ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: 10-40000850-0000
DATE: 20120 727

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – and – NEIL SINGH

Sheila Cressman for the Her Majesty the Queen
Fariborz Davoudi for Neil Singh

HEARD: June 22, 2012

Thorburn j.

reasons for SENTENCE

1. Background

[ 1 ] Neil Singh was convicted by a jury of armed robbery and forcible confinement.

[ 2 ] After the trial concluded, Singh brought an application to have the charges against him stayed on the grounds that he was assaulted by police and that to allow the convictions to stand would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. In this case there were no bruises cuts or broken bones and the prejudice caused by the physical abuse did not affect the fairness of the trial as Singh made no inculpatory statement. I determined therefore that the convictions should not be stayed. Moreover, I determined that other remedies were available. The sentence that would otherwise be imposed would be reduced and the Crown was urged to ensure an investigation into this reprehensible police behaviour. (See R. v. Regan 1991 6853 (NL CA) , [2002] 66 C.C.C. (3d) 97 (S.C.C.).)

[ 3 ] Singh seeks a sentence less than the mandatory minimum five year sentence for armed robbery in view of police behaviour toward him and the unique circumstances of this case and this offender. He seeks a two year conditional sentence.

2. The Issues

[ 4 ] The following issues must be addressed:

(a) What is a fit sentence?

(b) To what extent should the sentence otherwise imposed be reduced in view of the police behaviour?

(c) Should the Court invoke the extraordinary power to grant Singh a sentence lower than the statutory minimum? and

(d) What credit should be given to Singh for time spent in presentence custody and/or pretrial bail?

3. Singh’s Position

[ 5 ] Singh’s position is that the appropriate sentence for an offender in his position who committed these crimes is five to six years. This sentence should be reduced to a sentence of two years less a day to be spent out of custody. This he acknowledges is an unusual sentence for one convicted of armed robbery and forcible confinement. However, Singh states that “anything more onerous than a conditional sentence would fall short of remedying that abuse suffered by the Applicant and be inadequate in terms of protecting the repute of the administration of justice”.

[ 6 ] He acknowledges that as an employee of Crane Supply he was in a position of trust. Moreover, valuable property was stolen from Crane Supply and a firearm was used in the commission of the offence. Finally, the offence was committed using a mask, and the victim was blindfolded, tied with Zipties and duct tape and left tied up for one and one half hours.

[ 7 ] However, he states that the victim was treated with decency as, when he indicated he was in discomfort the Zipties were loosened and the victim’s captors told him he would be unharmed if he did what he was told. The victim was not physically injured.

[ 8 ] Singh’s counsel claims Singh may not have been a principal party to this offence as he does not match the physical description of the person the victim first saw before being tied up or the second person he heard come into the room.

[ 9 ] Singh has no criminal record and until the time of this offence, was a productive member of society.

[ 10 ] If he is granted a conditional sentence of two years less a day, Singh seeks no further reduction in his sentence to take into account time spent in presentence custody and on bail. However, if he is granted a jail term, he seeks two for one credit for time spent in presentence custody and enhanced credit for all time spent on bail awaiting trial.

[ 11 ] Singh contests the Crown’s request for a restitution order in the amount of $344,255.50 (the wholesale value of the copper pipe stolen) in favour of Crane Supply. He has earned approximately $15.00 per hour while working and given his limited ability to earn income and his financial obligations as father of a young family, he will be unable to pay this sum. Moreover, he points out that a number of individuals were involved in the commission of this crime.

4. The Crown Position

[ 12 ] The Crown position is that the appropriate sentence is nine to ten years’ incarceration.

[ 13 ] The Crown takes the position that there are a number of serious aggravating circumstances in the commission of this crime: the victim was tied up, threatened and blindfolded for one and one half hours, a firearm was used, his captors knew he suffered from a heart condition, the victim was Singh’s immediate supervisor and Singh was a trusted employee of the company. Although the victim declined to provide a victim impact statement a senior Crane employee advised that the victim was unable to stay in his supervisory position due to the trauma he suffered and is now working in the warehouse. Moreover, a very large quantity of copper valued at $344,255.50 was stolen and has never been recovered.

