COURT FILE NO.: CR-11-30000718
DATE: 20120920
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N :
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
NAVEEN ARIARATNAM
W. Thompson and L. Fineberg, for the Crown
A. La Bar, for the Offender
HEARD: July 20, 2012
R E A S O N S F O R R U L I N G
M. DAMBROT J.:
[1] Naveen Ariaratnam was tried by me, with a jury, on a charge of second degree murder. On June 22, 2012, the jury found him guilty. In order to find the offender guilty, the jury had to be satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that at 2:30 a.m. on November 27, 2010, the offender intentionally drove his SUV onto a sidewalk and directly at Vincent Dang, ran over Mr. Dang and killed him, intending to cause his death, or intending to cause him bodily harm that he knew was likely to cause his death, and was reckless whether death ensued or not.
[2] On July 20, 2012, I sentenced Mr. Ariaratnam to imprisonment for life, imposed a period of parole ineligibility of 12 years, made a prohibition order pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code for life and made a DNA order pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Code. I indicated at that time that I would deliver brief reasons for increasing the period of parole ineligibility to 12 years at a later time. These are those reasons.
[3] The offender is 26 years of age, has a grade 11 education and has a considerable criminal record. He has two prior convictions for crimes of violence – one for robbery as a youth, and one for arson as an adult, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for two months in addition to 198 days of pre-trial custody, one conviction for obstructing justice, 13 convictions for crimes of dishonesty, stemming from his involvement at an executive level in enormous credit card frauds, and several other convictions for breaches of his obligations to attend court or obey court orders. He also has a lengthy record for violations of the rules of the road and the safety of the public when driving.
[4] There are several aggravating factors in this case in addition to the offender’s criminal antecedents. First and foremost, the offender snuffed out the life of a young man, and devastated his family and friends. In addition, the offender played a leading role in reviving a confrontation between his friends and the victim and the victim’s friends when it appeared to be long over, exhibited a disturbing inability to control his anger, displayed a shocking disregard for the safety of others, and demonstrated that he is a danger to the public by carrying out acts that could easily have resulted in the death of several other young men in addition to Mr. Dang. He also made very real efforts to conceal and destroy evidence, place suspicion on others, and interfere with the administration of justice.
[5] At the sentencing hearing, Ms. Fineberg, for the Crown, conceded that the circumstances of this case are unusual, and that she could find no analogous case. Based on the guidance found in the provisions of the Criminal Code that establish the applicable principles, and the period of parole ineligibility fixed in other cases, she recommended a period of parole ineligibility of 12 to 14 years. She argued that denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and the protection of the public were the paramount considerations in imposing sentence in this case, and that they justified the range of sentence she recommended.
[6] While it is true that the offender had been consuming alcohol prior to the murder, and was provoked, to use the word colloquially, I have no doubt that these considerations played no more than a minor role in this offence. His friends saw no indication that he was affected by alcohol in any serious way, and his actions were so grossly disproportionate to the provocation as to make that consideration irrelevant.
[7] By way of mitigation, the most that can be said for the offender is that he is still a relatively young man, and has committed few crimes of violence before this one.
[8] In considering this matter, I take into account that 5 jurors recommended a period of parole ineligibility of 10 years, while one recommended 15 years, and 6 made no recommendation.
[9] While I find the crime committed by the offender reprehensible, the fact is that all murders are reprehensible, and yet in many cases parole ineligibility is not increased. However, in my view, the seriousness of this offence and the circumstances of this offender do justify some increase. I concluded that Ms. Fineberg hit the mark when she recommended an increase in the range of 12 to 14 years. In the end, I settled on 12 years as the most appropriate figure.
M. Dambrot J.
RELEASED: September 20, 2012
COURT FILE NO.: CR-11-30000718
DATE: 20120920
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N :
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
NAVEEN ARIARATNAM
REASONS FOR RULING
DAMBROT J.
RELEASED: September 20, 2012