COURT FILE NO.: J-14-4855 DATE: 2016-06-02 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN P. Scrutton and M. Flanagan, for the Crown

• and -

ROBERT HANSEN G. Lafontaine and B. Cummins, for Robert Hansen

HEARD: May 30, 2016 The Honourable Justice C.D. Braid

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

I. Introduction

[1] Robert Hansen (“Hansen”) is a Detective Constable with the Hamilton Police Service. On January 29, 2016, Hansen was convicted of three offences:

i. Perjury, namely knowingly making a false statement under oath in an Information to Obtain a Warrant to Search, contrary to section 131(1) of the Criminal Code;

ii. Attempt to obstruct justice by causing that same Information to Obtain to be considered by a judicial officer knowing that it contained material omissions and/or misleading statements and/or false statements, contrary to s.139(2) of the Criminal Code; and

iii. Attempt to obstruct justice by encouraging an informant to place a firearm at a residence with the intent that it be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding, contrary to s.139(2) of the Criminal Code.

II. Facts

[2] Because the factual background for the crimes was exhaustively set out in the court’s earlier reasons (2016 ONSC 548), a brief summary will suffice to set out the context for this sentencing proceeding.

[3] In May of 2012, Hansen was a Detective Constable in the Gangs and Weapons Enforcement Unit of the Hamilton Police Service, and had been in that unit for approximately five years. As part of his police duties, Hansen was issued a Blackberry smartphone. Hansen communicated, via text messages on this phone, with an informant who is referred to as “Source C”.

[4] On May 16, 2012, Source C offered to set up Darren Mork (“Mork”), who also goes by the nickname D or D-Block. Mork was a suspected drug trafficker in the City of Hamilton and known to the Hamilton Police Service. In response to Source C’s text message, Hansen replied “He [Mork] could use some jail time. Do u have any ideas how to get him?” Source C stated “I’ll set him up for you, I’ll let you guys get him with a thing.” Hansen stated “This will get him put away for several years.” Source C told Hansen that he would let him know “when it’s there” and once it is there “you won’t have a lot of time to waste.”

[5] On May 23, 2012, Source C expressed reluctance about setting up Mork. Hansen replied “ They not getting done w ithout u probably.” Source C asked if this was important to Hansen because Source C still needed drug help (which the informant had requested from the officer). Hansen replied “It would help tons. Especially that heat.” The exchange of text messages on May 23 was particularly relevant to the findings at trial that Hansen encouraged the informant to plant a gun.

[6] Source C told Hansen that he was setting D up with the gun that was used in a prior shooting. Hansen stated “Just give me notice. I don’t want it somewhere kids could find it before me.” Source C told Hansen that he needed to go to retrieve the gun from another location, and that the police cannot raid that other location because Source C needed that gun to “set up ya boy D.”

[7] On May 24, 2012, Source C told Hansen that he was going to get the gun and that the person who had the gun wanted to get rid of it because it was dirty. Source C stated that he would go to Mork’s house to buy drugs and while there he would leave the gun. Hansen asked that Source C tell him when it was all done.

[8] On the morning of May 25, 2012, Source C stated that the gun was in the couch in Mork’s house. Source C described the gun as a loaded Glock 17 and said that his prints might be on it. Source C also stated that he had left his scale in Mork’s house. Hansen said that he would take care of all that. Hansen stated , “ I’m going to meet judge to get warrant right now. ”

[9] Hansen wrote and swore an Information to Obtain in support of a search warrant for Mork’s residence. Hansen then attended before a Justice of the Peace to have the warrant authorized. T he warrant was signed by a Justice of the Peace.

[10] The Information to Obtain contained a false statement regarding the gun. Contrary to the Information to Obtain that was prepared and sworn by Hansen, Source C did not tell Hansen, on May 16, that “[he] had heard that Mork has a handgun hidden in his residence that was previously used in a shooting in Hamilton”. In reality, Source C told Hansen that he would bring the gun to Mork’s residence and hide it there to “set up” Mork.

[11] In addition to making the false statement about the gun, Hansen made other material omissions and/or misleading and/or false statements in the Information to obtain, including the following:

i. Source B and Source C’s motivations were misstated in the Information to Obtain.

ii. The Information to Obtain contained a description of Source C’s visit to Mork’s residence on May 25. Hansen described how Source C examined Mork’s handgun, which was in the cushions of the sofa in the basement. This portion of the Information to Obtain contained a significant material omission regarding the fact that Source C actually brought the handgun to Mork’s residence and concealed it in the couch.

iii. In the Information to Obtain, Hansen described how Source C stated that scales and plastic wrap were in Mork’s basement. This was misleading and/or false, as Source C told Hansen that he left his own scales in Mork’s basement and did not tell Hansen anything about plastic wrap.

