IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

[1]           Makris has pled guilty to the charges that on or about the 15^th day of June, 2011, at or near Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, he did  (Count 1) take part in a riot, contrary to Section 65 of the Criminal Code and  (Count 2) commit assault of another person, Albert Coleman Edwin Easterbrook, contrary to Section 266 of the Criminal Code.

[2]           On June 15, 2011, the Vancouver Canucks lost the seventh and final game of the Stanley Cup Final Series to the Boston Bruins.  The game ended at about 7:45 p.m. and a few minutes later a riot began in the downtown core of Vancouver that lasted until about 12:30 a.m. on June 16, 2011.  During the game there had been approximately 155,000 people in the downtown area of Vancouver at various venues including public outdoor viewing locations, private residences, restaurants and bars, and Rogers Arena where the game was played.

[3]           The offender, Makris, says that his day on June 15, 2011 began with a series of bad decisions; he had received distressing news from his girlfriend and was not in a good headspace going downtown.  He had the intention to drink alcohol to intoxication and to party with friends, but he left the company of his friends and went off on his own.  He believes he ingested well over a dozen beer and 14 oz. of vodka and wound up at the location where the riot started in the public viewing site [the “live site”] on the street in front of the CBC building in downtown Vancouver.

[4]           After the game concluded at 7:45 p.m. with the Boston Bruins winning the game, most everyone remained in the main public viewing site where about 55,000 people had watched the game on video screens.  The crowd appeared to be expecting something to happen, continuing to stand and watch the video screens.   Nothing was done to indicate to the crowd that the evening was over –the media coverage remained in place, apparently in anticipation.  The wait was not long.

[5]           In this public viewing area two private vehicles were parked in front of the Canada Post Building, across the street from the CBC building.  The riot began when one of these vehicles, a Versa, was overturned by the crowd and set on fire, being totally destroyed by 8:00 p.m.  As this occurred, the other vehicle, a GMC, was attacked by the crowd.  At first police and fire fighters were able to chase them away.  The fire was put out but the crowd forced its way back, overturned the GMC and set it on fire.  Some of the rioters threw burning items into the front seating area of the GMC and as the fire engulfed the entire vehicle, flammable items were kicked and thrown into the flames.  A number of citizens unsuccessfully tried to stop the attack on the GMC and one Good Samaritan, the complainant in Count 2, was attacked by the rioters.  The GMC was ultimately completely destroyed.

[6]           For approximately one hour after the GMC had been lit on fire, the police used various techniques in an effort to disperse the crowd from the Live Site.  These techniques included but were not limited to: (a) loud announcements directing the crowd to leave the area or risk arrest; (b) police line formations designed to push the crowd back; (c) use of the mounted (horse) squad; and (d) deployment of “blast balls” and other noise detonation devices to move the crowd. 

[7]           At the time the police were utilizing the various techniques to disperse the crowd, members of the crowd were becoming increasingly confrontational.  Police were being yelled at, having projectiles thrown at them and many people were refusing to peacefully leave the Live Site. 

[8]           The rioting crowds occupied West Georgia Street and the surrounding areas, breaking into and looting the many commercial premises as they went.  Vehicles were vandalized, broken into and set on fire.  Crowds of people faced off against the police and threw projectiles at them.  Many police and civilians were attacked and assaulted.  An atmosphere of lawlessness, violence and destruction quickly consumed the downtown core of Vancouver.

[9]           As the riot moved west along Georgia Street the crowd crossed Richards Street and then Seymour Street, in the 600 block of each street.  Multiple commercial premise windows were broken and the contents of the premises looted.  At Seymour Street, three blocks from where the riot started, the crowd came to the Hudson’s Bay Company Department Store that spans an entire block.  The crowd began to break the windows of the store and loot the merchandise.  Soon hundreds of rioters were engaged in this.  At the time, there were still 70 to 80 employees within the store since The Bay had intended on remaining open for business until 9 p.m.  The employees were moved to the 7^th floor of the building for their safety.

