This website uses cookies to various ends, as detailed in our Privacy Policy. You may accept all these cookies or choose only those categories of cookies that are acceptable to you.

Loading paragraph markers

R v Clark et al, 2014 BCPC 186 (CanLII)

 PDF
Date:
2014-08-22
File number:
36941-C-2
Citation:
R v Clark et al, 2014 BCPC 186 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/g8r29>, retrieved on 2024-04-25

Citation:      R v Clark et al                                                            Date:           20140822

2014 BCPC 0186                                                                          File No:              36941-C-2

                                                                                                        Registry:      Prince George

 

 

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

 

 

 

 

 

REGINA

 

 

v.

 

 

JOEL MILTON CLARK

JOHN R.HAWKINS

and JOSHUA BOWSER

 

 

 

 

 

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

(RE ACCUSED CLARK)

OF THE

HONOURABLE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

M. J. BRECKNELL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Counsel for the Crown:                                                                                                C. Malfair

Counsel for the Defendant: Mr. Clark:                                                                        R. Climie

Place of Hearing:                                                                                         Prince George, B.C.

Date of Hearing:                                                                                                August 15, 2014

Date of Judgment:                                                                                             August 22, 2014

INTRODUCTION

 

[1]           Joel Milton Clark (Mr. Clark) is to be sentenced having earlier pleaded guilty to Count One on Information No. 36941-C-2 on a charge arising on December 10, 2012 of break and enter of a dwelling house and committing an indictable offence therein, contrary to Section 348(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

[2]           Mr. Clark is the third of three co-accused to be sentenced arising from the events of December 10, 2012, the others being John R. Hawkins who pleaded guilty to the same break and enter charge and a further offence of having his face masked while committing an indictable offence and received a sentence of eight years in a penitentiary and Joshua Bowser who pleaded guilty to the same break and enter charge and a further offence of assault with a weapon and received a sentence of three years in prison followed by three years of probation.

[3]           The Crown seeks a sentence of four years in prison (less credit for time served), a DNA order and a lifetime firearms prohibition.  Defence counsel does not oppose the DNA or firearms orders but seeks a three year prison sentence (less time served) followed by a two year probation order.

THE LAW

[4]           Given the approach taken by counsel in their submissions it is important to initially address the law prior to turning to the other factors to be considered in arriving at a just and fit sentence for Mr. Clark.

 

            The Criminal Code

[5]           The following provisions of the Criminal Code were relied on by counsel and have application here:

a) Section 348(1) Every one who

            (a)      breaks and enters a place with intent to commit an indictable                        offence therein;

            is guilty

            (d)      if the offence is committed in relation to a dwelling-house, of                                    an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life,

            b) Section 348.1

            If a person is convicted of an offence under section 98 or 98.1,       subsection 279(2) or section 343, 346 or 348 in relation to a          dwelling-house, the court imposing the sentence on the person          shall consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the          dwelling-house was occupied at the time of the commission of the offence and that the person, in committing the offence,

            (a)      knew that or was reckless as to whether the dwelling-house                                     was occupied; and

            (b)      used violence or threats of violence to a person or property.

 

c) Section 718  

            The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with            crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and                                    the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by                                     imposing just sanctions that have one or more   of the                                     following objectives:

*                                          (a) to denounce unlawful conduct;

*                                          (b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing                                             offences;

*                                          (c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

*                                          (d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

*                                          (e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the                                              community; and

*                                          (f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and                                                 acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.

      d) Section 718.1

                  A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the                         degree of responsibility of the offender.

e) Section 718.2 (in part)

            A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration   the following principles:

                              (a)      a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for                                              any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances                                                                   relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting                                                   the generality of the foregoing,

                                    (iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on                                       the victim, considering their age and other personal                                                    circumstances, including their health and financial situation,

                  shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances;

                        (e)       all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are                                             reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all                                  offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of                                                aboriginal offenders.

Case Law

[6]           Counsel provided or referred to the following cases:

            a)         R. v. Bernier 2003 BCCA 134

            b)         R. v. Drydgen 2013 BCSC 1876

            c)         R. v. Wright (2006) 2006 CanLII 40975 (ON CA), 216 C.C.C. (3d) 54 OCA

            d)         R. v. Vickers 2007 BCCA 554

            e)         R. v. Brossault 2009 BCSC 464

 

[7]           Both counsel spent considerable time in their submissions dealing with the issues surrounding the topics of proportionality, gravity of the offence and Mr. Clark’s degree of responsibility.  Given that there are three accused involved, each with their own particular personal circumstances, criminal record and involvement in the events of December 10, 2012, it is incumbent upon the Court in properly assessing s. 718.1 to, in effect, compare and contrast Mr. Clark circumstances with the other two co-accused.

