Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CR-20-50000181-0000 DATE: 20210218 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: Her Majesty The Queen – and – Jamal Charles

Counsel: Ron Krueger, for the Crown Dan Johnson, for the Defendant

HEARD: January 7, 2021

Reasons for Sentence

G. ROBERTS J.

Overview

[1] Following a five-day trial, I found Jamal Charles guilty of trafficking cocaine and assault (see R. v. Charles, 2020 ONSC 6846). Courts have repeatedly emphasized that cocaine trafficking is a dangerous and destructive offence requiring exemplary sentences prioritizing general deterrence and denunciation. At the same time, Mr. Charles, while no longer a youthful first offender, has no criminal record and significant rehabilitative potential. The challenge in crafting a fit sentence in this case is emphasizing the seriousness of the offence, while also encouraging and emphasizing rehabilitation.

Circumstances of the Offence

[2] The trafficking consisted of 34 transactions over an approximately two-week period between May 2 and 15, 2018, and a single transaction on March 10, 2018, involving a friend (Clint Charles). All the transactions were 'street level' transactions involving small amounts of cocaine, either powder or crack. Based on the chart of the intercepted communications the Crown relied on to establish trafficking at trial, the transactions included the following (note that the first number is the transaction number; the times notes reflect the time of the communications relating to the transaction):

2 - Mar 10 (11:11 - 11:28 pm) – 0.7 grams of crack cocaine to Clint Charles 6 - May 2 (3:36 - 4:09 pm) – 0.9 grams of cocaine to Nick 7 - May 2-3 (10:02 pm - 5:31 am) – 0.8 grams of cocaine to Nick 8 – May 3 (4:59 - 11:16 pm) – 0.6 grams of cocaine to Nick 9 – May 4 (10:04 - 10:52 pm) – 0.6 grams of cocaine to Nick 10 – May 11 (12:09 – 1:31 am) – 0.65 grams of cocaine to Nick 11 - May 11 (4:57 – 5:28 pm) – 0.8 grams of cocaine to Nick 12 – May 13 (4:10 – 4:28 pm) – 0.8 grams of cocaine to Nick 13 – May 14 (12:13 – 12:41 am) – 0.6 grams of cocaine to Nick 14 – May 2 (9:01 – 9:08 pm) – 1.8 grams of cocaine to Ron 15 – May 9 (12:34 pm) – 1.8 grams of cocaine to Ron 16 – May 14 (11:40 pm) – 2 grams of cocaine to Ron 17 – May 2-3 (8:55 pm – 1:03 am) – 1.5 grams of cocaine to unknown female (# ending in 5665) 18 – May 4-5 (8:02 pm – 4:02 am) – 3.5 grams of cocaine to unknown female (# ending in 5665) 19 – May 10 (8:45 – 11:02 am) – 1 gram of cocaine to unknown female (# ending in 5665) 20 – May 12 (10:59 am – 12:43 pm) – 1 gram of cocaine to unknown female (# ending in 5665) 21 – May 13 (10:42 am – 11:50 pm) - 3.5 grams of cocaine to unknown female (# ending in 5665) 22 – May 3 (2:27 – 11:40 pm) – 1 gram of cocaine to Pete/Josh 23 – May 5-6 (7:30pm – 4:58 am) - 1 gram of cocaine to each of Pete/Josh (2 grams in total) 24 – May 6 (6:29 – 7:13 pm) – 0.8 grams of cocaine to Josh 25 – May 10 (7:06 – 9:49 am) – 1 gram of cocaine to Pete 26 – May 10 (11:56 am) – unspecified amount of crack cocaine to Pete 27 – May 12-13 (10:17 pm – 1:41 pm) - 3.5 grams of cocaine to Pete/Josh (begins as .5 hard and .5 soft but morphs into 3.5 but .3 short which Mr. Charles provides the next day) 28 – May 13 (6:25 – 6:33 pm) – 0.5 grams of powder cocaine to Pete 29 – May 14 (12:19 – 2:08 pm) – 0.5 grams of cocaine to Pete 30 – May 14-15 (8:13 pm – 12:03 am) – 0.5 grams of powder cocaine to Pete 31 – May 5 (12:58 am) – 0.4 grams of cocaine to Jorge 32 – May 6 (1:35 – 3:09 pm) – 0.4 grams of cocaine to Jorge 33 – May 3 (10:58 am – 1:08 pm) – 1 gram of cocaine to Sarah 34 – May 12 (6:16 – 6:31 pm) – 0.3 grams of crack cocaine to Gary 35 – May 11 (12:36 - 1:42 am) – 0.5 grams of powder cocaine to Andrew 36 – May 9 (5:06 – 7:57 pm) – 1 gram of cocaine to WC/DB 37 – May 11 (7:02 – 8:40 am) – 1 gram of crack cocaine to Lizzie 38 – May 14 (12:01 – 12:38 am) – 0.8 grams of cocaine

[3] The Crown totals the amount of cocaine trafficked in these intercepts at 37.55 grams, or 1.3 ounces. Defence counsel accepts this number as accurate.