[10]        At about 9:25 p.m. cars parked in the 600 block of Seymour Street adjacent to The Bay were vandalized.  These vehicles were an Audi, a Ford Fusion and a BMW M5.  All three vehicles were vandalized, set on fire and ultimately destroyed.  The smoke from these burning vehicles entered the broken windows of The Bay causing its fire alarm and sprinkler system to activate.  This caused massive water damage to the area inside the broken windows and on the floors below.  In addition, some of the staff within the store believed that the building was on fire and the employees were evacuated from the 7^th floor back through the main floor where the rioters were present and out onto the streets through the riot itself. 

[11]        The Bay suffered extensive damages as a result of the riot.  All of the ground floor windows and some second floor windows of The Bay were broken.  There was damage to the outside canopy from fire and from rioters climbing on it.  There was smoke and water damage on the ground floor and sub floors.  There was significant merchandise loss, and construction repair.  The financial loss to The Bay was $1,346,090.20 for loss of looted property, physical damage to merchandise and the store itself, and related costs such as trauma counselling for the employees. 

[12]        A Victim Impact Statement filed on behalf of one of the employees provides frightening detail of the experience of the store staff during the riot.  This employee, a Loss Prevention Officer, was at home but hurried to The Bay when he saw news of the riot on television.  In his statement he said, in part:

[13]        Another store employee, the Human Resources Manager, was on the main floor during the riot.  She helped bring in two injured girls as first one, and then all store windows were taken out by the crowd.  She observed, “People thought it was 9-11 all over again.  They were phoning home and saying that they were not going to make it.”  Another manager said the main floor was “like World War III.  They were just panicked.  We have associates that won’t come to work anymore and continue to suffer panic attacks.”

[14]        In the days following the riot, Vasilios Makris was identified as a participant by a person who saw images of him on the internet.  As a result, many months later, on February 23, 2012, a police officer contacted Makris.  The officer had further contact with Makris and Makris’ lawyer over the next few weeks.  On April 1, 2012, almost ten months after the riot, Makris attended the Vancouver Police Department and was shown a number of video clips and photographs – he declined to comment on what he was shown, and also declined to speak about his involvement in the riot. 

[15]        Makris’ involvement in the riot was as follows.  Makris was present as the rioters damaged and eventually destroyed the Versa in front of the Post Office – the first major aspect of the riot.  His participation in that event seems to have been mainly making a video on his cell phone of rioters damaging the vehicles and rioting generally.  After a small fire had been set in the front seating area of the overturned Versa, Makris kicked an item into this fire.  He then continued filming the destruction of the Versa, from various angles and in very close proximity to the vehicle.  As the Versa was fully engulfed in flames, he and other rioters celebrated their accomplishment.  He also ran toward the burning vehicle and kicked items toward it. 

[16]        Police officers and firefighters attended the scene.  Police officers formed a protective circle around the Versa and the GMC, keeping rioters at bay, while firefighters put out the Versa fire.  During this time, Makris attempted to move through the circle of police officers, but was confronted by a police officer who refused to allow him to get closer to the burning Versa.  Several photographs filed by the Crown taken of Makris at that time show him to be highly animated and confrontational.  Makris then moved around near the front row of rioters, watching the firefighters put out the fire. 

[17]        After the Versa fire was extinguished, many rioters including Makris ran toward the GMC.  The police attempted to restrain the group but the rioters broke through past the police officers.  Makris in particular can be seen on a video clip, dancing in celebration of  having succeeded in breaking the police line.

[18]        As rioters recommenced their attack on the GMC, Makris got into a brief physical altercation with another rioter, striking the rioter a few times.  Albert Easterbrook, the victim in Count 2, interceded and got between Makris and the other rioter.  Makris then remained in close proximity to the GMC as other rioters rocked and damaged the GMC and put burning paper into the front seating area of the vehicle in an effort to set it on fire.  Some Good Samaritans tried to stop this attack, with Easterbrook removing multiple pieces of burning paper from the vehicle.  During this time Easterbrook and Makris appear to have been engaged in conversation, Easterbrook recalling later that Makris was not aggressively confronting him but rather trying to persuade him to abandon his efforts to save the vehicle because it was inevitable that it would be destroyed.