[ 14 ] The Crown also suggests that this offence was rendered more serious by virtue of the fact that it was planned and deliberate. Singh was a “primary planner of the robbery given his knowledge of the company and the schedule for the evening in question.” The Crown states that Singh must have been primary planner because Singh knew:

(a) there were no security cameras at the location where the robbery occurred,

(b) how to operate the boom,

(c) what size truck to transport goods, how to operate the truck and the boom,

(d) when the employees finished their shifts and that Sheikh remained, and

(e) was the only person left on site and the last to see the victim before the robbery.

[ 15 ] The Crown submits that Singh’s sentence should be reduced by six months to one year to reflect police conduct. She notes that police behaviour in this case has already resulted in a stay of proceedings against Singh’s co-accused (who did make an inculpatory statement to police and who did suffer serious physical injuries). As such, a message has already been sent that such police behaviour will not be tolerated.

[ 16 ] The Crown states that because this offence took place before the introduction of the Truth in Sentencing Act , S.C. 2009, c. 29, Singh should be granted 2:1 credit for time spent in pre-sentence custody from June 11 to June 30, 2009 and after his conviction on March 28, 2012. In addition, he has been on bail from June 30, 2009 to the date of his conviction. The Crown states that for the first six months, Singh was unable to work and should therefore receive some credit (she suggests 1/3:1) to reflect the stringent conditions of his bail. Thereafter, he lived with his parents, spouse and son, worked and was able to leave in the company of his sureties and should receive no enhanced credit.

[ 17 ] The Crown also seeks a lifetime ban to prohibit Singh from possession of a firearm for life pursuant to section 109 of the Criminal Code , a DNA sample and a standalone restitution order in the amount of $344,255.50 in favour of Crane Supply as none of the copper pipe has been recovered.

5. The Principles of Sentencing

[ 18 ] Sentences must meet one or more of the objectives set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code :

(1) denounce unlawful conduct;

(2) deter the offender and others from committing offences;

(3) separate offenders from society where necessary;

(4) assist in the rehabilitation of offenders;

(5) provide reparation for harm done to victims or to the community; and

(6) promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledge the harm done to victims and to the community.

[ 19 ] Those who breach the fundamental rules of society must receive society’s strong condemnation.

[ 20 ] The paramount question is, “What should this offender receive for this offence, committed in these circumstances?” As such, the circumstances in which the offence was committed and the relevant facts regarding the offender must be considered.

6. The First Issue: What is a Fit Sentence for this Crime Committed by this Offender?

The Circumstances in which this Crime was Committed

[ 21 ] On February 9, 2009, Mohammad Sheikh was the night supervisor at Crane Supply. He supervised seven or eight workers. A special license is required to drive a forklift. Singh and all but one of the other seven or eight workers was licensed to drive a forklift.

[ 22 ] A special attachment to the forklift (called a boom) must be used to take the 12 foot long copper pipes that were stolen. Crane Supply General Manager Rita Woodley testified that the boom was custom made for Crane Supply by a Crane Supply operations manager. Copper pipes are usually moved onto a truck by two people.

[ 23 ] The gate to the yard was broken at the time of the robbery. There were no security cameras but there was an alarm system. Sheikh, other supervisors as well as the evening cleaning staff had the alarm code.

[ 24 ] On the night in question at about 10:20 p.m., Singh came by to wish his supervisor, Sheikh good night. Singh was the last employee at the facility. Sheikh again saw Singh in the parking lot where he was picked up by another man. According to Singh’s punch card, he punched out at 10:22 p.m. on February 9, 2009.

[ 25 ] Sheikh went from the parking lot to his office after Singh left and within five minutes, he heard a bang. Someone had kicked his office door hard. A masked man with greenish or bluish eyes about five feet eleven inches tall shouted at him to get on his knees. The man pointed a little black handgun at him. Sheikh moved his body left of his desk and fell on his knees. The man then told him to lie on his belly. He did so and put his hands behind his back.

[ 26 ] Sheikh looked outside his office window and saw a second person. Sheikh could not identify who it was. Sheikh’s hands and legs were tied with Zip ties and his eyes were covered with duct tape. He told the man he had a heart condition and he therefore asked the man to remove the duct tape from his mouth. The man told him to follow his directions and he would be alright.

[ 27 ] Sheikh did not recognize the first man’s voice. If this person had been a worker with him he would have recognized his voice.