[4] Some of the transactions were initiated by Mr. Charles sending the text "Got some new fire" (see for example transactions 35, 36, 37, 38).

[5] The intercepted communications captured Mr. Charles expressing concern about assaulting a security guard from Rolex after becoming angry about getting a ticket for parking on Rolex property (his friend actually labels what Mr. Charles describes doing as an assault, advising Mr. Charles to “lay low” and “switch…up” the rental car he was using at the time for a different one, while reassuring Mr. Charles that the car was not rented in his name but that of a woman). The events were captured on Rolex surveillance video and show Mr. Charles losing his temper upon receiving a parking ticket. He threw a cup and a bottle out of his car. When the Rolex security guard came out and quietly began filming Mr. Charles using his cell phone, Mr. Charles angrily confronted the security guard, grabbing his cell phone, scratching the security guard in the process. When Mr. Charles succeeded in wrestling the phone away, he looked at it, appeared unable to open it (which is what he said happened on the intercept), and then threw it across the parking lot.

Circumstances of the Offender

[6] Mr. Charles is currently 31 years old. He was 29 years old at the time of the offences. He is single and does not have any children. He does not use drugs. He drinks occasionally, socially. He does not have a criminal record. Although his parents separated when he was young, his family was, and remains, loving and supportive. Mr. Charles lived with his mother growing up, and continues to live with her. She was a hard worker and a good role model. His father remained consistently involved in Mr. Charles’ life. Mr. Charles was, and remains, close to his paternal grandparents. He often stayed there, and saw his father, who lived with the grandparents. Mr. Charles has two sisters he is very close to. The pre-sentence report (PSR) notes they are both “prosocial”; his eldest sister is a social worker/entrepreneur, and his youngest sister works in construction.

[7] Mr. Charles’ father had issues with alcohol, and, tragically, recently died, in May of 2020, of a drug overdose. The death was a huge loss for the family, but has brought them closer. Mr. Charles checks on his paternal grandparents often, and helps them with shopping and getting to appointments.

[8] Mr. Charles was a very talented basketball player growing up. And a good student. He received a scholarship to attend “New Creations” prep school in Richmond, Indiana. He graduated with a 3.7 grade point average, which he maintained while focusing seriously on playing basketball. He went on to get a two-year degree in business and sports management at the Globe Institute of Technology in New York City, while playing basketball. He received another scholarship to attend Southwest Baptist University in Missouri, and continue to play basketball, but he was cut from the team when he was unable to cross the border to attend a mandatory team meeting. That effectively ended his basketball career. He was devastated.

[9] Mr. Charles changed his focus to music. He completed a recording arts program at the “Remix Project”. The Remix Project is a registered charity which uses music and culture to empower young people from across the city, teach life and technical skills, and encourage leadership development. After completing the program, Mr. Charles returned as an intern. The director provided a very positive general reference letter (it is dated June 1, 2019 and does not refer to the existence of charges – exhibit 2A) noting that Mr. Charles was a “joy to have around”. During his internship, he was “always open to doing work and taking on less desirable tasks. He was punctual and always arrived to his shifts with a positive attitude and in good space”. Mr. Charles was offered part time employment as a studio engineer after completing his internship. He has continued to do that and is currently working at the Remix Project as a studio engineer.

[10] Mr. Charles is also pursuing a career as a music artist/performer and writer. He is working hard at his goal, and loves the work, but it does not support him, yet. He supplements his music by doing events, and he has a clothing line and does pop up shops. He explained that he had a lot planned for 2020, but the COVID-19 pandemic has slowed down everything relating to his music career.

[11] Mr. Charles provided a reference letter from Gavin Sheppard at “Quiet as Kept”, a company which produces events in Toronto, dated June 6, 2019. Mr Sheppard describes Mr. Charles as a “positive unifying force in the city”. Mr. Sheppard was aware of the charges. The PSR writer also contacted Mr. Sheppard post-conviction, and he stands by his letter and adds “Jamal is a valued member of their community” who “does not belong behind bars”.