[19]        After a short period of time, Makris put his arm around Easterbrook’s shoulder and neck area while Easterbrook was trying to pull the burning paper from the GMC.  Easterbrook disengaged himself to prevent another rioter, John Sawicki, from putting burning paper in the GMC, and he punched Sawicki.  In response to this punch, Makris and others attacked Easterbrook.  Makris struck Easterbrook numerous times with his fist and hand and pursued Easterbrook around to the rear of the GMC where Easterbrook went to the ground and Makris and others appeared to be kicking at Easterbrook, who was concealed from view by the rioters. 

[20]        Makris admits punching Easterbrook but recalls he was trying to help Easterbrook when others swarmed him and attacked him after he fell.  Makris said he was not kicking Easterbrook but attempting to kick other rioters off of Easterbrook.  That does not appear to be the case but in any event, I conclude Makris was fully involved in the very considerable violence that was occurring and he was not in any way doing anything to stop it.  His involvement simply further contributed to the mayhem and chaos that was occurring.  Fortunately, Easterbrook suffered only cuts and scrapes to his head, arms and legs and even believed that Makris had not been involved in the attack, although it is clear from the videos and photographs that Easterbrook is quite wrong.

[21]        After the attack on Easterbrook the rioters succeeded in flipping the GMC on its roof and setting it on fire so that it also was completely destroyed.  During the burning of the vehicle Makris remained at the scene kicking and throwing things toward the fire.  Police officers were finally able to force the rioters away from the GMC, resorting to tear gas.

[22]        Makris moved east on Georgia Street and a short distance north on Hamilton Street.  He was captured on video, sitting in an alcove of the Canada Post Building drinking and pouring beer into his eyes.  Shortly after he was interviewed by a news reporter and was asked, “What do you think about the police action?”  His reply – “Bring it on, Motherfuckers.”

[23]        Makris then moved further east on Georgia Street to the stairway leading to the plaza area in front of the Queen Elizabeth Theatre.  Here he was in a lengthy confrontation face to face with the police, depicted in videos filed as exhibits.  Several other citizens attempted to persuade him to leave the area, to no avail.  He was eventually moved up the stairs and partway through the plaza, the confrontation continuing the whole time.  At this point Heather Kennedy, a civilian who happened to be present, tried to pull Makris away from the police; he responded by pushing her to the ground.  After this incident the police advised Makris he was under arrest, but he managed to leave the scene and headed west.

[24]        Makris was next seen several blocks west on Seymour Street beside the Hudson Bay Company.  The burning and destruction of the three vehicles previously mentioned was just beginning.  Makris walked up to the BMW M5 and pushed against it, assisting others in their efforts to overturn the vehicle.  The BMW was eventually completely destroyed by fire and was a total loss. 

[25]        Makris was then seen breaking into the Hudson’s Bay Company.  It was about ten o’clock, some two hours after the riot had started.  Makris and several others broke into the business through the employee entrance doors when another rioter had gained entry elsewhere and opened the doors for the other intruders.  The rioters were very quickly chased back out of the store by employees who were spraying fire extinguishers at the rioters.  As noted earlier, however, hundreds of other rioters gained entry elsewhere and looted the store, contributing to the massive damage suffered by that company.

[26]        Later that night, about two blocks further west and now approximately four hours after the riot had started, Makris was seen with a crowd  as they confronted police officers by erecting a barricade made of metal construction fencing in order to stop the police from dispersing the rioters.  Makris had pulled up his shirt to cover the bottom portion of his face.

[27]        Exhibit 4 in these proceedings, Impact of the Riot, gives a summary of what occurred during the riot.  1035 emergency personnel were deployed to the downtown core of Vancouver including Vancouver Police, RCMP, Fire Services and Ambulance Services.  Because of danger to ambulance attendants within the riot area the regular units had to withdraw and leave six special tactical attendants to deal with emergency situations.  There were 150 emergency room visits at St. Paul’s Hospital and a further 100 patients dealt with in a special decontamination area to deal with tear gas and pepper spray cases.  The police recorded 26 arsons, 193 mischiefs, 26 break and enters, 52 assaults and 116 arrests.  112 businesses were damaged, 122 vehicles damaged or destroyed, and there was a total monetary loss in excess of $3,778,190.52.

