kill his estranged wife by hitting her with his car. He was 53 years old and had no criminal record. He was also intoxicated and depressed when he committed the offence. At trial, he was sentenced to two years' less a day in the reformatory (on top of 14 months' pre-sentence custody), plus probation. The Court of Appeal observed that this sentence was too lenient to meet the objectives of denunciation and deterrence and held that a fit sentence would have been six years' imprisonment. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that Mr. Boucher had already completed the custodial portion of the sentence at the time of the appeal and had made no efforts to contact the complainant, the Court of Appeal declined to reincarcerate him. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, other than to increase the length of the probation order. Defence counsel contends that Mr. Boucher and Mr. Persaud present similar factual circumstances in that they both made "clumsy" attempts at the attempted murder and neither victim was significantly injured. Mr. Boucher drove after the victim and purposely knocked her car. The collision caused the victim's car to spin but she was still able to drive away uninjured. Mr. Persaud lay in wait for his victim and then ambushed him and shot him in the head. Because the shot was poorly aimed and inexpertly executed, his victim suffered transient injuries and Mr. Persaud himself was hurt. There is no compelling or helpful factual analogy between these two cases.

R. v. Cham

Mr. Cham was convicted of attempted murder, aggravated assault and uttering a death threat, after he injured the victim and apparently threatened him with a machete during an altercation. Mr. Cham was youthful and had no criminal record. The Court of Appeal upheld his six-year penitentiary sentence. This case has no factual relevance to the instant case.

R. v. Melanson

Mr. Melanson was a security officer in the victim's apartment building. He attacked her after she parked her car in the apartment's underground parking lot by hitting her on the head with a rock and trying to drag her towards his office. The victim, a 19-year-old young woman, managed to free herself, ran away and called the police. She suffered a minor abrasion to her head. Mr. Melanson had significant mental health issues but was amenable to treatment. The trial judge imposed a sentence of imprisonment of two years less a day plus three years' probation, following the offender's 31 months in pre-sentence custody. The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence, commenting that, "Given the long pre-trial custody and the fact that this crime stems from a mental illness, the trial judge was justified in minimizing the appellant's incarceration in order to maximize the controlled probation period so that treatment would be available with the sentence." There is no aspect of Mr. Melanson's case that provides any apt comparison with Mr. Persaud.

R. v. Skillings

Mr. Skillings pleaded guilty to attempting to murder his domestic partner by suffocating her with smoke from a deliberately set household fire. As soon as he realized that the victim's life was in significant danger, he tried to rescue her by attempting to push her out of the residence. The victim suffered no long-term physical consequences but was deeply traumatized by the incident. The sentencing judge characterized the attempted killing as "very unsophisticated," and acceded to the joint submission for a sentence equivalent to three years' imprisonment. In doing so, she noted that the range of sentence delineated by counsel, given the particular circumstances of this offence and this offender, was three to five years. The primary similarities between Skillings and Mr. Persaud's case are the offenders' deep remorse and early guilty pleas and the relative lack of sophistication in the execution of the offences. There, the similarities end. Unlike Mr. Persaud, Mr. Skillings did not use a gun, did not lay in wait to ambush the victim and did not try to murder his victim in retaliation for perceived harassment. The range of sentence identified in Skillings is therefore of little or no assistance in the instant case.

Thus, as demonstrated by the above summary, the Ontario authorities present markedly different factual scenarios from Mr. Persaud's case. Most distinctively, none of these cases involved an offender who personally fired a gun.

[18] Identifying the appropriate range of sentence for any offence must reflect the complex array of circumstances and statutory and jurisprudential policy of the region and time frame where the crime took place. Over the past two decades, in this city, in this province, in this country, Parliament and the courts have stated in unambiguous and stark terms that the use of guns to perpetrate violence, especially with lethal intent, must and will attract a significant sentence of imprisonment. In my view, the appropriate range, given the particular circumstances of this offence and this offender, is 7 to 11 years.

SENTENCING PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS

Proportionality

[19] Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code requires that every sentence be "proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender." The offence of attempted murder is amongst the most serious in our criminal law. Here, only good fortune and poor marksmanship prevented Mr. Persaud's premeditated shooting of Mr. Rochester from becoming a first-degree murder. Mr. Persaud may have acted impetuously, but there was a degree of planning and calculation in his actions. There was no urgency propelling him to go home, dig up his shotgun, lie in wait for the victim, ambush him and shoot him in the head. Even if there was a degree of impulsivity to his choices, Mr. Persaud made a series of decisions that, cumulatively, resulted in an attempt to kill out of anger by using one of the most lethal weapons in existence. The execution of his intention may have been inept and ineffective, but that is one of the reasons why the use of a firearm adds to the gravity of Mr. Persaud's actions. One does not need to be strong or skilled to cause deadly or catastrophic injury with a gun. One only needs to point the weapon and pull the trigger. Mr. Persaud's degree of responsibility was also at the highest end of culpability. He acted alone and with deliberation. A proportionate sentence must reflect both Mr. Persaud's high degree of responsibility and the gravity of his criminal conduct.

