ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: 13-30000189-0000
DATE: 2014-03-24
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
– and –
BLAKE DOUGLAS
Applicant
Tim Edwards, for the Crown
Donald Powell, for the Applicant
HEARD: March 24, 2014
DUNNET J.: (Orally)
[1] Blake Douglas has entered a plea of guilty to breaking and entering into a dwelling house and committing theft.
[2] On July 6, 2012, at 10:50 p.m., a tenant living in the basement of the house heard footsteps coming from the main floor. Knowing that the landlord was not at home, she telephoned him and he told her to notify the police.
[3] After the police arrived, they saw Mr. Douglas leave the house by the rear door, carrying a flashlight. As they pursued him, he jumped over a fence and plowed through a section of another fence. He was apprehended a short distance away and arrested after a struggle. He was found in possession of jewellery, a Swiss Army knife and an iPod belonging to the homeowner.
[4] Mr. Douglas is 48 years old. He attended university for one year as a mature student and worked for some time in his brother’s carpet business. Prior to these events, he was living on the street. He presently has the support of his mother, brother and sister.
[5] Mr. Douglas testified on his unsuccessful application to stay proceedings against him based on allegations of excessive force used by the police, and I found him to be a man of some intelligence, but with an unfortunate and lengthy criminal history. This is his 22nd offence for breaking and entering a dwelling house.
[6] On February 1, 2005, Mr. Douglas was sentenced to imprisonment for four years following a guilty plea to a breaking and entering: see R. v. Douglas, [2005] O.J. No. 1963 (C.J.), leave to appeal to Ont. C.A. refused, 2008 ONCA 358. At that time, he expressed remorse to the court and a desire to return to university. In passing sentence, A.R. Webster J. said to him, at para. 32:
You have been given every opportunity every time that you have been before the courts or, in a custodial situation, to try and do what you say you want to try and do again today.
[7] Webster J. also expressed the view, at paras. 40 to 41, that although the courts had tried to rehabilitate Mr. Douglas, it did not seem to be making any difference. He stated that the only way to deter him from committing further offences was to keep making the sentences longer.
[8] The Crown submits that, given his unenviable record, Mr. Douglas should be given a stiff sentence of five years with credit for one day for each day spent in custody.
[9] The defence seeks a sentence of four years with enhanced credit for time served based on the unique circumstances of this man’s case.
[10] In R. v. Snow, 2007 ONCJ 426, Trotter J. stated, at p. 2:
In our society, the home is a place of great sanctity. Due to the robust expectation of privacy people have in their own homes, the law provides formidable protection against state intrusion. Because of the sense of security that people enjoy while in their homes, the law punishes intrusions by individuals into homes more severely than other types of break-ins. When a home is broken into, there is always the risk of physical harm to the occupants of the home. For these reasons, break-ins of dwelling houses are punishable by a maximum of life imprisonment. [Citations omitted.]
[11] Mr. Douglas addressed this court and expressed genuine remorse for his actions.
[12] In the past, Mr. Douglas has not been deterred by prison sentences. Twice he has been recommitted for violations of his statutory release. At the time of this offence, he was subject to a probation order. It is evident from his criminal history that even after he is released from jail, he continues to break into people’s homes.
[13] Taking into consideration the sentencing principles of deterrence, denunciation and the need to protect the public by separating Mr. Douglas from society, I am of the opinion that an appropriate sentence is one of four and one-half years in the penitentiary.
[14] The real issue between the parties is whether Mr. Douglas is entitled to enhanced credit for time served.
[15] On the sentence hearing, the defence called the evidence of Sergeant John Lawson, Security Manager for the Toronto East Detention Centre. Sergeant Lawson testified that he is familiar with Mr. Douglas and since his incarceration on July 7, 2012, he has been housed for over 400 nights in a 24-bed dorm known as the work range.
[16] Mr. Douglas undertook the institutional work program as a cleaner and, according to Sergeant Lawson, this man is the first to volunteer to perform difficult cleaning tasks in the segregation unit, which often involve cleaning feces left on the walls and floors of cells by inmates with psychiatric problems. He testified that in the absence of cleaner volunteers from the inmate population, this work has to be performed by staff.
[17] Correspondence from the Temporary Absence Program Coordinator of the Toronto East Detention Centre states that the segregation unit is probably the most difficult and hard-to-stomach cleaning job in the institution. The Coordinator describes Mr. Douglas as polite and professional to staff and an extremely hard worker. During his incarceration, there have been no behavioural problems reported.
[18] Evidence adduced on the sentence hearing demonstrates that Mr. Douglas has voluntarily participated in programs on substance abuse, anger management, cognitive skills, self-esteem, religion and reintegration with respect to computer technology programs. In addressing the court, Mr. Douglas spoke of the requirement to qualify for such programs and the personal insight he has gleaned from them.
[19] The circumstances justifying enhanced credit need not be exceptional. However, they do need to be individual to the accused.
[20] The Crown submits that although Mr. Douglas appears to thrive in a custodial setting, he has not earned the right to enhanced credit.
[21] Credit for enhanced credit under s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code is discretionary. It may be given when the accused can show, on the balance of probabilities, that the circumstances justify it in his particular case.
[22] There is credible evidence of good behaviour in this case. Mr. Douglas has undertaken many courses, resulting in a handful of certificates acknowledging his interest and eagerness to learn. Moreover, he has spent the past year voluntarily performing “probably the most difficult and hard-to-stomach cleaning job in the institution.” I am of the view that the circumstances individual to this accused would justify enhanced credit.
[23] Accordingly, Mr. Douglas is entitled to enhanced credit for time spent in custody, resulting in a sentence of twenty-four months less one day in a provincial reformatory.
DUNNET J.
Released: March 24, 2014
COURT FILE NO.: 13-30000189-0000
DATE: 2014-03-24
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
– and –
BLAKE DOUGLAS
Applicant
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
DUNNET J.
Released: March 24, 2014