[28]        Mr. Porte on behalf of the Crown submits that two important principles apply to these proceedings – social responsibility and the rule of law.  Those principles require that general deterrence and denunciation be emphasized and therefore a sentence of at least twelve months in jail is required.  The Crown is opposed to anything less than institutional incarceration and in particular is opposed to a Conditional Sentence Order. 

[29]        In determining the appropriate sentence the Crown says to look to four issues: the context of the riot, the accused’s participation, the principles in Section 718 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code, and the accused’s personal circumstances.

[30]        The context of the riot is important, says the Crown, and cites Regina v. Dickinson, 2012 BCPC 40 (CanLII), [2012] B.C.J. 314, where at paragraph 16, MacLean J. says,

[31]        Mr. Porte points out the observation of our Court of Appeal in R. v. Loewen, 1992 CanLII 6003 (BC CA), (1992) 75 CCC (3d) 184, BCCA, where at paragraph 12 the court concluded, “His actions encouraged others to take part in the riot.”

[32]        He also cites R. v. Fuller, 1995 J.E. 95-1118, (Que Mun Ct), where at paragraph 45 & 46 the court says:

[33]        Finally, concerning the context of the riot, Mr. Porte refers to the recent compendious case of the English Court of Appeal dealing with various riot offences that occurred in early August of 2011.  In Regina v. Blackshaw et al, [2011] EWCA Crim 2312 Times, the court said beginning at paragraph 5:

[34]        Mr. Porte summarized the accused’s participation in the riot.  He said that he rioted actively for four hours, starting at the very beginning of the riot at about eight o’clock.  At this time two vehicles were put to fire and the accused kicked several items into the fire.  At the second of these vehicles, the accused assaulted Easterbrook who was trying to prevent the damage to the vehicle.  This assault began with an attack by the accused and another, and developed into a “swarming” by several of the rioters.

[35]        The accused then became verbally abusive to the police over a lengthy period, taunted them in a television interview, and then moved to the location where he participated in the break-in at the Hudson’s Bay Company.  Finally he moved some distance away, past the Hudson’s Bay Company to Howe Street where he was involved in setting up fencing to stop the police.  During this latter involvement, the accused now had his face covered, apparently to prevent identification.

[36]        The Crown submitted that denunciation and general deterrence are the two sentencing principles that must be emphasized in cases of rioting.  With regard to the former, Mr. Porte cited the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. M. (C.A.), 1996 CanLII 230 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500,  where at paragraph 81 the court said:

[37]        Concerning general deterrence he cited Regina v. Blackshaw et al, [2011] EWCA Crim 2312 Times, where at paragraph 4 the court said:

[38]        Further concerning general deterrence the Crown cites two cases of our Court of Appeal.  First, in R. v. Loewen, 1992 CanLII 6003 (BC CA), (1992) 75 CCC (3d) 184, BCCA, at paragraph 9 the court observes:

[39]        And at paragraph 13 the court says:

[40]        In Regina v. Peepre, 2013 BCCA 115, our Court of Appeal endorsed the many decisions of this court that have emphasized general deterrence when imposing sentences for involvement in the Stanley Cup Riot.

[41]        In regard to the need for general deterrence, the Crown filed as Exhibit 5 in these proceedings a list of riots during community gatherings in Canada which for the past 25 years included the following:

[42]        Finally, concerning general deterrence, the Crown submits that one of the most serious aspects of Makris’s participation in the riot was his acts of arson and that for offences of arson, general deterrence has been held to be the primary sentencing concern:  Regina v. Engler, [1994] BCWLD 2464, (BCCA), Regina v. Deen, [1997] BCJ no. 2657 (BCCA), and Regina v. Cootes, [2011] BCCA 398 (BCCA).

