COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-90000506-0000 DATE: 20231103

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING – and – ADRIAN WILLIAMS Accused

Counsel: Ildiko Erdei, for the Crown Margaret Addie, for the Accused

HEARD: September 21, 2023

B.A. Allen J.

REASONS FOR DECISION ON SENTENCE

BACKGROUND

[1] Adrian Williams is facing one charge of possession of Fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. The parties filed an Agreed Statement of Facts.

[2] By way of background to that charge, the apartment of a female friend and previous co-accused, Chantel Ricketts, was subjected to a search warrant in January 2020 when Mr. Williams was there. The parties agree the police seized 187 pills first thought to be Fentanyl and later found to be comprised of Fentanyl and Acetaminophen, amounting to 126.6 grams. The parties agree that if the 187 pills were sold on the street they would be valued at between $7,480.00 and $14,960.00 at a price of $40.00 to $80.00 per pill.

[3] The pills were referred to as “fake oxies” because they look like the prescription drug Oxycontin. The proportion of Fentanyl to Acetaminophen in the pills is not evidence before the court. Mr. Williams was under wiretap monitoring for another offence when he was overheard engaging in conversations indicating he was selling drugs. The police learned that he was stashing the drugs at Ms. Ricketts’s home. And he and Ms. Ricketts were arrested. Ms. Ricketts’s charges were withdrawn before Mr. Williams’s sentencing hearing. Mr. Williams pleaded guilty to one of several charges on the indictment, the charge he faces at this hearing.

[4] Mr. Williams is currently imprisoned at Joyceville Institute in Kingsville, Ontario for a subsequent offence of manslaughter.

PRINCIPLES ON SENTENCING

Objectives

[5] Section 718 of the Criminal Code sets down the principles to govern determinations on sentencing, being: to denounce unlawful conduct; to deter the offender and other potential future offenders from committing offences; to separate offenders from society; to assist in rehabilitating offenders; to provide reparations for harm done to victims or the community; and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders. The Supreme Court of Canada held: “No one sentencing objective trumps the others”. … There are some offences for which certain objectives are to weigh more heavily: R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206, at para. 43.

Proportionality

[6] Proportionality is a guiding principle for sentencing. A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence, determined on the particular facts of the case. The narrow focus of the sentencing process is directed at imposing a sentence that reflects the circumstances of the specific offence and the attributes of the specific offender: [Criminal Code, s. 718.1 and R. v. Hamilton (2004), 186 C.C.C. (3d) 129 (Ont. C.A.)].

Parity

[7] Parity, another governing principle, requires a sentence to be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed under similar circumstances. Sentencing is, however, an individualized process which necessarily means that sentences imposed for similar offences may not be identical: [R. v. Cox, 2011 ONCA 58 (Ont. C.A.) and R. c. M. (L.), 2008 SCC 31, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 163 (S.C.C.)].

Totality

[8] The totality principle must be considered for some sentences. Section 718.2 (c) of the Criminal Code provides “where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh.” The principle is engaged where there is a sentence for multiple offences and requires the court to craft a global sentence on all offences that is not excessive: [R. v. M. (C.A.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, at para. 42 (S.C.C.)]. If the cumulative sentence is too harsh, the court must adjust the total sentence in order for it not to be out of proportion to the gravity of the offences.

ENHANCED PRE-SENTENCE REPORT

[9] The Sentencing and Parole Project was established to prepare Enhanced Pre-Sentence Reports (“EPSRs”) for consideration on sentencing when requested on behalf of an offender. The author of the EPSR before this court is a social worker, Michelle Richards, who has 16 years of experience in conducting psycho-social interviews and assessments looking at the involvement of systemic issues. Mr. Williams’s parents, three siblings, a friend, and an ex-partner were interviewed.

[10] Mr. Williams is described in the EPSR as being reflective throughout the discussion and open to exploring his life. He presented with no bitterness and recognized that his poor decisions were the reason he spent some seven years in prison. He acknowledged his family attempted to help him and regrets not taking their advice about his life choices. He spoke well of his parents and did not blame them for the course of his life.

[11] Mr. Williams appreciates he has spent nearly half of his life in prison, and that to change that course, he has to disengage permanently from his peers. He recognizes he must obtain permanent employment and be present as a father to his children. He acknowledges that the outcome of his life will be dire if he fails to accomplish a pro-social lifestyle. In aid of this, Mr. Williams indicates he is involved at Joyceville in a 50-session moderate multi-target program to address his issues with crimes for gain and violence.