[ 28 ] A few minutes later he heard a forklift loading the copper. From the sounds he believed there was more than one person and they knew what they were doing.

[ 29 ] Sheikh asked the person guarding him to loosen the ties on his hands as they were hurting. The man did so. He then tied his hands with duct tape before cutting the Zip ties. After a while there were no more sounds and he believed the man guarding him left. Sheikh managed to undo his hands and found a phone and called 911.

[ 30 ] Crane paid $344,255.50 for the copper that was stolen.

[ 31 ] Singh was arrested on June 11, 2009. Police seized a cellular telephone on his person. There were a number of cellular telephone calls between Singh and an individual named Maharaj on the night this crime was committed. Singh also received a text message from Maharaj saying “Zip ties” at 11:58 p.m. (about fifteen minutes before Sheikh called 911).

[ 32 ] I accept that Singh had a significant role to play in this armed robbery given his knowledge of company machinery and procedures, his encounter with the victim just before the robbery and forcible confinement and the text message to him just after the robbery from Maharaj about “Zip ties”.

The Circumstances of this Offender

[ 33 ] Singh is a 29 year old man. He has no criminal record.

[ 34 ] Until he was charged with these offences he resided with his spouse. While he was on bail, he and his spouse moved in with Singh’s parents. During this time, Singh became the father of a young child.

[ 35 ] He is close to his older brother and his parents none of whom have been in trouble with the law.

[ 36 ] At the time these offences were committed, Singh was an employee of Crane Supply.

[ 37 ] Prior to his conviction he was employed and his employer states that upon his release he would hire Singh as he is a valued employee.

The Law re Crimes of a Similar Nature Committed in Similar Circumstances

The Trust Relationship

[ 38 ] The expression “position of trust” is not defined in the Criminal Code . The Oxford English Dictionary (2 nd Ed) Volume 18, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989) defines position of trust as: “The obligation or responsibility imposed on one in whom confidence is placed or authority is vested or who has given an undertaking of fidelity.”

[ 39 ] The legislature has emphasized the seriousness of an employee breaching the trust of his employer in section 718.2 (iii) of the Criminal Code , by requiring the court to take into account the fact that an offender “abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim.” In such cases, the punishment must be more severe than in other similar cases that do not involve a breach of trust.

[ 40 ] By virtue of the employment relationship and the close relationship between Singh and his supervisor, Sheikh, it is agreed that there is a trust relationship.

Sentences Imposed in Comparable Circumstances

[ 41 ] It is agreed that sentences for armed robbery and forcible confinement vary from five years to over ten years’ incarceration. There is a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for robbery with a firearm.

[ 42 ] Counsel agree that the case of R. v. Eldemire 1998 17691 (ON CA) , 108 O.A.C. 214 is close to the facts in this case. Eldemire was 19 years old at the time he committed the offence of armed robbery. He had never committed a violent offence and had never received a custodial sentence. He had a youth record. Eldemire and an accomplice entered a grocery store. His accomplice was armed but Eldemire was not. Eldemire grabbed a store employee, threw her on the floor and banged her head. When police arrived he and his accomplice threatened to kill the employee. Eldemire was not masked. Eldemire pleaded guilty and for his lesser role in the armed robbery he received a sentence of just over seven years’ incarceration. $6,000.00 was stolen.

[ 43 ] Although many of the facts are similar to the facts in this case, there are some significant differences:

(a) Singh has no prior criminal record;

(b) although Singh did not personally physically hurt the victim, the victim was threatened, blindfolded and tied up for one and one half hours;

(c) a much larger sum was stolen in this case;

(d) Singh was an employee in a position of trust at the time these offences were committed; and

(e) Singh did not plead guilty and is not therefore entitled to have those circumstances taken into account in mitigating his sentence.

[ 44 ] In this case the copper pipe was stolen from a large corporation not a small operation as was the case in Eldemire . In R. v. Dirie [2011] O.J. No. 5460 , MacDonnell J. articulated the reasons for sentencing offenders who rob small retail establishments more harshly than others: “Persons who are required to work late at night in retail establishments such as the Fortino’s store are in a vulnerable position. The timing of the robbery in this case was calculated to take advantage of that vulnerability.” Although the establishment in this case is a large corporation, the victim was alone, Singh knew he was working alone late at night and took advantage of his vulnerability. As such I do not see this as a significant distinction on the facts of this case.