[12] Hansen executed the warrant by conducting a search of Mork’s residence between 4:30 pm and 6:30 pm on May 25, 2012. A baggie containing 0.02 grams of cocaine was seized, but no gun was located. Hansen texted Source C during the execution of the warrant, and asked “ We here now – nothing in his couches…U know if we don’t find anything we can’t lock him up.”

[13] Mork was arrested and found to be in possession of 11.5g of cocaine. He was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and released on a promise to appear.

[14] On May 27, 2012, Source C texted Hansen and stated that he had two “dirty” guns that he wanted to get rid of. Source C offered to do setups and Hansen replied “ we could still do other setups…if u wanna use it like D…”

[15] The fact that Source C was going to plant a firearm in Mork’s residence was not contained in the Information to Obtain. This fact was not contained in Hansen ’s duty notes or in his confidential source notes. There was no mention of this information in any will-state or paperwork made in the context of Mork’s arrest and drug charge after the warrant was executed on May 25, 2012.

III. Circumstances of the Offender

[16] Hansen is currently 41 years of age. He has worked for the Hamilton Police Service since September of 2000. He has been suspended with pay since August of 2012 and was charged in November of 2012. Hansen has no police discipline history or prior criminal record.

[17] Hansen is married and has two children, ages 10 and 8. Hansen’s 10 year old daughter has been diagnosed with a severe anxiety disorder that must be accommodated with specialized school programming. Hansen is the financial provider for his family, who will be severely impacted when he is incarcerated. The family will not be able to stay in their home and the children will have to attend a different school. The suspension from the police force and the charges have had a significant effect on Hansen’s physical appearance, his emotional well-being and his social life. He has become more reserved, introverted and withdrawn. The charges have influenced his self-worth, his self-esteem and his confidence.

[18] Defence counsel filed 16 letters of support on behalf of the offender. These reference letters were written by former police colleagues, members of his family, his community and his social circle. Consistently, the authors of the character letters emphasize Hansen’s commitment to family, and in particular his devotion to his children. The letters describe the offender as being a hard-working individual with integrity, generosity, reliability, honesty and compassion for others.

IV. Impact on Other Prosecutions

[19] In 2012 and 2013, federal prosecutors reviewed outstanding cases in which Hansen was an essential Crown witness. Ten prosecutions, the majority of which involved Controlled Drugs and Substances Act charges involving cocaine, as well as weapons and proceeds charges, were stayed or withdrawn by the Crown. With the exception of the charges against Mork, there was no evidence of misconduct by Hansen in the cases that were stayed.

[20] At the time Hansen was charged, the Hamilton Police Service reviewed all of his pending cases and did not find any suggestion of misconduct, with the exception of the investigation of Mork.

V. Positions of the Parties

[21] Counsel agree that a conditional sentence is not available for the perjury charge because the maximum penalty for that offence is 14 years.

A. Defence Position

[22] Counsel for Hansen stressed his excellent antecedents. He placed emphasis on the character letters that have been filed, as well as Hansen’s unblemished police service history, to argue that the offender is of good character. It was submitted that Hansen is the primary financial resource for his family and a jail sentence will have a devastating impact on his family.

[23] Mr. Cummins submitted that a total sentence of sixteen months would be a fit disposition in this case.

B. Crown Position

[24] The Crown submitted that a global sentence of six years’ incarceration is justified, considering the gravity of the crimes committed and the offender’s breach of trust as a police officer. There is a pressing need for denunciation and deterrence, especially since the offender is a police officer. Hansen’s actions tarnished the reputation of the administration of justice and of the police force. His actions also affected the viability of other prosecutions.

[25] The Crown argued that this case is without precedent in Canada. There are no reported sentencing decisions of a police officer who has been convicted of deliberately planting evidence.

VI. Analysis

A. General Principles

[26] I have considered the purposes of sentencing as set out in s.718 and the sentencing principles set out in sections 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

[27] Section 718.2(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code states that a breach of trust is deemed to be an aggravating factor.

[28] General deterrence and denunciation drive the sentencing process in breach of trust cases. Absent an exceptional mitigating factor, severe sentences are justified for police officer offenders: see R. v. Cook, 2010 ONSC 5016, [2010] O.J. No 4414 (S.C.); R. v. Rudge, 2014 ONSC 241, [2014] O.J. No. 113 (S.C.); R. v. Leblanc, 2003 NBCA 75, [2003] N.B.J. No. 398 (C.A.).