[12] By way of his background, Mr. Williams was born in Canada to Jamaican parents, is 37 years of age, and has three siblings, two brothers and a sister. He is a father of three children, ages 4 to 12 years. Mrs. Williams, his mother, moved to Canada in 1990 and worked as a caregiver and factory worker. The father (who I will call “the father” to distinguish him from Adrian Williams) came to Canada sometime later and quickly secured employment in labour jobs and subsequently at a food services business where he remains to present.

[13] Mr. Williams lived alone with his mother for several years and developed a close relationship with her. Mr. Williams recalls many moves with his mother to secure accommodations in basements and one-room apartments. He recalls being left with babysitters for hours while his mother worked at multiple jobs to support households in Canada and Jamaica. Those were difficult times for Mr. Williams.

[14] Mr. Williams first met his father at age five the first time his mother took him to Jamaica. By 2000, Mr. Williams’s siblings came to Canada and, for the first time, the whole family was together. There were adjustments to be made by the family for the arrival of the siblings and transitions required to be made to their new country by the newly arrived children.

[15] Mr. Williams’s ex-partner, Shivon Grant, has known Mr. Williams for 17 years and is the mother of his youngest children. They retain a healthy co-parenting relationship even while Mr. Williams is incarcerated. Ms. Grant describes Mr. Williams as “the best father with [sic] hands-on, joyful spirit and soft heart.” Ms. Grant described the devastation she experienced at the loss of Mr. Williams’s emotional and financial support and involvement in the growth of his children as a result of his poor choices that led him to incarceration.

[16] Mr. Williams expresses pain at the loss of connection to his children because of his criminal lifestyle choices. He acknowledges his involvement in selling drugs as a secondary school student. He is saddened about losing friends to the violence associated with drugs. Mr. Williams expresses hope for the development of more programs for youth with experiences like his to support them in understanding the pro-social alternatives to a life of crime.

[17] Mrs. Williams spoke of the loss of control over her son at age 16. His parents and siblings bemoan the fact that his peer group has negatively affected him and that they could not influence him to abandon those friendships. Even the family’s move from Malton to Brampton, which was to help separate him from his negative friends, did not accomplish this. Mr. Williams’s sister explained that her brother continued to be involved in activities that could bring “fast cash” to meet the needs he felt his parents could not satisfy.

[18] Mr. Williams’s parents and siblings spoke of the adverse effects of living in impoverished and marginalized communities where non-White residents are drawn into criminal activity as a means of survival. As his brother described, “these places are severely brutal and is [sic] set up for criminal activity to occur as people seek efforts to alleviate poverty”. And as Mr. Williams stated, “If I lived in a gated community, my friends would be different. My friends (in Malton) dropped out of school, had no jobs, parents using drugs, living in poverty.”

[19] Mr. Williams left school in grade 10. In looking back, he realizes the effect on him and other Black and Brown students of being streamed into courses that were not academically oriented. He felt that the White teachers and guidance counsellors did not care about those students or assist them in fulfilling their academic potential. Parents of many of those students were ill-equipped to navigate the school system.

[20] Mr. Williams also spoke of the presence of police at his schools and their discriminatory treatment of Black and Brown students and the school’s reliance on the police to focus on and harass those students with searches and bringing criminal charges, to the exclusion of this treatment for White students. As Mr. Williams describes it, “[P]olice in the school, put you up against the wall, just searching the Black and Brown kids, not doing it to the white kids, bringing the streets to the schools”. This means the police treat Black and Brown kids similarly to how they treat them in the community, randomly stopping them in the streets. Mr. Williams explained that the poor graduation rate of Black and Brown students is due to systemic racial discrimination in the school system.

[21] Regarding employment experience, Mr. Williams’s only lawful job was delivering newspapers when he was 13 or 14 years old. At age 14 he began selling marijuana and crack to earn an income to support himself. Fortunately for Mr. Williams, the friend who offered himself as an interviewee stated that he has a position in his construction company to offer Mr. Williams immediately upon his release which Mr. Williams has accepted.