[20] The necessity that the sentence have sufficient weight and length to reinforce the gravity of the offence of attempted murder with a firearm is not diminished where, through sheer luck, the victim escapes serious injury. For example, in the recent Ontario Superior Court decision in R. v. Alvarez, the victim was not injured when she was threatened with a gun and held hostage while the accused exchanged gunfire with her boyfriend. Despite the lack of any injury, Mr. Alvarez was sentenced to the equivalent of 10 years' imprisonment. Similarly, in R. v. Leveque, another Ontario Superior Court decision, the offender was sentenced to 9 years and 3 months in the penitentiary for attempting to kill his victim by firing two gunshots at him while they passed each other in their cars. The victim was entirely unscathed, and the court's comments in assessing the role of the absence of any injury in calculating a sentence that appropriately addressed the principles of proportionality, denunciation and deterrence are apposite: "[T]he fact that Mr. Dillon, [i.e. the victim], was not injured by Mr. Leveque, while a mitigating factor, is reduced in its significance by the fact that it was a purely fortuitous failure on Mr. Leveque's part to accomplish what he intended and prepared to do, namely to kill Mr. Dillon. The existence of the intent to kill is a very significant factor. The gravity of the offence of attempt murder is high." It is lucky that Mr. Persaud did not cause more serious injuries to Mr. Rochester. The mitigating impact of that good fortune is tempered by the intention to kill.

Mitigating Factors

[21] Mr. Persaud has the benefit of several very powerful mitigating factors: his youth, his remorse and his potential for rehabilitation. The lack of serious or lasting injury to his victim is also mitigating, subject to the caveat, above, that Mr. Persaud did intend to kill Mr. Rochester.

[22] Mr. Persaud is still a teenager and just barely above the age of adult criminal responsibility. In many ways, he is still just a boy, a boy who wanted only to hug his mother on the day that he pleaded guilty.

[23] Mr. Persaud is also deeply remorseful. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of anything more that Mr. Persaud could have said or done to profess his remorse or acknowledge his responsibility and regret for his actions. He contacted his youth worker almost immediately to confess and express his despair at what he had done. The next day, he turned himself in to the police and made an inculpatory statement. He pleaded guilty at an extremely early opportunity, before any trial or preliminary inquiry date could be set and in spite of what his counsel characterized as triable issues. In addition to demonstrating Mr. Persaud's remorse, the early plea abbreviated any need for the victim to even contemplate having to testify.

[24] On the day that he pleaded guilty, Mr. Persaud asked for an opportunity to apologize to the victim. I advised him that he would have that chance and suggested that he may wish to take the time between his plea and the sentencing hearing in order to consider how he wished to articulate his apology. At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Persaud had clearly given extensive thought and reflection to what he wished to say. His words, replicated above, encapsulated his remorse and also conveyed his recognition of the tremendous advantage that he has in the family and community members that stand ready to embrace him and support him on his journey towards rehabilitation.

[25] Mr. Persaud's capacity for rehabilitation is very good, provided that he maintains his commitment to turning his back on criminality and working towards a law-abiding future within the community. He has solid family and community support. It is apparent that this support is due not just to the generosity of his family and friends, but also to Mr. Persaud's own personal qualities that have inspired the continuing loyalty of everybody who knows him well. Moreover, Mr. Persaud has earned this support despite having faced much turbulence and challenge over the course of his youth. If he sustains his focus and diligently pursues his own rehabilitation, Mr. Persaud has a life, a future and people who love him. Mr. Persaud asked the court for a second chance. That opportunity is within his reach, as long as he looks towards the future and acts concretely and determinedly upon his stated desire to make amends.

Aggravating Factors

[26] Summarized, the aggravating factors are as follows:

• The offence was premeditated;
• Mr. Persaud executed a series of deliberate steps and choices in his effort to try to kill Mr. Rochester, i.e.: he retrieved a weapon that he had buried, went to the victim's home, hid and then ambushed him;
• Mr. Persaud used a prohibited firearm;
• The particular firearm was a sawed-off shotgun, i.e., a gun that had been altered for easier concealment in the commission of a criminal offence;
• The shooting was in a public, residential area; and
• Mr. Persaud has a criminal record including prior convictions for violence and weapons.

Denunciation and Deterrence

[27] The gravity of the offence and aggravating factors cry out for a denunciatory and deterrent sentence. Mr. Persaud had already been incarcerated for weapons and violence. Still, he found himself, once again, before the criminal courts for weapons and violence, this time having obtained a gun and fired it at another person. It is essential that this sentence impress upon Mr. Persaud that, whatever anger and challenges he grapples with, criminality is an unacceptable response. The same message must be conveyed to any other young man who seeks to solve his problems or assuage perceived grievances with violence and guns. Further, this sentence must telegraph unequivocally the public's denunciation of the use of firearms in our community. Mr. Persaud attempted to murder Mr. Rochester with a sawed-off shotgun. His sentence must symbolize the gravity of that crime.

Rehabilitation

[28] As I have already indicated, rehabilitation is a realistic objective for Mr. Persaud, as demonstrated by his youth, his community support and his obvious remorse. Although the paramount sentencing principles in this case are deterrence and denunciation, a proportionate sentence must also recognize and incorporate Mr. Persaud's potential for rehabilitation.

Sentence

[29] Taking into account the applicable mitigating and aggravating factors, the appropriate, proportionate sentence that reconciles the acute need for deterrence and denunciation with Mr. Persaud's capacity for rehabilitation is 8 years and 6 months' imprisonment. Mr. Persaud has already spent 6 months and 2 days in pre-sentence custody. I concur with both counsel that, following the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Summers, Mr. Persaud should be credited at a rate of 1.5 to 1 for that time, for a total credit of 9 months and 3 days. The sentence that I impose is therefore 7 years and 9 months' imprisonment, on top of the pre-sentence custody.

[30] There will also be a DNA order and a s. 109 order prohibiting Mr. Persaud from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance for life.

Released: July 3, 2014

Signed: Justice M. H. Bloomenfeld