[12] Tamara Brown, the program administrator for “My Brother and Sister’s Keeper Youth Organization” wrote a letter dated May 31, 2019 expressing surprise at the charges because Mr. Charles “has always been a rather upstanding role model and advocate in our community”. She hoped he would be shown leniency. She noted that Mr. Charles had volunteered during March break and summer as an assistant coach and camp leader for the past three years, and also helped mentor at risk youth. Notwithstanding her surprise at his “misconduct”, she noted that she believed Mr. Charles to be “an honourable individual, mentor, advocate and valuable member of our community”.

[13] Mr. Charles reported to the PSR writer that he has “drastically” improved his lifestyle and no longer associates with people who are involved with drugs. He seeks out peers with pro-social values. He continues to work with the Remix Project. He mentors through the “Think Twice; Stop the Gun Violence Program”; he helps his nephew with basketball, coaching him and helping get him to games and practices; and helps a peer with their clothing line.

[14] Detective Plunkett of the TPS, expressed concerned that Mr. Charles was continuing to associate with an anti-social cohort, and his rap music glorified the selling of narcotics.

[15] When Mr. Charles was given an opportunity to address me before being sentenced, he explained that he had dedicated his life to basketball. When it did not work out, he struggled to find the same passion doing something else. He floundered initially, and made some bad decisions. He accepted responsibility for his actions and deeply apologized. He explained that those poor choices do not reflect who he is. He has found his way to a new, positive passion: music. He understands there are no short-cuts in life and is resolved to distance himself from bad influences. He asks for leniency to help him stay on a positive path.

[16] Yesterday, Mr. Charles provided a letter, dated February 17, 2021, from The Remix Project indicating that Mr. Charles is currently employed as their studio engineer. The author notes that Mr. Charles is their “most sought out engineer” and is “dependable, punctual and efficient in the administrative and technical aspect of the role”.

Trafficking cocaine – range of sentence

[17] Trafficking in a schedule I substance, contrary to section 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), is punishable by a maximum sentence of life. There is no mandatory minimum sentence. The offence was not eligible for a conditional sentence, by virtue of the possible maximum term, but that barrier was recently struck down as unconstitutional in R. v. Sharma, 2020 ONCA 478, making a conditional sentence an available sentencing option.

[18] The offence captures a broad spectrum of conduct. The range of sentence reflects where the trafficking falls in the hierarchy of drug trafficking. Courts have accepted that cocaine trafficking generally involves the following hierarchy:

(1) Street level seller – small hand-to-hand transactions, often an addict-trafficker; (2) Street level supplier – transactions up to an “Eight-Ball” or one ounce; (3) Supplier to street level supplier (mid-level) – multi-ounce transactions; (4) Distributor to Supplier (high-level) – one-half kilo to multi-kilo transactions; (5) Importer to Distributor.

See R. v. Barkow, 2008 ONCJ 84; R. v. Okash, 2010 ONCJ 393; R. v. Haye, 2013 ONSC 6493, aff’d 2014 ONCA 6575.

[19] The range of sentence for a “street-level” trafficker dealing in gram amounts of cocaine, amounts less than an ounce, is well-established at approximately 6 months to two years less a day. The range of sentence for a “mid-level” trafficker, capable of supplying ounce amounts to street-level traffickers, and dealing in ounce levels, is considerably higher, approximately 2-5 years: R. v. Woolcock at para.15; R. v. Haye, 2013 ONSC 6493, supra at paras.10-12 (S.C.J); R. v. Ahmed, 2016 ONCA 83.

[20] Where an offence falls within the cocaine trafficking hierarchy will depend on the all circumstances, including the amount of cocaine at issue and the persistence of the trafficking. In Haye, Justice Code explained that the main significance of the amount of cocaine is in providing information that helps situate the conduct in the trafficking hierarchy:

Sentences are not calibrated by the precise amounts involved in the sense that having 50 grams less in one case than another does not necessarily result in a discount. The main significance that attaches to the quantity possessed in drug trafficking sentencing is that it helps to give rise to an inference about the position that the accused occupies in the drug trafficking hierarchy.