[22] As far as Mr. Williams’s involvement in the drug trade, he admits that financial need was the motivator. He believes he could not do good things in life without money. His criminal record discloses that he had drug-related convictions in August 2012 and October 2013 and his Correctional Plan indicates he was caught with contraband in February 2022.

[23] Mr. Williams also describes experiences with being targeted from age 14 by the police at school and on the streets. He feels he will always be a target of the police because of his criminal record. As he explains, living as a Black man means experiencing racial profiling more than his White counterparts who may also be engaged in criminality, “white people drive around all the time with guns and drugs but they are not stopped like we are.”

[24] Mr. Williams’s siblings confirmed the experiences of Black people with the police in Malton, of being surveilled, randomly stopped, being searched, and accused of crimes when simply walking down the street. They speak of instances of being stopped and handcuffed, placed in a patrol car, mocked and targeted by officers for their relationship to Mr. Williams.

EXPERT REPORT ON CRIME, CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND THE EXPERIENCES OF BLACK CANADIANS IN TORONTO

[25] Mr. Williams’s counsel provided the above-titled document which in brief is referred to as a “Morris Report”. This report was used in an appeal before the Ontario Court of Appeal and appended to the appeal decision in R. v. Morris, 2021 ONCA 680. Mr. Williams’s experiences and life conditions as expressed in his affidavit and the EPSR echo the findings by the authors of the Morris Report.

[26] In that decision the court clarified the role of anti-Black racism in assessing the offender’s blameworthiness, what is needed to prove the impact of systemic racism and the interaction between the reality of racism and sentencing principles. The court held that anti-Black racism should be considered in the sentencing process specifically in assessing the offender’s moral blameworthiness.

[27] The decision held that judges may take judicial notice of anti-Black racism. It concluded that Black offenders should not be required to tender expert reports detailing the existence of anti-Black racism and its impact on them and that an offender need not demonstrate a causal link between systemic racism and the offence under sentencing. Such a requirement, the court held, would place an undue evidentiary burden on offenders.

[28] The court reflected that while there must be some connection between systemic racism and criminal conduct, causation “plays no role when considering the impact of an offender’s background or circumstances on sentencing”. On the usefulness of social context the court concluded that this type of evidence “may be useful in explaining the offence and in mitigating the offender’s moral culpability circumstances on sentencing”. But may not be regarded in considering the seriousness of the offence: [R. v. Morris, paras. 75, 96 – 97 and 99].

[29] The Morris Report discusses the research done on the impact of anti-Black racism in Canada, and in Toronto in particular, with a focus on the effects of the criminal justice system on Black offenders. The Report traces the current social and economic conditions of Black people to the deep historical roots of racism in Canada dating back to slavery in Canada and the legalized segregation of Black people. The Report explains that understanding the history and social context underlying the Black experience is necessary in order to appreciate the current experiences of Black people in the criminal justice system.

[30] There has been increasing acknowledgment in academic and scholastic circles and in the findings of government commissions, agencies and research initiatives of the over-representation of Black men in the criminal justice system and the systemic discrimination practised in social institutions like education.

[31] The Report addresses the factors in the education system that lead to the marginalization of Black youth. Data from the Toronto District School Board for 2006 – 2011 reveal that half the Black student population is streamed into non-university track education; Black students are more than twice as likely to be suspended and twice as likely to be expelled compared to White students and other non-White groups; Black students are twice as likely to drop out of school in comparison to White students and students from other non-White groups; and Black students graduate below the provincial graduation rate.

[32] Regarding employment and financial status, studies reveal that the income gap for persons of colour including Black Canadians is growing; one-quarter of Black Canadian women live below the poverty line compared to 6 percent for White Canadians; Black children live in poverty at the level of 33 percent compared to 18 percent for White children.

[33] Black students are over-represented in being racially profiled where they have been routinely “carded” throughout Toronto irrespective of the neighbourhood, crime rate or racial composition. Black people are more likely to be detained before trial than White accused. And despite the decline in the overall prison population, the number of Black offenders imprisoned in Canada’s federal system increased by 75 percent in the decade leading up to 2012.

THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS

The Crown

[34] The Crown takes the position that four years imprisonment is a fit sentence.