[ 45 ] Other cases referred to me by counsel include R v. Babb 2002 41602 (ON CA) , 158 O.A.C. 377, R. v. Clarke [2010] O.J. No. 2617 (S.C.J.) and R. v. Hoang [2006] O.J. No. 1132 (C.J.) . In R. v. Babb , Babb and two others stopped the victim who was driving his vehicle, forced him to go to his store and open the safe and stole $12,000.00. The victim was left in the freezer and escaped one half hour later. In that case no firearm was used and the accused was a 45 year old first time offender with a good work history. The Court of Appeal held that a five year sentence was not manifestly unreasonable and “a significant penitentiary sentence was warranted, even for a first time offender”.

[ 46 ] The cases of R. v. Clarke and R v. Lee [2010] O.J. No. 2621 (S.C.J.) are sentencing decisions regarding two individuals both involved in the same robbery of computers. No firearm was used, but one victim was severally beaten. Clarke had a criminal record and his prospects for rehabilitation were not good. He was given a sentence of five years’ incarceration. Lee had no previous record and had good prospects for rehabilitation. He was given a sentence of four years and three months.

[ 47 ] In R. v. Hoang , a 20 year old male was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for the offences of aggravated assault and armed robbery. He shot one victim and robbed others at gunpoint during a drug deal. He also had a lengthy youth record and an adult conviction for something he committed after he was charged with the offences in question.

Conclusion as to Fit Sentence

[ 48 ] As noted above, when sentencing, the court must look at the seriousness of the offending act, the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, and the offender.

[ 49 ] In determining the appropriate sentence, I have considered the principles of sentencing and the relevant cases. I have also taken into account that there was a trust relationship between Singh and the victim, that Singh played a significant role (though I accept that he may not have been the primary player), the value of the copper pipe stolen was great, and the victim suffered psychological harm such that he has been unable to continue the job he was doing as supervisor as a result of this incident. I have also considered Singh’s prospects for rehabilitation which are reasonable given that he has no previous criminal record, he has a family prepared to support him and an employer ready to hire him upon his release. I note that a firearm was used in the commission of this offence but no shots were fired.

[ 50 ] With this in mind, I believe a fit sentence for this serious personal injury offence is six and one-half years incarceration. This sentence reflects society’s strong denunciation of these types of actions while at the same time reflecting the fact that Singh has a reasonable chance of rehabilitation.

[ 51 ] The next issue to be determined is, to what extent the sentence should be reduced in view of police behaviour?

7. The Second Issue: To What Extent Should the Sentence be Reduced to Reflect Police Misconduct in this Case ?

[ 52 ] The courts have recognized that in exceptional cases, it is possible to reduce a sentence to less than the mandatory minimum. Singh claims this is such an exceptional case.

[ 53 ] The case of R. v. Nasogaluak 2010 SCC 6 () , [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206 involved an intoxicated driver whom police tried to apprehend. The driver resisted arrest. The officers were involved in a physical altercation with him. After there was no longer any need to subdue him, the officers continued to punch him, broke his ribs and punctured his lung. Even in this extreme case of police brutality the court refused to stay the charges.

[ 54 ] The court held that in some exceptional cases [which did not include the circumstances of the assault on Nasogaluak], “I do not foreclose the possibility that…a sentence reduction outside statutory limits may be the sole effective remedy for some particularly egregious form of misconduct by state agents in relation to the offence and the offender.”

[ 55 ] The sentencing judge held that the appropriate sentence for Nasogaluak would have been 12 to 18 months’ incarceration but in view of the police brutality that sentence would be changed to a conditional sentence of 12 months. That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada.