[29] Convictions related to interfering with the administration of justice and perjury must attract significant sentences to deter and denounce such action. When the perpetrators of the crime are police officers sworn to uphold the law, the objective of denunciation has heightened significance. Police officers owe a special duty to be faithful to the justice system: see R. v. Schertzer, 2015 ONCA 259, [2015] O.J. No. 2014 (C.A.), at paras. 134-136.

[30] The following quotes, cited with approval by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Schertzer, supra, at paras. 134-135, are apposite:

Obstruction of justice or attempting to obstruct justice strikes at our system of a lawful society. The message must be clear that this type of interference with the community system for handling criminal offences will not be tolerated. It is for this reason that the courts must act firmly to express society's disapproval and denunciation of such conduct.

And further, in relation to perjury:

The administration of justice is based upon the truthful testimony of those persons who are called to give evidence under oath. The freedom, or on the other hand, the incarceration of accused persons in serious criminal offences depends totally upon the truthfulness of those witnesses.

B. Sentencing of Police Officers

[31] Public confidence in the honesty of the police is fundamental to the crim inal justice system’s integrity. Police officers are sworn to uphold the law. The public must be protected from offences being committed by persons in authority and such offenders need to be deterred from breaching the trust placed in them : see R. v. Schertzer, supra, at paras. 132-133.

[32] Police officers, as officials discharging public duties occupy a special position of trust in the community. Individuals working in the justice system owe a duty to the public to uphold the values of that system, and the administration of justice depends on the fidelity and honesty of police officers. Policing is challenging work, but the vast majority of police officers perform their duties carefully and reasonably: see R. v. Cook, supra, paras. 29-31; R. v. Rudge, supra.

[33] Part of the rule of law is that agents of the state must themselves be subject to and obey the law. Police take an oath to uphold the Constitution of Canada, to discharge their duties faithfully and lawfully, to investigate crimes according to the law, and to not abuse trust by violating laws they are obligated to enforce. Because it is presumed that police comply with the rule of law, when sentencing an officer for crimes involving breach of public trust the court may properly consider that the accused is well aware of the consequences of committing the crime: see R. v. Cook, supra, paras. 33-35.

[34] A police officer’s criminality resulting in breaching the trust imposed on him or her inevitably, but unfairly, diminishes the reputation of their force and fellow officers: see R. v. Cook, supra, para. 40.

[35] Police offenders also face two other consequences affecting the severity of punishment: loss of employment and incarceration in protective custody. Loss of employment must be considered, but it cannot trump the need for denunciation and deterrence. Further, because an offending officer’s prison time is inevitably served in protective custody, the limited social contact and institutional amenities ordinarily available is a mitigating factor: see R. v. Cook, paras. 41-43; R. v. Rudge, supra.

[36] Perjury is a serious offence because it strikes at the heart of the justice system and undermines the administration of justice. If our system of justice cannot expect witnesses to tell the truth then there is no reliable basis for a court to make determinations on the issues before it: see R. v. Robinson, 2015 BCSC 1535, [2015] B.C.J. No. 1838, at paras. 31-32; R. v. Reyat, 2014 BCCA 101, [2014] B.C.J. No. 427.

[37] A number of factors affect the length of sentence for perjury, including:

i. the seriousness of the offence with respect to which the perjured testimony was given; ii. the effect of the perjured evidence on the trial’s outcome; iii. whether the perjured testimony dealt with a vital part of the evidence; iv. whether the evidence implicated an innocent person in the crime, which would ordinarily be a most aggravating factor; and v. whether the perjury was planned and deliberate.

R. v. Reyat, supra, at para. 26.

C. Sentencing Authorities

i. R. v. Schertzer

[38] Five members of the Toronto Police Service drug squad were convicted of attempting to obstruct justice. Three of the five were also convicted of perjury. The officers lied about the timing of a search, namely whether it occurred before or after a search warrant arrived at the residence to be searched. The officers falsified their notes; lied in an Information to Obtain to search a safety deposit box; and gave perjured evidence in order to conceal the real timing of the search.