[35] The Crown acknowledges the positive or mitigating effect of Mr. Williams’s plea that resulted in saving time and court resources. There is also the plea itself and the fact that Mr. Williams admits responsibility for his criminal acts. The Crown also points to the fact that Mr. Williams is currently serving time for another unrelated offence. This requires that the totality principle be considered. Without those factors, the Crown submits, she would be proposing a sentence of six to seven years.

[36] The Crown cites several decisions involving Fentanyl that impose higher or similar sentences, which in the Crown’s view, establish that four years is reasonable when mitigation and totality are factored in. The Crown’s position does not take into account the uncertainty of the contents of the pills in terms of the amount of Fentanyl versus Acetaminophen. The cases cited involve Fentanyl in smaller and larger amounts than the amount involved in Mr. Williams’s case. Some of the decisions focus on the dangers of Fentanyl in comparison to other drugs. Some address situations involving convictions subsequent to the conviction before the court.

• R. v. Aden, 2021 ONSC 2370: 113.9 grams Fentanyl; 7 years, less pre-trial custody;
• R. v. Ansah, 2021 ONSC 6339: 85 grams Fentanyl; 5 years for Fentanyl, 3 years for firearm reduced to 6 years on totality, less pre-trial custody;
• R. v. Beauparlant, 2022 ONSC 4686: 38.9 grams Fentanyl; 5 years;
• R. v. Griffith, 2022 ONSC 6406: 68 grams Fentanyl; 5 years;
• R. v. Lynch, 2022 ONCA 109: 41.37 grams Fentanyl (also involving 1 kilo cocaine and 149.28 grams MDMA); 6 years;
• R. v. Musa, 2022 ONSC 3734: 130 grams Fentanyl plus a loaded firearm and other drugs; 7 years consecutive to gun offence (reduced to 8 years on totality);
• R. v. Piri, 2020 ONSC 920: trafficking 27.22 grams Fentanyl (plus other drug offences); 6 years less pre-trial custody;
• R. v. Shramek, 2021 ONSC 6872: 156.7 grams Fentanyl (plus other drugs); 7.5 years;
• R. v. Richer, 2022 ONSC 7227: 22 grams Fentanyl (plus other drugs); 4 years;
• R. v. Parranto, 2021 SCC 46: as per Justice Moldaver: “As grave a threat as drugs such as heroin and cocaine pose, that threat pales in comparison to the one posed by fentanyl and its analogues. Indeed, over the past decade, fentanyl has altered the landscape of the substance abuse crisis in Canada, revealing itself as public enemy number one”: at para. 93… “In my view, heavy penitentiary sentences will be appropriate where offenders have trafficked in large quantities of fentanyl and assumed leadership roles in the trafficking operation. Indeed, in the context largescale of fentanyl largescale trafficking operations, substantial sentences should be neither unusual nor reserved for exceptional circumstance”: at para. 100.

[37] Regarding the cases considering the treatment of subsequent convictions courts have taken different approaches:

• R. v. Shaikh, 2020 ONSC 438: the court considered a subsequent conviction as an aggravating factor.
• R. v. Skolnick, [1982] 2 RCS 47: an offender is liable to an increased sentence for a subsequent offence on which they have been convicted.
• R. v. Jesus-Carrasco, 2020 ONSC 6891: the court did not use the offender’s subsequent convictions as an aggravating factor.

[38] The Crown also asks the court to consider both on totality and as an aggravating factor Mr. Williams’s manslaughter conviction in October 2022. He was arrested at the end of January 2020 and pleaded guilty to manslaughter. He was arrested on drug charges on January 4, 2020. He is currently in prison completing an 8-year sentence for manslaughter. The Crown’s position is that Mr. Williams should face an increase in the sentence due to his subsequent unrelated conviction. But the law is not clear in this area.

[39] The Crown focused on the cases involving Fentanyl in the range of 100 grams give or take some grams and cases with lower amounts. To make her point, the Crown mainly focused on the cases that did not involve other offences. The Crown cites the following cases. For example: R. v. Aden (2021) involving 113.0 grams of Fentanyl, sentence seven years, R. v. Musa (2022) Fentanyl and a firearm involving 130 grams, sentence seven years; R. v. Shramek (2021), a larger amount of Fentanyl, 156 grams, sentence seven years. The Crown submits that the cases show that sentences lower than seven years involve smaller amounts of Fentanyl. For example, R. v. Piri (2022), 27.22 grams, sentence six years; and R. v. Richer (2022), 22 grams, sentence four years.