[ 56 ] In other cases, sentences were reduced from between three and fourteen months to reflect serious cases of police brutality. (See R. v. Pigeon 1992 869 (BC CA) , [1992] B.C.J. No. 1198 (B.C.C.A.) where the sentence was reduced by three months. In that case, police grabbed an accused by the hair, threw him to the ground on his face, kicked him and placed a boot on his neck and then dragged him to the police car. See also R. v. Patton [2010] A.J. No. 1176 (Q.B.) where a sentence was reduced by four months where a police officer struck the accused in the head a number of times while he was sitting calmly in the vehicle and there was no justification for the use of force. Finally in R. v. Tran 2010 ONCA 471 () , [2010] O.J. No. 2785 (C.A.) the sentence was reduced by fourteen months at trial and the charges were stayed altogether on appeal where Tran turned himself in to police and police interrogated him and in the process, broke his jaw. Officers then attempted to cover up their behaviour and participated in the prosecution until they were ordered from the courtroom by the trial judge.)

[ 57 ] The Defence concedes that in this case, but for the police brutality, Singh would not be eligible for a sentence lower than the mandatory minimum five year sentence for armed robbery. However, he relies on a recent decision of this court to suggest that where there is serious police misconduct, a conditional sentence of two years less a day may be warranted even in cases involving serious crimes. In that case of R. v. Dinh [2012] O.J. No. 643 , the court accepted that an appropriate sentence for trafficking one kilogram of cocaine was five to eight years in custody. However, given the circumstances of that case, including the fact that police were involved in brutality, they conducted an illegal search and they perjured themselves, the court reduced the sentence to that of a conditional sentence of two years less a day. The court noted that there was no concern about violence in that case.

To What Extent Should the Sentence be Reduced Given the Police Brutality in this Case

[ 58 ] The uncontradicted evidence of Singh was that he was assaulted three times by Detective Clark in the presence of Detective Watts after he was arrested and taken to a police station on June 11, 2009.

[ 59 ] After telling Detective Watts he did not know the co-accused, Singh was struck behind his head with the back of the officer’s palm five or six times and the officer put his knee into Singh’s ribs once or twice. Singh says he was struck for a minute or two.

[ 60 ] Approximately one hour later, Singh was asked if he was ready to talk. Singh replied that he was ready to talk but that he would not talk about the robbery as he did not know anything. Officer Clark put his hands around Singh’s neck and slammed his head against the wall saying, “This is what it feels like when you put a gun in people’s faces.” Detective Clark had one hand and then both around his neck for about a minute. Detective Clark also hit him on the back with a closed fist several times. Singh says he could not breathe and was coughing. He felt like he would black out. The inside of his lower lip began to bleed.

[ 61 ] Sometime later, Detective Clark came into the room and asked why he was lying. Singh said he wasn’t. Detective Clark said, “What do Zip ties mean to you?” He replied that he did not know what Detective Clark was talking about. Detective Clark then began hitting him and said, “Why did someone send you a text like that?” Singh testified that Detective Clark hit him with his hand on the back of the head with considerable force many times. Sometimes this was done with an open fist and sometimes with a closed fist. He was kneed in the ribs a couple of times. Singh said, “Just kill me man.” Singh said he could not move as he was sitting and Detective Clark was standing.

[ 62 ] An hour later Detective Clark returned on his own and apologized for what he had done. He gave Singh a bottle of water, a chicken sandwich and a towel to clean himself up. Detective Clark said he would be asked on tape if he wanted a lawyer and was to reply that he did not want a lawyer. In the video statement Singh said he did not want a lawyer and had nothing to do with the robbery. Singh had no bruising, swelling or other apparent injuries. He sought no medical attention until ten days after he was released from custody and then, only for a sore throat.

[ 63 ] The Defence concedes that these assaults did not in any way affect the fairness of the trial at which Singh was found guilty of very serious charges of armed robbery and forcible confinement.

[ 64 ] Although these circumstances are not one of those rare occasions where a stay of proceedings is warranted, given the police brutality, one full year shall be deducted from Singh’s global sentence in consideration of these assaults by police. This significant reduction in sentence is necessary to reflect my very deep concern and condemnation of those who, being selected to uphold the law and preserve justice, assault those entrusted to their care and control. This reduction in Singh’s sentence does not and should not serve as a substitute for further investigation into and punishment of those involved in this reprehensible conduct.

