Court Information
Date: May 3, 2018
Information No.: 4811-998-16-15008636-00
Ontario Court of Justice
Her Majesty the Queen v. Patricks Ricketts
Before: Honourable Justice V. Rondinelli
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Appearances
Crown: I. Glasner
Defence: J. Kappy
Reasons for Judgment
RONDINELLI, J (ORALLY)
Mr. Ricketts pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking crack cocaine. The offence related to a sale of 1.44 grams of crack cocaine to an undercover officer for $120.
Sentencing Principles
The fundamental principle of sentencing is codified in section 718.1 of the Criminal Code. That is, the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
A sentencing court is also mandated to take into consideration the principles codified in section 718.2 including that all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders.
While sentencing principles have become increasingly codified in recent years, a sentencing court still enjoys a broad discretion in balancing all the relevant factors in order to meet the objectives being pursued in sentencing: See Regina v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 at paragraph 1.
Sentencing Range
The Crown submits that the general range of sentence for this type of offence is six months to two years less a day imprisonment: See Regina v. Wilcock, 2002 OJ No. 4927 (CA).
However, due to the significant mitigating circumstances found in this case, the Crown takes the position that an appropriate sentence for Mr. Ricketts would be 90 days' imprisonment to be served intermittently plus a period of probation for two years.
On the other side, the defence submits that the mitigating factors are significant enough that no imprisonment is required and that sentence should be suspended.
Application of Sentencing Ranges
In dealing with the purported sentencing ranges for the offences before the court, I am mindful of the Supreme Court of Canada's observations in Regina v. Lacasse where Justice Wagner noted at paragraphs 57 to 58:
"Where sentencing ranges are concerned, although they are used mainly to ensure the parity of sentences, they reflect all the principles and objectives of sentencing. Sentencing ranges are nothing more than summaries of the minimum and maximum sentences imposed in the past, which serve in any given case as guides for the application of all the relevant principles and objectives. However, they should not be considered 'averages', let alone straitjackets, but should instead be seen as historical portraits for the use of sentencing judges, who must still exercise their discretion in each case."
"There will always be situations that call for a sentence outside a particular range: although ensuring parity in sentencing is in itself a desirable objective, the fact that each crime is committed in unique circumstances by an offender with a unique profile cannot be disregarded. The determination of a just and appropriate sentence is a highly individualized exercise that goes beyond a purely mathematical calculation. It involves a variety of factors that are difficult to define with precision. This is why it may happen that a sentence that, on its face, falls outside a particular range, and that may never have been imposed in the past for a similar crime, is not demonstrably unfit. Once again, everything depends on the gravity of the offence, the offender's degree of responsibility and the specific circumstances of each case."
Seriousness of the Offence
There is no doubt that this is a serious offence aggravated by the fact of selling a highly addictive drug to a stranger and that deterrence and denunciation play essential roles in sentencing.
But as the British Columbia Court of Appeal noted in R. v. Voong, 2015 BCCA 285, a non-custodial sentence can still serve these principles. The Court held at paragraph 61:
"A suspended sentence can achieve a deterrent effect, as noted above, as well as a denunciatory effect. The fact of being arrested, tried and convicted, can also address these principles. In other words, the stigma of being a convicted drug trafficker and the consequences of that conviction for example, restricted ability to travel outside of Canada and exclusion from many forms of employment may also play a deterrent effect."
I would also add that a probation order restricts a person's liberty and freedom.
Rehabilitation and Personal Circumstances
In addition to deterrence and denunciation, Mr. Ricketts' rehabilitation must be considered. The pre-sentence report goes a long way in explaining not only who Mr. Ricketts is, but who he could go on to become.
Mr. Ricketts is a first-time offender who has faced many extremely traumatic experiences at various stages of his young life. His childhood included witnessing physical violence in his home and having household responsibilities foisted upon him at a young age.
His ex-girlfriend miscarried their child which Mr. Ricketts later found out was due to her brother beating her while pregnant. Shortly after that miscarriage, Mr. Ricketts and his ex-girlfriend were expecting twins but they both died during labour. Losing one child can be emotionally and psychologically difficult to bear, but having to deal with three losses could only further adversely impact Mr. Ricketts' mental well-being.
Unfortunately for Mr. Ricketts, his share of trauma did not end there. In January of 2017, Mr. Ricketts was involved in a fatal motor vehicle accident where he hit a pedestrian on the Gardiner Expressway. While it was confirmed to be a suicide, Mr. Ricketts continues to carry guilt and believes that he took someone's life away. He has been diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and major depressive disorder and is taking counselling in that regard.
While Mr. Ricketts has had a number of considerable setbacks in his life thus far, what impressed me the most from a review of the pre-sentence report and listening to his statement to me in open court, is that Mr. Ricketts has used these negative experiences as learning opportunities and is making real efforts to improve his life.
He has eliminated himself from a negative peer group; he is receiving counselling; and has been thriving in his employment with High Park Nissan where his manager has indicated that Mr. Ricketts radiates a lot of energy and uplifts the mood of the dealership and that it is expected that Mr. Ricketts will be carrying more responsibilities in the near future.
Remorse and Awareness
Another important indicator of Mr. Ricketts' positive rehabilitation is his awareness of the seriousness of his offence. Mr. Ricketts is not only worried about how a criminal record impacts him personally, but he readily acknowledges that his behaviour has had a negative impact on society. His remorse is genuine and well placed.
Sentencing Decision
In my view, to incarcerate Mr. Ricketts, even on an intermittent basis, would be counterproductive since it sacrifices the meaningful gains that have been achieved in terms of his rehabilitation since the date of this offence, simply to foster the principles of denunciation and general deterrence by means of incarceration. See Regina v. Ghadban, 2015 ONCA 760 at paragraph 24.
In my view, the collateral consequences that a suspended sentence carries, including potential employment and travel restrictions, as well as prohibition requiring the community service component addresses the necessary principles of deterrence and denunciation in the circumstances of this case and this offender.
Society would be better served to have Mr. Ricketts continuing to step forward rather than stumble back into a negative lifestyle.
I do note that a suspended sentence was recently imposed in a superior court case, Regina v. Delal, 2018 ONSC 715, in somewhat similar circumstances as this case. That is, a guilty plea to trafficking a small amount of cocaine, no prior criminal record, and good prospects of rehabilitation.
As such, sentence will be suspended.
Probation Conditions
Probation will run for two years with the following conditions:
Keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
Appear before the court when required to do so by the court.
Notify your probation officer in advance of any change of name, address, employment or occupation.
Report to probation today and thereafter as required.
Attend and actively participate in all assessment, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed by the probation officer and complete them to the satisfaction of the probation officer.
Sign any release of information forms that will enable your probation officer to monitor your attendance and completion of any assessments, counselling or rehabilitative programs as directed.
Not to purchase, possess or consume any drug as defined in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for which you do not have a prescription.
Not to possess weapons as defined in the Criminal Code.
Make reasonable efforts to seek and maintain suitable employment.
Perform 100 hours of community service work as approved by your probation officer. You must complete all of your community service hours within the next 12 months and provide proof of completion of said community service to your probation officer.
Additional Orders
There will also be a section 109 weapons prohibition for 10 years and the mandatory victim fine surcharge on the single indictable offence of $200.
Transcript Ordered: June 1, 2018
Transcript Completed: June 26, 2018
Ordering Party Notified: June 26, 2018