[21] Similarly, the persistence of the trafficking reveals information about its nature and place in the hierarchy. As Justice Dambrot explained in R. v. Evans et al, 2013 ONSC 7003 (sentence upheld in 2019 ONCA 715):

[W]hile the range of sentence for trafficking in small quantities of crack cocaine is six months to two years less a day, the range is higher when the offence involves long-term, persistent trafficking, particularly where that is the sole or primary source of the offender's livelihood. One of the reasons for this is the fact that unlike most street dealers, who obtain a few grams of cocaine and then sell 1/4 or 1/2 gram amounts, a persistent seller needs to obtain much larger quantities of cocaine, sometimes even ounces of cocaine, and as a result must have access to vendors at a higher level in the chain of distribution. In such circumstances, I believe the range to be two years less a day to four years. Where a street-level trafficker also occasionally traffics at a wholesale level, the top of the range or higher is appropriate.

Positions of the Parties

[22] The Crown submits that a sentence of two years less a day is appropriate in this case relation to the drug trafficking. The Crown acknowledges that the assault is much less serious and seeks a sentence of 7 days, concurrent. The Crown also seeks a DNA order, and notes that a s.109 weapons prohibition is mandatory.

[23] Defence counsel seeks a conditional sentence. Defence counsel acknowledges that a s.109 prohibition is mandatory, and agrees that a DNA order would be appropriate.

[24] Mr. Charles has never spent a night in custody. He was held for a bail hearing, and had to step back into custody very briefly when a surety stepped down and was replaced, so is only entitled to credit for 2 days. He has not been subject to strict conditions of release and makes no claim for a Downes credit.

Principles of Sentencing

[25] The principles of sentencing are now largely codified in sections 718, 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

[26] Section 10 of the CDSA incorporates these principles, and notes that “the fundamental purpose of any sentence for an offence under this Part is to contribute to the respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society while encouraging rehabilitation, and treatment in appropriate circumstances, of offenders and acknowledging the harm done to victims and to the community.” The section goes on to explicitly enumerate a number of aggravating circumstances, none of which appear relevant to this case.

Aggravating Circumstances

[27] Cocaine is a Schedule I drug, a “hard” drug, squarely in the group commanding Parliament’s strictest treatment.

[28] It is well-established that cocaine, and by extension those who traffic it, hurts and kills both directly and indirectly. It harms users directly, but also causes indirect harm to their families and loved ones, and also the larger community, which is exposed to harmful and often criminal activity by addicts and by the very dangerous trade in the drug itself: R. v. Datta, 2011 ONSC 2685 at paras.101-112. Those who sell cocaine, especially full time and for profit, can expect significant sentences which seek to denounce such conduct and deter others from doing the same thing.

[29] I am satisfied that at the time of this offence, drug trafficking was Mr. Charles’s main occupation. Over the approximately two-week period the police intercepted his calls, he consistently and at all hours sold cocaine, including at the multigram level. Most of his buyers appear to be simple users. But sometimes, as in transactions 27 and 29 involving Pete, it is apparent that his buyer is re-selling at least some of the cocaine. Often his buyers contacted him. But he also repeatedly solicited transactions, repeatedly sending out the text “Got some new fire”.

[30] Mr. Charles was never without supply during this two-week period. Even after immediately making a sale, he appeared to be able to make another. He appeared to have a regular supplier - “Tonny Blair”.

[31] Mr. Charles engaged in this work for profit. The intercepts captured him bragging about how much money he was making from cocaine trafficking.

[32] Although a street-level trafficker, a fair amount of planning and deliberation went into Mr. Charles' operation. He had ready access to places to prepare or “cook” crack, and ready access to supply. He drove a rental car deliberately registered to someone else. The intercepts showed that he was conscious about changing the car he drove in order to avoid unwanted attention.

[33] I am satisfied that Mr. Charles was a persistent, full-time cocaine trafficker.

Mitigating Circumstances

[34] Mr. Charles has no criminal record.

[35] Mr. Charles was a very good student and has a college degree and further training in sound engineering.

[36] Mr. Charles has a very supportive family.

[37] Mr. Charles has strong ties to the community and a lengthy and very impressive history of volunteering (three years at least with My Brother and Sister’s Keeper Youth Organization helping to coach and support kids during March break and summer).

What is a fit sentence in all the circumstances?