[40] The Crown also cites the Supreme of Canada decision in R. v. Parranto and several news articles for the danger presented by Fentanyl in comparison to other opioids. The risk of harm from Fentanyl stems from it being 80 to 100 times more potent than Morphine and 25 to 50 times more potent than Heroin. A lethal dose of Fentanyl can be as small as a grain of salt. The risk of death is therefore very high particularly when consumed with other substances and, as is the practice in drug trafficking, when manufactured in combination with other substances. This seems to be the case with the pills in this case. The pills are often manufactured to look like other drugs as is true with the “fake oxies” in this case.

[41] The Crown also submits that Mr. Williams is not entitled to the mitigation effect that an offender would have with an addiction problem. Where there is some evidence that he took drugs there is no evidence that he was an addict. His trafficking operation was for commercial gain not to support a habit. The Crown cites R. v. Beauparlant where the court considers a smaller, yet also substantial, amount of Fentanyl in concluding it could not accept that the offender was an addict trafficker: [R. v. Beauparlant, 2022 ONSC 4686].

[42] The Crown references the EPRS and acknowledges mitigating factors such as Mr. Williams’s supportive family, close ties with his children and a job upon release that the Crown recognizes can be motivators for offenders to change the directions of their lives.

[43] The Crown however reminds the court of the limitations the Court of Appeal in R. v. Morris places on reliance in sentencing on an accused’s background and social context. Evidence of this sort may afford an explanation for the offence and serve to mitigate the offender’s moral culpability circumstances on sentencing, but may not be regarded in considering the seriousness of the offence. She submits that social context should not overwhelm and affect an otherwise fit sentence.

[44] On the question of pre-sentence credit, Mr. Williams’s sentence for manslaughter had been reduced for pre-sentence custody on that conviction, disentitling him to credit on the sentence before the court.

[45] It is the Crown’s position that taking the seriousness of a Fentanyl trafficking offence, totality, the October 2022 conviction for manslaughter, Mr. Williams’s criminal record and background into account, along with the favourable factors, a four-year sentence is fit.

The Defence

[46] The defence proposes three-years imprisonment as a fit sentence. She does not contest the Crown’s presentation of the case authorities. The main focus of her submissions is on the particulars of Mr. Williams’s circumstances, his background and his experiences in prison. However, she also wants the court to take note in its determination of the nature of the drugs the police seized.

[47] The police seized 187 pills amounting to 126.6 grams. The defence submits the court should consider the fact that the pills seized were not comprised of only Fentanyl. They contained some measure of Acetaminophen but the proportion of each drug is not confirmed. The defence’s argument is that the offence should not be considered as serious and the danger presented by those pills should be assessed differently. This means that the cases and sentences cited by the Crown that involve, what can be assumed to be undiluted Fentanyl, are not good authority for setting a sentence in this case. The pills, the defence submits, could be mostly Acetaminophen.

[48] The defence also referred to a Corrections Service of Canada Correctional Plan dated January 13, 2023, and to the positive points in the assessment rating of Mr. Williams’s conduct at Joyceville. He has taken on employment as a unit cleaner and gets along well with staff and enjoys the respect he is shown.

[49] In his affidavit, Mr. Williams describes the alienation in prison where he was not able to communicate with his family and friends. He mentions that he has problems having conversations with others because of the conditions in the prison and length of his sentence. The longer his stay in prison, the fewer things he has to discuss with others.

[50] But there are other factors in the Plan the court must take note of.

[51] The Correctional Plan, however, reports on some matters of concern. Mr. Williams is assessed as requiring a high level of intervention to address his criminal behaviours based on the dynamic risk factors assessment. For example, priority is given to addressing his risk to re-offend. There is a high need for improvement in his attitude and motivation for change. During pre-sentence custody, Mr. Williams received eight institutional charges - willfully disobeying officers, possession of drugs, inciting disturbances. He was found guilty of seven of the institutional offences.

[52] The defence also highlighted the areas of Mr. Williams’s background that are commensurate with the social factors cited in the EPSR – experiencing poverty and marginalized community life, over-representation in the criminal justice system, over-surveillance by the police; in the education system, systemic discriminatory practices towards Black students, police encounters with Black students in the halls, program streaming, over suspension of Black students and a substantial drop out of Black students before graduation.