[43]        The involvement by Makris in lighting vehicles on fire risked the lives of those present and his actions, including even seemingly innocuous acts of video recording of other rioters lighting the fires, encouraged the others to commit those crimes.

[44]        The Crown says that it was additionally aggravating that in the case of Makris, he was involved in more than one discrete criminal act when participating in the riot.  Not only were the arsons serious, but the assaultive behaviour toward at least three individuals was aggravating.  The break and entry and the masked face were also aggravations of his involvement. 

[45]        Mr. Porte then discussed many cases similar to the present where there was a relatively young adult offender, often with no criminal record, who had engaged in a riot by committing various criminal acts.  Mr. Porte demonstrated and I conclude that these cases show a range of sentence generally indicating incarceration from 45 days to 18 months, but including a few cases of Conditional Sentence Orders and suspended sentences at the lower end of the range. 

[46]        The B.C. Court of Appeal examined this range in the decision of Regina v. Peepre, 2013 BCCA 115, and endorsed the sentencing range that is apparent from the many cases where this court has dealt with the Stanley Cup Riot.  The Court of Appeal said, at paragraph [30]:

[47]        Several of the Stanley Cup riot cases are cited following that statement and the court continues:

[48]        Mr. Porte concluded his submissions by saying the present case is not at the lower end of the range because virtually all of the aggravating factors listed by the court in the Peepre Case are present – Inciting (encouraging) others, additional criminal activity such as assault, arson, wearing a mask, and committing multiple criminal acts in multiple locations.

[49]        Mr. Baker stated at the outset that he believes a Conditional Sentence Order of two years less a day would serve the purposes of this case.  In the alternative, if the Court concluded that a sentence to be served in an institution was required, then he asked the Court to consider a sentence of 30 to 90 days, permitting the imposition of an intermittent sentence, with probation and a significant amount of community work service to follow.

[50]        It is the defence position that Makris was very intoxicated at the time of the riot and because of what was for him a rare occurrence, he behaved completely out of character.  As a demonstration of this Mr. Baker pointed out that prior to assaulting Easterbrook, Makris appeared to be quite friendly toward him.  Because of his impairment, Makris could not respond rationally to situations or as Baker said, “... perceived different people in different ways.”  For a reason Makris cannot now explain, he initiated the attack against Easterbrook.  Interestingly, Makris and Easterbrook encountered each other months after the riot and were quite amicable, with Makris apologizing to Easterbrook.

[51]        In the video clips presented in evidence by the Crown, Mr. Baker admitted that Makris appeared as a “drunken, angry individual” – he gave as an example the interview where he made the outrageous comments to the news reporter.  He asserted that Makris was “clearly out of his mind” because of the amount of vodka and beer he had consumed, and continued to consume throughout the riot.  According to the defence, this was very unusual for Makris and should be viewed as an isolated incident because “... drinking is something that you can stop.” Makris has apparently stopped drinking since these events.

[52]        In concluding his request for a Conditional Sentence Order Mr. Baker stressed the following points in mitigation.  Makris is a relatively youthful first offender – quite different from many offenders before this court.  He is remorseful, having expressed this in interviews with a probation officer and by offering an apology to the victim of his assault.  Since the riot he has resumed being a responsible citizen, maintaining steady employment.  In addition, he has continued with his almost exemplary record of community service.  He does not abuse alcohol or drugs, nor does he have any psychological disorders.  He is not dangerous to the public.  His offences were committed while he was very much under the influence of alcohol and involved no premeditation. 

[53]        Makris was born on August 31, 1984 in Victoria, B.C. and is therefore now 29 years old.  He lived in Victoria until the age of five when his parents separated and he moved with his mother to Ottawa.

[54]        He described his early family years as chaotic and abusive, his father being “an angry violent Greek man” who would abuse his mother and half-siblings.  He remained in Ottawa with his mother for five years until the two of them moved to Greece where he took the rest of his schooling, returning to Canada to take his university in Vancouver where he got his B.A. at UBC in 2006.  He has lived in this area for more than a decade. 