[ 65 ] I do not agree that the police misconduct in this case is such that the sentence imposed should be reduced below the mandatory minimum five year sentence for armed robbery. The level of brutality involved is far less than that in Nasogaluak and the fact that the Nasogaluak violence was imposed in the context of resisting police arrest does not in my view take away from the seriousness of the violence after Nasogaluak had been subdued and no further police action was required. Moreover, I find that the Dinh decision referred to by Defence counsel is distinguishable from the case before me as the misconduct in Dinh included more severe brutality than that suffered by Singh and involved not only police brutality but also perjury and an illegal search. Moreover, the crimes in Dinh did not involve violence and the consequent need to separate such offenders from society. I note that there is no minimum sentence for trafficking in a controlled substance while there is a statutory minimum sentence of five years for armed robbery.

[ 66 ] There is therefore no need to consider the constitutional question of whether the global sentence imposed should be less than the mandatory minimum five year sentence for armed robbery.

8. The Third Issue: Credit for Time Served in Custody and Under House Arrest and Ancillary Orders

[ 67 ] Time spent under stringent bail conditions, especially under house arrest must be taken into account as a relevant mitigating circumstance. There is no strict formula to be applied but the court should consider issues such as the length of time spent on bail or under house arrest, the stringency of the conditions and their effect on the person’s liberty. Where credit is sought, the offender should provide the courts with information as to the effect of the conditions upon him. ( See R. v. Downes , 2006 3957 (ON CA) , [2006] O.J. No. 555 (C.A.) at para. 33 ).

[ 68 ] In this case, Singh was on bail from June 30 to the date of his conviction on March 28, 2012.

[ 69 ] From June 30 to December 14, 2009, he was required to be at his parents’ home (where he was residing) except between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. These conditions prevented him from seeking employment which in turn caused hardship for his common law spouse and his parents and, because he was required to live with his parents, his common law spouse moved in with them also. During this time he was not permitted to drink alcohol.

[ 70 ] On December 14, 2009 his bail conditions were varied to be out of the house from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. to either look for work or to go to work. He was also permitted to drink alcohol.

[ 71 ] On November 3, 2010, Singh’s curfew was extended from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

[ 72 ] Because this offence took place before the introduction of the Truth in Sentencing Act , S.C. 2009, c. 29, Singh shall be granted 2:1 credit for time spent in pre-sentence custody from June 11 to June 30, 2009 and after his conviction on March 28, 2012 to this date.

[ 73 ] Singh shall also receive 1/3:1 credit for the first six months of his bail conditions beginning on June 30, 2009 whereby he was essentially on house arrest. Thereafter, he lived with his parents, spouse and son, worked and was able to leave in the company of his sureties and shall receive no credit for the remaining time spent on bail.

[ 74 ] The Crown also seeks a restitution order for the $344,255.50 wholesale value of the copper pipe stolen. Section 738 of the Criminal Code provides that the court imposing sentence may, in addition to any other measure imposed on the offender, order that the offender make restitution to another person by paying to the person an amount not exceeding the replacement value of the property where the amount is readily ascertainable.

[ 75 ] In this case, although a jury found Singh guilty of the offence of armed robbery and forcible confinement, on the evidence before me there were several participants to this offence. The Crown has not proven what Singh’s involvement was or what financial benefit he received. As such, the restitution order is denied.

[ 76 ] In addition to the terms of his incarceration,

(a) Singh is prohibited from carrying weapons for life pursuant to section 109 of the Criminal Code ; and

(b) Singh must provide a sample of his DNA pursuant to s. 487.05(1) of the Criminal Code as armed robbery is a primary designated offence.

9. Summary of Conclusions

[ 77 ] Singh is to receive a global sentence of six years and six months for the conviction for armed robbery. He is to receive a concurrent sentence of one year for forcible confinement.

[ 78 ] From that sentence shall be deducted one year in consideration of the police misconduct and assaults on his person.

[ 79 ] He shall receive 2:1 credit for the periods he was incarcerated from June 11 to June 30, 2009 and from March 28, 2012 to today’s date. In addition he is to receive 1/3:1 credit for time spent on house arrest from June 30 to December 14, 2009.

[ 80 ] Singh is prohibited from carrying weapons for life pursuant to section 109 of the Criminal Code and he must provide a sample of his DNA pursuant to s. 487.05(1) of the Criminal Code .

Thorburn J.

Released July 27, 2012

COURT FILE NO.: 10-40000850-0000

DATE: 20120727

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – and – NEIL SINGH

REASONS FOR SENTENCE Thorburn J.

Released: July 27, 2012