ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
CITATION: R. v. Ramta, 2015 ONSC 2716
COURT FILE NO.: CR-11-1605
DATE: 20150528
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
J. Goulin, counsel for the Crown
- and -
SUNNY RAMTA
R. Christie, counsel for Sunny Ramta
HEARD: April 23, 2015
DECIDED: May 28, 2015
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
André J.
[1] On February 11, 2013 I convicted Mr. Ramta and a co-accused, Mr. Philroy Green, of attempted robbery of Mr. Elvis Domenic-Perez on August 6, 2010.
[2] The Crown seeks a sentence in the range of 2 to 3 years imprisonment while Mr. Ramta’s counsel suggests that a sentence within the range of 18 months to 2 years less a day in jail, with significant credit for the 4 years and 8 months of house arrest that Mr. Ramta has experienced, as the appropriate sentence. I am therefore asked to decide what is a proportionate sentence in this case, pursuant to s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
BACKGROUND FACTS
[3] Prior to the robbery, Mr. Ramta had an acquaintanceship with Mr. Domenic-Perez and periodically purchased marijuana from him. On the day of the robbery, Mr. Ramta arranged to purchase marijuana from Mr. Domenic-Perez. He and two others drove to the latter’s residence in a friend’s car. They parked in the parking lot of a recreational centre in Brampton. Mr. Green and an unknown male attended Mr. Domenic-Perez’s residence and proceeded inside. They confronted Mr. Domenic-Perez and a friend inside the residence.
[4] After a brief struggle, Mr. Domenic-Perez and his friend retreated to a bedroom. Mr. Green and the other male banged on the bedroom door in an unsuccessful attempt to gain entry. Mr. Domenic-Perez and his companion fled the residence through the bedroom window. Mr. Green and his companion left the residence. It is unclear whether the culprits got any marijuana from the residence.
[5] A stick-wielding Mr. Domenic-Perez chased the men to their waiting car before all four left the scene.
[6] Following the robbery, Mr. Ramta sent Mr. Domenic-Perez a number of emails warning him not to contact the police. Mr. Domenic-Perez initially denied knowing the persons involved in the robbery and only did so after being confronted with evidence that the police were aware of the email exchange between himself and Mr. Ramta.
PRE-SENTENCE REPORT (“the Report”)
[7] The 23 year old accused was born in Brampton where he currently resides with his grandparents. Mr. Ramta’s father passed away when he was six years of age while his mother had repeated involvement with the criminal justice system.
[8] Mr. Ramta attended high school but started to struggle while in his teens. He started to smoke marijuana and inevitably gravitated toward the proverbial “wrong crowd”. This descent into wrongdoing culminated with the robbery of Mr. Domenic-Perez.
[9] Mr. Ramta enrolled in Sheridan College where he completed the necessary credits to obtain his grade 12 diploma. He also completed one year of a 3-year program in a Human Resources program at Sheridan College.
[10] Mr. Ramta has been employed in a subsidiary of the Ford Motor Company since July 2011. He initially worked at the company through an agency for 13 months and was then given a temporary position by the company. He was hired full-time in October 2012 and has worked there ever since.
[11] Mr. Ramta is in a stable relationship with his girlfriend who is a registered nurse. He continues to enjoy the support of his grandparents. In contemplation of his sentencing, Mr. Ramta made a $100 donation to the Aboriginal Legal Services and a $200 donation to the Sick Kids Hospital.
[12] Mr. Ramta was found guilty of fraud in July 2010 and placed on probation for one year. The Report notes that his response to supervision was appropriate and that he complied with all required conditions.
[13] The Report indicates that Mr. Ramta tends to minimize his involvement in the robbery. However, he presented as genuine in his efforts to avoid any further involvement in the criminal justice system and has not had any further problems since his involvement in the robbery.
Applicable Legal Principles
[14] Sentencing is an individualized process; one in which a sentence is tailored to reflect the gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the offender. R v. Currie 1997 347 (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 260, 115 C.C.C. (3d) 205, at paras. 278-280, S.C.R. page 219 C.C.C.
[15] A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. s. 718.1 of the Code.
[16] The “gravity of the offence” refers to the seriousness of the offence as reflected by the potential penalty imposed by Parliament and any special features of the commission of the crime which may increase or decrease the harm or risk of harm to the community occasioned by it. R v. Hamilton, 2004 5549 (ON CA), 72 O.R. (3d) 1, [2004] O.J. No. 3252 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 90
[17] The “degree of responsibility of the offender” refers to the offender’s culpability and any specific aspects of the offender’s conduct or background that either increases or decreases the offender’s responsibility for the crime. Hamilton, supra, at para. 91.
[18] While proportionality is the fundamental principle of sentencing, other sentencing principles such as parity, totality and restraint may also be utilized in the determination of an appropriate sentence in a particular case. See sections 718.2(b), (c), (d) and (e). The latter two subsections stipulate that:
(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and
(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.