[38] There is no question that, post- Sharma, 2020 ONCA 478, a conditional sentence is an available sentencing option in this case. Whether it would be a fit sentence in all the circumstances is another matter (see eg. R. v. Gray, 2021 ONCA 68). I do not think it would be. Defence counsel relies on a single case in support of his position: R. v. De Souza, 2020 ONCJ 372. But Mr. De Souza is very differently situated from Mr. Charles. Mr. De Souza pleaded guilty “at an early opportunity”, forgoing “the opportunity to pursue Charter arguments that had some merit”. He lived with his father and brother and was a primary care giver for his father, who suffered from Parkinson’s disease and dementia, providing “day to day support”. In contrast, Mr. Charles had a trial in the face of a record that, at least before me (I do not know whether there were meritorious pre-trial motions), presented an overwhelming case for the Crown. That was his right and is in no way an aggravating circumstance. But it means that he cannot claim the mitigating benefit of a guilty plea. Especially the very significant mitigating effect of an early guilty plea in the face of triable issues. Further, while Mr. Charles is no doubt a good grandson, he does not have responsibility for anyone but himself.

[39] Defence counsel notes that Mr. Charles is black and, as result, has undoubtedly experienced racism in the community. I do not disagree. Courts have repeatedly and for very good reason acknowledged the continued existence of widespread bias in the community. I would also acknowledge systemic racism in society and note that courts, like all Canadian institutions, must strive as hard as possible to combat it. But when I asked what affect that should have on the sentence in this case defence counsel did not have a concrete answer.

[40] Sentencing is an inherently fact specific exercise. While courts have rejected the need for causal connection in the context of an individual who has been subjected to systemic prejudice or racism, they have consistently required at least some specificity before according such circumstances significance in the sentencing process: R. v. Hamilton (2004), 186 C.C.C. (3d) 129 (Ont.C.A) at paras.97-99; R. v. Borde (2003), 172 C.C.C. (3d) 225 (Ont.C.A.) at para.32; R. v. Bennett [2003], O.J. No.3218 (SCJ) per Justice Durno; R. v. Williams, 2018 ONSC 5409 per Justice Hill at paras, 45; R. v. Elvira, 2018 ONSC 7008 per Justice Schreck. As Justice Hill put it in Williams:

Having regard to the insidiously stealthy, subtle and general incalculable impact of racial discrimination, and the…Supreme Court of Canada guidance in the context offenders of Aboriginal ancestry…rejecting a straight-line causation analysis, between cultural disadvantage and commission of an offence, before cultural background context is relevant to the sentencing function, the court's dicta in Hamilton [at para.137] is best understood to mean that the record before the court ought to raise this issue from the general to the specific in the sense of some evidence, direct or inferential, that racial disadvantage is linked to constraint of a particular offender's choices and to his life experience in bringing him before the court.

[41] In this case the PSR indicates that Mr. Charles had the benefit of a loving and supportive immediate and extended family, an excellent education, exposure to and support in pursuing sports, and extra-curricular activities like drama, from an early age.

[42] At the same time, it must be remembered that cocaine trafficking ravages the entire community, regardless of colour, ethnicity, or socio-economic status. The factors that have led courts to emphasize the need to denounce it in the sentencing process apply in all cases. While the principle of restraint codified in s.718.2 (e) applies to all offenders, it cannot justify a sentence which fails to reflect the seriousness of the offence and is thus not proportionate: R. v. Hamilton at paras. 98, 139-142. In the circumstances of this case, I do believe the existence of bias and systemic racism in our society is a significant factor on sentence.

[43] Defence counsel also urges me to exercise leniency because of COVID-19. Defence counsel did not call any evidence or make any arguments in support of his submission. There is no suggestion, for example, that Mr. Charles has any health issue that makes him particularly vulnerable were he to contract the virus. The only thing defence counsel relied on in support of his submission was R. v. Hearns, 2020 ONSC 2365. I agree with Justice Pomerance’s thoughtful analysis that COVID-19 may be a collateral consequence of significance in the sentencing process. In particular, I accept her conclusion that apart from the physical harm posed by the virus, it also poses a potential psychological harm to those in custody who cannot control their environment. However, she wrote her decision at a relatively early stage of the pandemic. The reality of the situation is that the virus is now widespread in the community such that, short of staying at home all the time inside a tight social bubble, it is very difficult for anyone to control their environment in terms of exposure to the virus. In all the circumstances, I do not think COVID-19 is a significant factor in this sentencing process.

[44] Defence counsel, rightly, places great emphasis on the fact that Mr. Charles does not have a criminal record. Defence counsel acknowledges that, at the age of 31 (29 at the time of the offence), Mr. Charles is no longer a “youthful” first offender. He is a fully mature young man. However, defence counsel urges me to give Mr. Charles substantial credit for reaching this age and stage without a record. I agree. The absence of a criminal record is a very significant factor in this sentencing process, deserving of significant weight, and emphasizing the importance of rehabilitation. I also note that Mr. Charles has a job at the Remix Project, where his skill and enthusiasm are beneficial and appreciated. This also emphasizes the importance of rehabilitation.