[53] The defence also relies on the more conventional mitigation factors - a guilty plea that shows remorse and saving of court resources and time, close family support from his parents and siblings, a good relationship with his three children and their mothers and acceptance of the offer of a construction job when he is released.

CONCLUSION

[54] I find the four-year sentence proposed by the Crown is a fit sentence. I agree, looking at the case authorities, that a six or seven-year sentence would be appropriate outside of applying the totality principle and other factors.

[55] Before the court is 187 pills amounting to 126.6 grams composed of Fentanyl and Acetaminophen.

[56] Looking at the cases presented to the court we see: R. v. Aden involving 113.0 grams of Fentanyl and a sentence of seven years; R. v. Musa involving 130 grams of Fentanyl and a firearm and a sentence of seven years; R. v. Shramek involving a larger amount of Fentanyl, 156 grams, and a sentence of seven years; R. v. Piri involving 27.22 grams of Fentanyl and a sentence of six years; and R. v. Richer involving 22 grams of Fentanyl and a sentence of four years. The cases show that sentences lower than seven years involve smaller amounts of Fentanyl.

[57] In accepting a four-year sentence as reasonable in the circumstances of this case, I considered the defence’s argument that the seriousness of the offence should be reduced by the fact that the pills were not purely Fentanyl.

[58] I find whatever mitigating effect that might have on the seriousness of the offence, this would be minimized by the fact that the pills were “fake oxies”. That is, Mr. Williams thought he was selling or intended to sell another drug, Oxycontin. While not as dangerous as Fentanyl, Oxycontin has its own reputation for being profusely available illegally, highly addictive and lethal if abused. Any mitigation on the length of sentence I would consider in relation to that factor would be minimal and accounted for in the four years.

[59] The favourable factors of his supportive family, close relationships with his children and their mothers, his job upon release are also accommodated in the four-year sentence. The same applies to his guilty plea and applying the totality principle in relation to Mr. Williams’s current lengthy prison sentence.

[60] I take the view that Mr. Williams’s subsequent conviction on manslaughter should be considered an aggravating factor in this case: [R. v. Shaikh and R. v. Skolnick]. Manslaughter is one of the most serious criminal offences and I find it reasonable to consider a subsequent conviction on such an offence as an adverse factor.

[61] Also for consideration is Mr. Williams’s ten-year criminal record dating from his youth in 2012 and beyond to 2022 which includes possession and trafficking of drugs charges, a breach of a conditional sentence, several failures to comply, driving offences and manslaughter. The manslaughter conviction is recent.

[62] I recognize that Mr. Williams is making rehabilitative efforts by his participation in the multi-target program at Joyceville aimed at addressing his issues with crime for gain and violence. This is a good beginning. But there are the serious concerns the institution reported in January 2023 of Mr. Williams being found guilty of seven institutional offences. He is assessed as requiring a high level of intervention to address his criminal conduct and as being a moderate risk to re-offence.

[63] Mr. Williams’s affidavit and EPSR reveal a very troubled background emerging as it has from anti-Black racism, impoverishment and a marginalized and criminalized community life. His life mirrors the experiences presented in great detail by the authors of the Morris Report. His life circumstances and lifestyle choices have prevented him from fulfilling his potential to make constructive use of his life. Regard to these factors must be allowed when fashioning sentence. The Court of Appeal, however, has placed limitations on the use of social factors.

[64] I take R. v. Morris’s direction that while an offender’s choices are limited or influenced by their disadvantaged circumstances, this speaks to the offender’s moral responsibility for their acts and not to the seriousness of the crimes. Evidence of this sort may afford an explanation for the offence and serve to mitigate the offender’s moral culpability on sentencing, but may not be regarded in considering the seriousness of the offence: [R. v. Morris, paras. 75, 76 and 99].

[65] Considering the mitigating influence of Mr. Williams’s social background and other favourable factors together with the seriousness of the offence, his criminal record, the serious subsequent conviction for manslaughter and his misconduct in custody, I conclude, looking at sentences in similar cases, that a four-year sentence is fit.

SENTENCE

[66] I shall now pass sentence. Adrian Williams with you please stand.

[67] I sentence you to four years in a federal penitentiary consecutive to the sentence you are serving for manslaughter.

Allen J. Released: November 3, 2023