[55]        Makris maintains a close relationship with his mother even though she is resident in Ontario.  His relationship with his father has always been very difficult and he has very limited contact with his half-siblings. 

[56]        Makris has been in a relationship with Claire Wilson for the past five years, living together for the past two years.  She is studying naturopathic medicine.  She has written a positive letter of support for these proceedings.

[57]        Makris reports a consistent record of employment.  While in university he worked in Greek restaurants.  After university he worked as a guide in the eco-tourism industry for a number of years.  For the past two years until recently he was employed by Vanglo, a renovation and light construction company.  He has recently taken similar employment with Reno King.  Both of his previous employers in eco-tourism and at Vanglo give him good references, describing him as hardworking, trustworthy, diligent and kind. 

[58]        Makris also has a lengthy history of volunteer work in the community.  In 2004 he spent several months in Afghanistan as a volunteer teaching information technology for a United Nations organization.  In 2010 he spent several months in Palestine and Israel doing the same.  He did volunteer work for five years giving lectures and tours for a non-profit ecological organization and for several years has volunteered his time for the Victoria Greek Food Festival. 

[59]        In addition, Makris provides wellness services and support to Ms. Haidee Virgo, a woman with significant physical challenges.  This commitment is for several hours a week and he has been doing this since well prior to the riot.

[60]        Ms. Virgo, Makris’ previous employers and his partner, Ms. Wilson, describe him as non-aggressive and peace loving.  They see his behaviour at the riot as being entirely out of character. 

[61]        I will begin with a recitation of the following provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada:

[62]        In summary, Section 718 of the Criminal Code directs that sentencing an offender has the following purposes – to denounce unlawful conduct; to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; to separate offenders from society, where necessary; to assist in rehabilitating offenders; to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.  In addition the courts have determined that there are other considerations in sentencing, such as retribution as will be discussed in the Proulx Case that will be quoted below.

[63]        Each of these sentencing considerations is given varying weight, depending on the type of offence, the seriousness of the offence, and the circumstances of the offender.  I am satisfied that in this and related cases arising from the Vancouver Stanley Cup riot the principles of denunciation and general deterrence must prevail over all other concerns.  At the same time, in this particular case, the court cannot lose sight of the concern for rehabilitation of the accused.

[64]        Notable in this list is the requirement to pay special heed to all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances.  In this regard I may consider probation, community work service, and reparations for harm done to victims or to the community.  The court may use a Conditional Sentence Order to effect restorative justice in this way. 

[65]         With regard to general deterrence and how that might be facilitated by a Conditional Sentence Order I am mindful of the case of Regina v. Proulx, [2000] SCC 5, at the following paragraphs:

[66]        The need for general deterrence in this case is indicated by the cases of Regina v. Blackshaw et al, [2011] EWCA Crim 2312 Times and R. v. Loewen, 1992 CanLII 6003 (BC CA), (1992) 75 CCC (3d) 184, BCCA.  And every other case cited by counsel dealing with sentence on a riot charge confirms that emphasis must be given to general deterrence. 

[67]        The same must be said of denunciation – the two principles go hand in hand in every such case.  A good example of denunciation that would be equally appropriate in the case of Makris is seen in the case of Regina v. Post, [1991] BCSC, unreported decision of Oliver J. where in the second paragraph of that case the court states:

[68]        A more recent example can be found in the case of Regina v. Yates, (2012 BCPC 250 (CanLII), 2012 BCPC 0250), where Low J. of this court, commenting on this same riot, said at paragraph [11]:

[69]        In order to gauge the emphasis to be given to general deterrence and denunciation in each particular riot case the court must assess the seriousness of each such offence.  To do that it is necessary to put the offence of the accused in the context of the riot as a whole; I accept the Crown’s submission in that regard. 

[70]        The Vancouver Stanley Cup riot was extremely serious.  A massive crowd, moving through the large metropolitan downtown core, endangered the lives of thousands of persons who were in innocent occupation of their city.   As I noted in the Dorosh Case the rioters left a wake of enormous property damage – the rioters simply trashed much of the downtown area of the city.  In addition to the physical damage there was painful psychological damage to many of the victims and lasting injury to the pride and reputation of the city itself.