[45] But I also agree with the Crown, that Mr. Charles must truly take stock of the seriousness of what he has done in order to rehabilitate. The Crown acknowledges that the PSR is very positive in many respects but submits that, on closer inspection, it suggests a need to be cautious about Mr. Charles’ prospects for rehabilitation. The Crown notes that Mr. Charles consistently minimizes his criminal conduct, characterizing it as a few “mistakes” or poor choices “trying to gain money” which no longer reflect who he is. Moreover, his family does not appear to recognize what he has done. His mother is quoted as saying the charges do not reflect her son or who he is. The letters of support Mr. Charles provided do not grapple in any meaningful way with the seriousness of the offences for which Mr. Charles has been found guilty. The Crown also points out that Detective Plunkett indicated that there is an on-going investigation in relation to a shooting at a location where Mr. Charles was prohibited to be, and Mr. Charles was seen at the location on surveillance video fleeing after the shooting. The Crown readily acknowledged that this has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus cannot be considered an aggravating circumstance on sentence. Rather the Crown argues it is part of the constellation of circumstances that suggest a need for caution about Mr. Charles’ prospects for rehabilitation, at least without some recognition of the seriousness of the conduct he has been found committing.

[46] The Crown noted that the contrast between Mr. Charles’ public image and how he is viewed in his family, and the evidence in this case, suggest a double life. The Crown submits that the two sides of Mr. Charles must be reconciled before meaningful rehabilitation can occur. Even without considering Detective Plunkett’s comments, I agree. Referring to the offences as mistakes and poor choices simply does not do justice to the evidence in this case. Mr. Charles’ conversations on the intercepts reveal that, at least over a two week period, he was a dedicated cocaine trafficker, repeatedly supplying customers at all hours of the day and night, arranging to “cook” crack, pay suppliers, and even bragging that he was clearing $200/day from his work as a cocaine trafficker. Months earlier he is overheard discussing the fact that it had been deliberately arranged that the rental car he was driving could not be traced back to him.

[47] In addition, while I accept that Mr. Charles is not by nature an aggressive person, as his mother assures the PSR writer, the evidence revealed that he was prepared to act with aggression. The Rolex surveillance video shows him acting in a bullying fashion to the point of using force to take the security guard’s cell phone/camera. The intercepts suggest that at one point he had his hands tightly around a customer’s neck, to the point that marks were visible the next day. The case law is rife with examples of how very dangerous the cocaine trade is, to both buyers and sellers, and the horrifying damage it brings to communities.

[48] I agree with the Crown that the circumstances of this case situate the trafficking at the very top of the range for street level trafficking. While the amount of each transaction is usually at the gram level or below, some of the transactions involve multiple grams. In addition, for some of the transactions it is apparent that the buyer is re-distributing the cocaine (Pete in relation to transactions 27 and 29). Perhaps most importantly, the intercepted communications show that, at least over the two week period, Mr. Charles was a persistent trafficker. He always had cocaine available, every day, at all hours, and even after making a sale. He advertised (“got some new fire”), and operated in a fairly sophisticated fashion, driving a rental car deliberately rented in someone else’s name.

[49] At the same time, Mr. Charles has no criminal record and, while he is no longer “youthful”, he is a still a young man of considerable talent who, I am confident, has the ability to make a significant positive contribution to society. His current position with the Remix Project and the glowing recommendation he received from its director, reinforces my belief that he is full of rehabilitative potential. Notwithstanding that general deterrence and denunciation are of paramount importance, rehabilitation must be given significant emphasis.

[50] In all the circumstances of this case, I conclude that a sentence of 18 months would be fit and appropriate. I believe this is the shortest possible sentence I can impose in the circumstances that will adequately denounce Mr. Charles’ very serious conduct.

[51] I impose a further 3 day sentence in relation to the assault. This is a different, unrelated offence, and the sentence will be consecutive, but I will give Mr. Charles 3 days credit for the two days he spent in pre-trial custody, and apply all of that credit to the sentence on the assault. This leaves the effective sentence at 18 months.

[52] There will be a s.109 order, for 10 years, and a DNA order.

Gillian Roberts, J. Released: February 18, 2021