[39] The Court of Appeal found that a 3-year sentence was appropriate for these offences, but stayed the sentences because of the passage of time.

ii. R. v. Cook

[40] Cook was a police constable who stole 15kg of fake cocaine (which he thought was real) and 21 MP3 players. Cook was convicted of attempting to possess a controlled substance for purpose of trafficking; theft of 21 MP3 players; and breach of trust by an official in connection with the duties of his office. He was sentenced to a total of 5 years and 8 months in jail.

[41] After Cook was arrested, police and prosecution services reviewed cases in which Cook was an essential Crown witness. Ten cases were stayed or the charges withdrawn because there was no longer a reasonable prospect of conviction.

iii. R. v. Rudge

[42] Rudge was a police constable who was involved in an Ontario-wide Hells Angels investigation. While executing a search warrant at Hells Angels-connected properties, Niagara Police found a number of internal police memos related to the investigation that had been provided by Rudge to the Hells Angels. The memos revealed the identity of a police informant. Rudge’s actions impacted Niagara Police investigations as there was a reduction in the amount of information coming from confidential informants.

[43] The sentencing judge held that the most important factor in calculating the sentence length was the nature of the Hells Angels, which is a criminal organization. The breach of trust was “analogous to treason.” Rudge was convicted of breach of trust contrary to s. 121 of the Criminal Code and sentenced to four years in prison.

iv. R. v. Robinson

[44] Robinson was a police officer who was convicted of perjury. The conviction arose from testimony that the officer gave at a public inquiry into the death of Robert Dziekanski, who died after being tasered by police. Robinson was sentenced to two years less a day in jail and one year of probation.

v. R. v. Millington

[45] Millington was the police officer who tasered Robert Dziekanski and was subsequently convicted of perjury because of testimony that the officer gave at a public inquiry. He was sentenced to 30 months in prison (R. v. Millington, 2015 BCSC 1380, [2015] B.C.J. No. 1681).

vi. R. v. Reyat

[46] Reyat was convicted of perjury resulting from his testimony at the “Air India trial” and sentenced to the equivalent of 9 years in custody. The sentence is the longest ever imposed in Canada for perjury, but short of the maximum 14 year sentence for perjury.

D. Commentary on Sentencing Authorities

[47] The matter before the court is an extraordinary case, in that the actions of the officer had the potential to wrongfully interfere with another person’s liberty. The cases provided by counsel are helpful in setting out the considerations for this type of sentencing. However, the facts of the case before me are unique, and counsel were unable to point to a Canadian sentencing decision where an officer had been found guilty of taking part in a plan to plant evidence.

[48] In my view, the conduct of Hansen is significantly more serious than that of the five officers in Schertzer. While the conduct of those officers was serious, taking part in a plan to plant evidence and perjuring oneself in an Information to Obtain is much more egregious behaviour.

[49] In addition, the Cook decision provides a helpful analysis of the sentencing principles. However, the facts are very different. Although Cook committed a shocking breach of trust and potentially a very harmful offence given the volume of cocaine that might have been trafficked, the offences were not designed to implicate the legal interests of others.

E. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

i. Aggravating Factors

[50] The aggravating factors in this case reflect a high degree of moral blameworthiness on Hansen’s part. I have included the sentencing factors that were suggested by the court in R. v. Reyat, supra, along with additional factors in the paragraphs that follow.

[51] It was extremely serious for Hansen to lie about someone possessing a firearm and to lie when applying to obtain a search warrant.

[52] Hansen was successful in having the warrant issued, but the plot was unsuccessful and no gun was entered into evidence at a trial. That said, Hansen’s actions went beyond mere preparation. The fact that a firearm was never tendered as evidence in the prosecution of Mork was of no moment to the critical elements of the offences.

[53] It is acknowledged that there were grounds for the warrant to issue, irrespective of the perjury that was contained in the Information to Obtain. However, Hansen committed perjury by deliberately misstating information about the gun and omitting the fact that the gun had been placed at the residence.

[54] The additional misrepresentations and false statements in the Information to Obtain were significant. For example, Hansen knew that Source C had left his own scales at Mork’s place but left the impression that there were scales in the basement belonging to Mork. Hansen also assumed or guessed that there was plastic wrap at Mork’s residence and then stated that Source C had told him there was plastic wrap, even though Source C never did. Hansen deliberately embellished the facts to bolster the grounds for a warrant.

[55] In the Information to Obtain, Hansen stated “[d]isturbing information is included that a handgun is being stored in the basement and there was a suggestion it has already been used at least once in a local shooting. Police may well be negligent not to attempt to enter and search when firearms are present.” Although Hansen sought a CDSA drug warrant, the information about the firearm was clearly intended to bolster the urgency and importance of obtaining a warrant for the protection of the public.