[71]        Each of the participants in the riot must take some responsibility for the totality of the riot as well as responsibility for their individual acts.  I accept the submission that the acts of individuals had the effect of encouraging those who were like-minded.  Thus, in this case, it may have occurred to Makris to throw inflammable material onto burning vehicles because he saw others doing the same.  His acts would have inspired others who saw him, and the chaos continued, and even grew. 

[72]        Makris was apparently not the first to try to ignite any of the vehicles on fire but made his attempt after others had done that.  It appears that yet others continued with the enterprise until the vehicles were finally destroyed.  Makris bears some responsibility for his part in continuing the criminal endeavour that resulted in the ultimate destruction of the vehicles.

[73]        I also conclude that I must consider the seriousness of the related substantive offences Makris committed in determining the seriousness of his acts of taking part in a riot.  That is to say, I do not accept that because his offence has a maximum sentence of two years that alone determines the seriousness of his offence.  Each offence of rioting must be viewed in the context of exactly what acts the accused engaged in to contribute to the riot.  Attempting to commit arson and break and entry, each individually very serious offences with more significant maximum sentences than rioting simpliciter, aggravate the seriousness of Makris’s involvement.

[74]        My assessment concerning the seriousness of these matters is that the Vancouver Stanley Cup Riot was “a monstrous thing”, to echo the previously quoted comments of Oliver J.  The participation by Makris was very serious, well into upper range of seriousness for offences under Section 65 of the Criminal Code and certainly one of the most serious cases in this particular riot.  He was there at the start of the riot and remained for the whole four hour period until the very end.  He fully participated in almost all aspects of the riot except perhaps looting businesses.  He was confrontational with the police and other peace makers throughout and he was physically aggressive when confronted himself.  His acts encouraged others to commit criminal offences and regularly went beyond encouragement to participate himself in acts of arson, assault, and break and entry. All of this requires that the court give very particular attention to general deterrence and denunciation.

[75]        In looking at comparator cases, and there are now many, it is apparent that Makris’ involvement in the Stanley Cup Riot was the most serious of any case heard so far.  It is difficult to imagine how any rioter could have been more involved in the mayhem, short of committing much more serious substantive criminal offences such as offences of grievous bodily harm. 

[76]        I will refer to what appears to be the next most serious case (so far) as a comparator.  In Regina v. Yates, Low J. of this court (2012 BCPC 250 (CanLII), 2012 BCPC 0250) similarly dealt with a young adult with no criminal record.  Yates was guilty of taking part in the riot and assaulting a police officer.   In particular, Judge Low noted that Yates was there at the beginning of the riot.  He was not involved in setting the two vehicles ablaze, but he was in the crowd confronting the police.  He spat on one police officer and threw a bottle, striking another police officer.  He was seen using an iron pipe to smash windows at the Canada Post building and later doing the same at the Hudson’s Bay store.  He was also seen throwing a mannequin on one of the vehicles that was destroyed by fire on Seymour Street.

[77]        There is no equation that purports to compare the turpitude of any two cases.  Both Makris and Yates were part of a crowd, actively “cheerleading” while others committed actual criminal offences.  Yates assaulted two police officers while Makris assaulted three civilians, but Makris also engaged in angry prolonged confrontations and taunting of the police.  Makris was involved in the arson of three vehicles at two locations, while Yates only one vehicle, but he smashed windows at two locations with a pipe. 

[78]        Makris was still there at the end of the riot with his face masked, helping build a barrier to foil the police – his involvement was from the beginning to the end of the riot.  But what really sets Makris’ case apart from most others was his commitment, at times almost a frantic commitment, to the mayhem.  He consistently attempted to frustrate the police and others who were trying to stop the riot.  His statement to the reporter, “Bring it on, Motherfuckers”, speaks volumes concerning his state of mind. 

