SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Court File No. CR-11-1568
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
v.
JENNA LYNN HIGGINS
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE S.B. DURNO
on February 1, 2013, at BRAMPTON, Ontario.
APPEARANCES:
J. Leising Counsel for Public Prosecution Service of Canada
D. Maubach Counsel for Jenna Higgins
(i)
R. v. Higgins
Table of Contents
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
REASONS FOR SENTENCE Page 1
Transcript Ordered: ...................... February 8, 2013
Transcript Completed: ....................... July 16, 2013
Ordering Party Notified: .................... July 17, 2013
R. v. Higgins
Reasons for Sentence – Durno, J.
MONDAY, AUGUST 20, 2010
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
DURNO, J. (Orally):
Ms. Higgins entered a plea of guilty to importing 601 grams of cocaine. From all the material before me, it is clear that she was sent to Jamaica and was to be paid for her efforts. I accept from the comments today that she was aware she was bringing a controlled substance or a narcotic into Canada, but not which one. I note from when the facts were read in back in December when she pled that while she was being examined, she was texting someone, telling them that they were going through her stuff and asking what to do and then got a reply back that “they were doing their job.”
Very experienced counsel have placed me before me a joint position of two years. In the particular circumstances of this case, I find that is an appropriate disposition. Ms. Higgins is 22 years of age. She has no record. From the pre-sentence report and from the letter filed, I think
Mr. Maubach’s characterization of her as a brilliant and gifted dancer with a sound future, is amply justified in this case. How and why she got herself involved, with her background in this offence, is the missing chapter, but that is not something that aggravates the case.
In terms of the offence itself, why for an individual like Ms. Higgins, a two year sentence is appropriate, requires just a brief look at what are the aggravating facts. Higher courts have indicated importing any drug is a serious offence, when it is cocaine it is aggravated because of the serious harm that the drug causes. The Court of Appeal said in the past that the use and sale of cocaine kills and harms both directly and indirectly. The direct adverse health effects on those who use the drug are enormous and disastrous. Cocaine sale and use is closely and strongly associated with violent crime. Cocaine importation begets a multiplicity of violent acts.
Viewed in isolation from the conduct which inevitably follows the importation of cocaine, the act itself, is not a violent one in the strict sense. But the Court of Appeal went on to say that because of the inevitable consequences that this offence is actually regarded as one, and is both violent and serious. R. v. Hamilton (2004), 2004 5549 (ON CA), 186 C.C.C. (3d) 129. The Court of Appeal for very few offences has set ranges of sentences and at 601 I take it this case would be in the range from Hamilton and Mason, in the area of two years, but up to five years as well.
The other issue that has to be addressed with respect to sentencing is regrettably, this is not the only importing case. There are many going through this courthouse. In fact, viewing the trial readiness list for two weeks, or 10 days from now, three of the cases are individuals charged with this same offence.
But there are very significant mitigating facts here. First, she entered a plea of guilty, which generally indicates remorse and the potential for rehabilitation. Arrangements were made to do that before the trial date, so that court time was saved, witnesses did not have to come to court. She spent around three weeks in total in pre-trial custody, I am told, between her initial arrest and I take it as a result of a revocation.
The Pre-sentence Report is one of the more detailed ones I have seen, with a great deal of information about the television show and what happened in her efforts to win that contest. It is a very positive pre-sentence report. She has strong family support. Her parents are here today and from the pre-sentence report, she was raised in a good family.
Her prospects of rehabilitation are excellent given the steps that she has taken, going to Homewood with respect to depression, from the comments in the Pre-sentence Report and Miss Wagner’s letter. I also find from her comments today that she is sincerely remorseful.
For all of these reasons, the joint position is appropriate. For the reasons dictated, sentence two years in jail. You are prohibited – these are mandatory orders. Prohibited from having in your possession any firearm, crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition, explosive substances for 10 years, any prohibited firearm, restrictive firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device, prohibited ammunition for life.
There will be a DNA order, the fine surcharge is waived, and the pre-sentence report and letter are to be attached to the warrant of committal. Anything further?
MR. LEISING: No, thank you, Your Honour.
MR. MAUBACH: No, thank you.
THE COURT: And I want to thank both counsel for your assistance in this matter.
MR. MAUBACH: Thank you.
...WHEREUPON THIS MATTER WAS CONCLUDED
FORM 2
Certificate of Transcript
Evidence Act, Subsection 5(2)
I, Janet L. McLean certify that this document is a true and
accurate transcription of the recording of R. v. Higgins in the Superior Court of Justice held at 7755 Hurontario Street, Brampton, Ontario taken from Recording No. 3199-407-20130201-080020 which has been certified by M.J. Holley in Form 1.
Tuesday, July 17, 2013 __________________________
(Date) (Signature of Authorized Person)