[56] The intention and objective of the perjury in this case was to implicate an innocent person. This is highly aggravating.

[57] Hansen’s actions were planned and deliberate. The planning took place over course of a 10 day period, and Hansen had quite a bit of time to reconsider his actions. Even Source C expressed second thoughts about the plan to plant the firearm, but was encouraged by Hansen to proceed with the plan.

[58] Defence counsel argues that the conduct took place over a one-hour period when Hansen was drafting the bulk of the Information to Obtain. This submission is inconsistent with the facts of this case. Hansen knew that Source C had offered to plant a gun; when Source C expressed reluctance, he encouraged Source C to go through with it; he drafted his notes, willstates and other documentation without any mention of this plot; and he drafted an Information to Obtain that contained false and misleading information that was deliberately embellished. This conduct was not a momentary lack of judgment, but occurred over the course of 10 days.

[59] This was an abuse of a position of trust, which is an aggravating factor that must be taken into account pursuant to 718.2(a)(iii). Hansen’s actions constitute serious offences that strike at the heart and integrity of the justice system, which depends on police acting honestly in their investigations and in their sworn testimony. It is an offence committed by a person who was himself a member of the justice system and who had an elevated duty to the public and the administration of justice to maintain the integrity of the judicial system. His actions must be viewed in the context of his oath of office and his higher duty to the public.

[60] B ecause an application for a search warrant is an ex parte application, the affiant is obliged to provide accurate, truthful, full and frank disclosure of material facts (see R. v. M.(N.), (2008), 2007 PESCAD 17, 223 C.C.C. (3d) 1, (Ont. S.C.J.) at para. 320-2). Hansen’s conduct is particularly problematic in the context of an ex parte application for a search warrant. A Justice of the Peace counts on the affiant to be truthful as there is no right of the suspect to cross-examine and/or challenge the veracity of the sworn document that is placed before the court. An officer who perjures himself on such an application abuses that trust and position of power, which offends the entire administration of justice.

[61] Hansen’s conduct calls into question the integrity of other prosecutions in which he played a pivotal role and led to the termination of ten drug prosecutions.

[62] Misconduct of this kind undermines confidence in the justice system and the police. Defence counsel stressed that Hansen has an otherwise unblemished career with the police force. While it is true that his career has been untarnished to this point, it is difficult to imagine activity that could have a more damaging effect on the reputation of the Hamilton Police Service and the public’s trust in the hardworking officers who patrol the streets.

[63] Misconduct of this kind also undermines the legitimate use of confidential informants in law enforcement.

[64] The lies and misstatements were made in the context of a request to search a residence, which carries a high expectation of privacy. Hansen not only encouraged Source C to breach the sanctity of Mork’s personal space, but then pursued a warrant to search that dwelling house and seize falsified evidence. That said, it appears that the police had grounds to obtain a warrant irrespective of the perjured evidence, so I do not assign this factor much weight.

[65] Hansen falsified, by omission, all of the paperwork relating to the search warrant and his dealings with Source C. Hansen understood that the purpose of notes was to refresh memory and to provide disclosure. It is aggravating that there is an absence of any reference in his notes and/or willstate regarding the plot to plant the firearm.

[66] The idea of surreptitiously planting a firearm in someone’s house was dangerous and reckless. Hansen did not know who was present in Mork’s house, including whether any children resided in the home. Under cross-examination, Hansen acknowledged that it was dangerous to place a loaded gun in the cushions of a couch when the residents of the home were not aware of its presence.

[67] Source C’s actions constituted a serious criminal offence. It is extremely troublesome that Hansen never questioned the fact that Source C was committing a serious criminal offence by planting evidence, and that he was prepared to participate in this attempt to frame a person with a very serious offence.

[68] In hindsight, Source C was manipulative and untruthful. However, in the days leading up to the execution of the search warrant, Hansen believed and encouraged Source C’s intention to plant a gun at Mork’s residence. Hansen thought that Source C was a drug addict who was motivated to help his girlfriend and, to a lesser extent, was motivated by financial gain. Informants are vulnerable persons in our society whose liberty is often affected by decisions made by police officers. There is an enormous power imbalance between a police officer and an informant, thereby creating a greater onus on the officer not to manipulate the informant. Hansen encouraged Source C, a vulnerable person, to plant a gun and thereby commit a serious criminal offence.