[79]        In the Yates Case Judge Low said in paragraph [13] “I agree with Crown and defence that the primary concern in sentencing Mr. Yates must be general deterrence.  … the only fit sentence I can consider is an institutional prison sentence.” 

[80]        In the next paragraph Low J. dismisses the possibility of a conditional sentence order – “… such a sentence would not properly address the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in the Criminal Code, and in particular would not properly address the need for general deterrence in the particular circumstances of Mr. Yates’ offending.”

[81]        I am satisfied that specific deterrence and protecting the public from Makris are not concerns in this case – he is a bright young man and will surely learn his lesson from any sentence that must be imposed at this time and from the consequences and embarrassment he has experienced so far.  I am also satisfied that reparations are not realistic in this case – the damage caused to the burned out vehicles was enormous and well beyond Makris’ limited means. 

[82]        In looking at mitigating circumstances that support the defence application for a non-institutional sentence, I accept most of what Mr. Baker has put forward as mitigation.  Makris is a first offender.  He is somewhat remorseful, not having turned himself in to the police but having apologized to one of his victims and having instructed counsel to proceed with a guilty plea at an appropriate time.  Since the occasion of the riot he has continued to be a responsible citizen, maintaining steady employment and an almost exemplary record of public service.  He does not abuse alcohol or drugs, nor does he have any psychological disorders.  He is not dangerous to the public.  His offences involved no premeditation, although they did occur over a considerable period of time when Makris had time to reflect on what he was doing and cease his illegal activities.

[83]        I stated that I accepted most of what Mr. Baker said in mitigation.  Mr. Baker made it clear that he did not offer the intoxication of the accused as an excuse for his actions, but as an explanation.  I must conclude, however, that Makris’ state of intoxication from alcohol was not what Makris wants to believe.  In the very considerable video footage filed as exhibits, Makris can be seen walking, running, jostling and taking hold of others, shooting his own video footage, and kicking and throwing items, among several other physical acts depicted.  In none of these images does he appear to have any physical difficulty or the “usual signs of impairment” such as swaying, stumbling, or erratic walking.  The video also shows the previously mentioned interview where Makris talks to a reporter.  He is responsive and alert, showing no signs of slurring of the speech or any noticeable symptoms in his features.  He was certainly animated, and even histrionic, but it must be concluded there was little or no indication of alcohol impairment.  That of course leaves one wondering how an otherwise responsible, bright young man with no criminal record could suddenly exhibit such behaviour.

[84]        In dealing with the mass of Stanley Cup Riot cases it is important to keep in mind Criminal Code Section 718.2(b) - a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.  In general the range of sentences for such persons has been 45 days to 18 months in jail.  Those sentences have been imposed in similar circumstances, although as I noted earlier it is difficult to compare riot cases with each other.  It is perhaps easier to discern contrasts as can be seen below.

[85]        If one were just considering the assault of Easterbrook and the background of Mr. Makris the lower end of the range including a conditional sentence order might be considered.  But the added aspects of his involvement in the various arsons, the confrontations with police, the break and entry of the Hudson’s Bay Company, and the incidents that followed takes Mr. Makris’ turpitude to a much higher level.  I must conclude that the seriousness of Makris’s involvement does not permit consideration of a Conditional Sentence Order – it would send the wrong message to the public and not effectively denounce Makris’s conduct.  In fact, my assessment is that because of the aggravating aspects of the case the indicated sentence is at least that sought by the Crown; a sentence of a year or more in jail could be entirely justified as generally indicated before consideration is given to Makris’s personal circumstances.

[86]        I have in mind that the remorse of the accused, his guilty plea, and his general good record of responsibility as a citizen for many years mitigates the situation and permits consideration of a lesser sentence.  This has been done in the comparator cases.

[87]        I therefore sentence him to eight months imprisonment, concurrent on each of the two counts.

[88]        I am not imposing probation.  Substance abuse counselling of any type is not indicated and Makris should be permitted to serve the sentence and conclude the matter.  I will waive the Victim Fine Surcharge because of the imposition of a jail sentence.  I conclude I must make an order for the taking of a DNA sample in the usual form – that will be done while the accused is in custody.