[19] Additionally, s. 718 provides that sentencing must promote one or more of the following objectives:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community. 1995, c. 22, s. 6
ANALYSIS
[20] The determination of an appropriate sentence in this case involves a consideration of the gravity of the offence and the personal circumstances of Mr. Ramta.
[21] Regarding the former, there is no dispute that the incident involved the forced entry into Mr. Domenic-Perez’s house for the purpose of committing a theft or robbery and as such constitutes a home invasion. R. v. Wright, 2006 40975 (ON CA), 83 O.R. (3d) 427, at para. 13. The fact that little or no property was stolen from the residence does not detract from the seriousness of the offence given that the incident involved an extraordinary violation of Mr. Domenic-Perez’s privacy and the sanctity of his home. The fact that Mr. Domenic-Perez and his friend had to flee the residence after retreating to a bedroom underscores the seriousness of the incident.
[22] The other aggravating factors in this case are as follows:
(1) The incident was planned;
(2) There was some damage to the bedroom door of the home;
(3) Mr. Domenic-Perez was assaulted by the robbers;
(4) Mr. Ramta made threats to Mr. Domenic-Perez not to contact the police.
[23] That said, there are a number of mitigating factors in this case. They include the following:
(1) No one was injured during the robbery;
(2) Property damage was minimal;
(3) Mr. Ramta enjoys the support of his family;
(4) Mr. Ramta has generally been compliant with his bail conditions;
(5) Mr. Ramta is now a productive member of the society and has taken steps to rehabilitate himself.
[24] The Ontario Court of Appeal has indicated that the sentencing principles of general deterrence and denunciation are the paramount sentencing principles in cases involving home invasions. R v. Nelson, 2010 ONCA 870, [2010] O.J. No. 5418, Wright, supra; R v. Mann, 2010 ONCA 342, [2010] O.J. No. 1924 (C.A.).
[25] In Wright, the Ontario Court of Appeal noted that the sentencing range for cases involving home invasions was 4 to 5 years at the low end, and 11 to 13 years at the high end. Wright, supra, para. 24, R v. J.B., 2011 ONSC 1150, [2011] O.J. No. 875 (S.C.J.), at para. 20, R. v. Willimott, 2015 ONCA 272. The court also noted that there are exceptional circumstances that may well justify a sentence outside this range without diminishing the gravity of the offence.
[26] Given its submission that a sentence of 2 to 3 years would be appropriate in this case, the Crown recognizes that this home invasion is at the lower end of the spectrum in terms of seriousness. There were no firearms involved; no gratuitous violence and no unlawful confinement. Neither was there any destruction of Mr. Domenic-Perez’s home or theft of any significant amount of property. It is unclear whether the culprits stole any drugs from the residence.
[27] Additionally, Mr. Ramta has clearly taken significant steps to rehabilitate himself. He has a good job and a supportive family. He has not had any further difficulties with the criminal justice system. He is also in a stable relationship.
[28] What then is a proportionate sentence based on the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of Mr. Ramta? While general deterrence and denunciation are the paramount sentencing considerations in this case, the sentencing objective of rehabilitation is important, given Mr. Ramta’s youth, his lack of a criminal record and the positive and commendable steps he has taken to rehabilitate himself.
[29] In all the circumstances of this case, the appropriate sentence should be one of 20 months incarceration.
[30] Mr. Ramta’s counsel submits that Mr. Ramta should receive significant credit such that he should not be required to serve any time in custody.
[31] I cannot give effect to this submission for two reasons. The Crown was ready to proceed with sentencing in this matter as early as April 15, 2013. Mr. Ramta, through his counsel, has repeatedly adjourned the date of his sentencing along with his co-accused. He has therefore not shown any urgency in having a sentencing hearing as soon as possible.
[32] Second, Mr. Ramta did not take any steps to vary the conditions of his bail from the date of his release to the date of his sentence hearing. The conditions of his recognizance did not prevent him from obtaining a fulltime job and taking the appropriate steps to become a productive member of the community.
[33] For those reasons, I am unable to give Mr. Ramta credit of some 20 months because of the restrictive conditions of his recognizance which has been in effect for 4 years and 8 months.
DISPOSITION
(1) Mr. Ramta is sentenced to 20 months jail.
(2) Following the expiration of his sentence he will be on probation for 12 months, the conditions of which are as follows:
i) Report to a probation officer upon release and thereafter as required;
ii) Keep the peace and be of good behaviour;
iii) Have no weapons in your possession;
iv) Have no association directly or indirectly with Elvis Domenic-Perez and Philroy Green;
v) Do not attend within 100 metres of Mr. Elvis Domenic-Perez’s place of residence or employment if either is known to you;
vi) Take such counselling as your probation officer may recommend;
ANCILLARY ORDERS
(3) Section 110 order for 10 years;
(4) A DNA order (Primary Designated Offence);
(5) Victim Fine Surcharge is waived.
André J.
Released: May 28, 2015
CITATION: R. v. Ramta, 2015 ONSC 2716
COURT FILE NO.: CR-11-1605
DATE: 20150528
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and –
SUNNY RAMTA
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
André J.
Released: May 28, 2015