[69] Hansen is an experienced police officer whose position is not lightly bestowed. At the time of these offences, he had twelve years’ experience as a police officer, including five years with a specialized unit. Police officers occupy a position of power and privilege which requires a heightened level of integrity. The confidentiality of informant relationships and the secrecy surrounding investigations and search warrant applications provided a cloak of secrecy under which Hansen was able to commit these offences. As a result, general deterrence is even more pressing.

[70] Defence counsel argued that the prosecution had failed to show that Hansen had a motive for framing Mork, such as personal gain, prestige or animus toward him. It is argued that Hansen did not “stray into the den of criminality” as he was not in the business of thievery or drug trafficking. It is further submitted that, as a member of the Gangs and Weapons squad, Hansen was part of a very effective and honest regime that took multiple guns off the streets and kept the streets of Hamilton safe. While we may never know the full reasons why Hansen committed these offences, it is clear that he took these steps because he wanted to put Mork in jail. Rather than investigating crime and putting legitimate evidence before the courts to determine a just outcome, Hansen took the goal of keeping the streets safe into his own hands. His conduct was a form of vigilante justice.

ii. Mitigating Factors

[71] The following paragraphs contain a summary of the mitigating factors in this case.

[72] This is Hansen’s f irst offence.

[73] The text messages suggest that Hansen had subjective grounds to believe that Mork was trafficking cocaine. It is likely that he could have obtained a search warrant without the perjured information.

[74] The plan to plant the firearm as evidence was unsuccessful so there was no harm occasioned to Mork.

[75] It is almost certain that Hansen will lose his employment as a police officer as a result of these convictions. This will have a significant financial impact on his wife and children. He will also lose the benefit of his pension.

[76] Hansen should be given credit for how efficiently this trial proceeded. Crown and defence counsel came to numerous agreements as to the facts, and the Crown’s case was significantly streamlined. This resulted in a savings of judicial resources. That said, there has been no demonstration of remorse. While this fact will not be treated as an aggravating factor, there is an absence of a potential mitigating factor in this case.

[77] During the intake stage of this matter, it came to Hansen’s attention that informant information had been included in two disclosure briefs as part of a McNeil report by local provincial crown. Hansen, through his counsel, alerted the crown. Steps were taken to have the disclosure returned to the Crown and properly vetted.

[78] A police officer who is sentenced to a period of custody will likely serve that time in protective custody. This is much more difficult than being in the general population. This must be treated as a mitigating factor: see R. v. Hanneson, [1989] O.J. No. 1067 (C.A.).

[79] Hansen has a supportive network of family and friends, all of which provide glowing references.

[80] The convictions have had a significant effect on Hansen’s reputation and stature in the community. He has also suffered a loss of friendships within the police force. Unfortunately, these are losses that he has visited upon himself, but they are still mitigating factors.

[81] Any sentence that is imposed will have a catastrophic effect on the lives of Hansen, his wife and his two young children. The sentence will be particularly difficult in light of the personal circumstances of his young daughter.

[82] Counsel for Hansen states that, since Source C is a liar, there could not have been a plot to plant a firearm. Based on information learned after the warrant was executed, counsel for the Crown and defence agree that Source C would not have been a credible witness. This statement is made with the benefit of hindsight and appears to be an attempt to re-litigate the findings that were made at trial. The Crown did not call Source C as a witness in these proceedings but instead relied on the text messages. The messages speak for themselves and establish that Hansen encouraged Source C to plant a firearm and then lied about it in an application for a search warrant. Despite the fact that no gun was found, Hansen believed that the gun would be there and texted from the location of the search asking where the gun was. I give no weight to this submission.

VII. Sentence

[83] It would be difficult to conceive of conduct that would more distinctly shock the community’s conscience than the police fabricating evidence. These were serious offences committed by a member of the justice system who has a duty to maintain the integrity of that system. The sentence must provide a message to potential offenders in similar circumstances.

[84] Police, in executing their duties, gain access to places and situations that ordinary citizens do not. In R. v. Leblanc, quoted in R. v. Cook, supra, the court stated:

Police officers have opportunities, practically on a daily basis, to cross the line and engage in prohibited conduct. The public trusts them to resist the temptation and relies upon the courts to deal firmly with those who stray.

[85] Officer Hansen, would you please stand?

[86] Having considered the case law and all of the relevant principles and sentencing factors, including the aggravating and mitigating factors, I am of the view that the appropriate sentence is one of 5 years. I therefore sentence you to five years in a penitentiary. The sentence shall be concurrent on all three counts.

[87] There will be the usual victim fine surcharge.

Braid, J. Released: June 2, 2016