EVIDENCE

            Personal Circumstances

[8]           Mr. Clark’s personal circumstances are set out in the Pre-Sentence Report and can be summarized as follows:

            a)         he is 28 years old and is one of four siblings.  His father was                                    a successful businessman and all the children enjoyed a                              good childhood with many amenities;

            b)         he enrolled in the mechanics apprenticeship program in                               Grade 11 but was eventually expelled from school.                                          However, he       continued his apprenticeship at a local college                                     and came within six months of completion before dropping                                  out;

            c)         he has worked at a variety of mechanic related employment                         when not in custody.  He also has skills in other areas and                           has several options for employment in a variety of areas and                   locations upon his release from custody.  He also speaks                            several languages;

            d)         he began dabbling in drug use while in high school.  In 2005                                  his father died unexpectedly which resulted in self-                                       destructive behaviour including increased drug and alcohol                                     abuse.  This behaviour has continued, with some periods of                                     sobriety, ever since and is strongly related to his                                              involvement in criminal behaviour.  His mother died of                                  cancer in December 2012 soon after he was incarcerated on                  this matter;

            e)         he has actively participated in a variety of                                                          activities while in custody on this matter including                                           counselling concerning his grief over the loss of his parents,                                    completion of all 18 of the Essential Skills to Success                                                 programs offered through the correctional center, completion                        of the Substance Abuse Management program and he has                         quit smoking.

 

[9]           Mr. Hawkins’ personal circumstances as described in the sentencing decision of him found at 2013 BCPC 143 can be summarized as follows:

            a)         he is a 55 year old member of the Tahltan Nation but was                              raised in a non-aboriginal environment.  He suffered a                                  severe burn injury as an infant but his upbringing was                                                otherwise uneventful;

            b)         he has a poor education proceeding only as far as Grade 7;

            c)         he was shot in the head in 1990 and continues to suffer                               lingering effects from the injury including requiring                                        prescription medication to assist in maintaining himself in an                      appropriate fashion and deficits in his comprehension and                           his numerical and literacy skills;

            d)         he has held a variety of different types of employment but                            that employment has been sporadic due to the nature of his                                 criminal history;

            e)         he has had drug and alcohol substance abuse problems                               throughout his teenage and adult life but has had periods of                                    sobriety.

 

[10]        Mr. Bowser’s personal circumstances as described in the sentencing decision of him found at 2014 BCPC 178 can be summarized as follows:

            a)         he is a good, upstanding member of the community who has                        participated fully in trying to assist family members and                                  others;

            b)         he has held regular employment and excelled in sports;

            c)         he acted heroically in saving a family of snowmobilers when                                    their snow machine went through the ice;

            d)         he suffered a terrible tragedy when his sister was killed in a                         highway accident and he had to identify her body.  That                                resulted in him becoming severely depressed and perhaps                                  developing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder;

            e)         he attempted self-medication as a result of his depression,                            first with alcohol and subsequently with various drugs which                               led him into the drug culture lifestyle.

 

 

            Criminal Record

 

[11]        Mr. Clark’s criminal record dates back to 2002 with 38 convictions including one assault causing bodily harm, one assault with a weapon, two assaults, three threatening’s or harassment, one counselling an indictable offence not committed, eight property offences, two mischiefs, one drug offence, two obstructions of a peace officer, one alcohol-related driving offence, ten driving while prohibited offences and six breaches of court orders.

[12]        In the days before his involvement in this matter Mr. Clark had pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon.  He had been incarcerated for approximately four months and, as such, was released on a time served basis.  In the course of dealing with sentencing submissions on that matter Mr. Clark, through his counsel, told the Court that he ordinarily resided in Squamish, B.C. and was employed as a heavy-duty mechanic.  He also advised he attended a drug rehabilitation program in Squamish, had lived a productive life there for two years, but had returned to Prince George to assist his mother with her illness and fell into drug use and bad behaviour with his twin brother.  He was released from custody on December 9, 2012.

[13]        Mr. Hawkins’ criminal record was summarized in his sentencing proceeding as follows:

[14] Mr. Hawkins has a very lengthy and serious criminal history.  He has 71 convictions, including a conviction for manslaughter, two break and entering convictions, four assault convictions, one assault causing bodily harm conviction, one aggravated assault conviction, ten offences for weapons and firearms, and numerous offences related to alcohol and vehicle operation throughout the years.

 

[14]        Mr. Hawkins had been released from custody a matter of days before December 10, 2012.

[15]        Mr. Bowser had no criminal record prior to the events of December 10, 2012.

            The Events of December 10, 2012

[16]        On December 10, 2012 Mr. Clark, Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Bowser went to a rural residence at approximately 10:15 p.m. under the cover of darkness.  Their purpose was to enter the residence and steal money, financial information, and banking cards that Mr. Bowser knew to be present as a result of some previous employment he had with the owner of the residence.

[17]        The three perpetrators attempted to force entry at both the back and front doors and were eventually able to gain entry into the residence when Mr. Clark broke a window on the front door and an unlocked it.  Their entry to the residence was captured on video which also showed Mr. Bowser to be masked, Mr. Hawkins to be wearing a bandana and Mr. Clark’s face to be uncovered.

[18]        There were three men in the residence.  Mr. Bowser deployed bear spray in the direction of one man in the living room and then he moved into the bedroom where he deployed the bear spray in the direction of two other men.  One person in the residence, Mr. A., was a 51 year old quadriplegic who is confined to his bed.  The other two men were Mr. A.’s personal attendants.

[19]         Mr. Hawkins did not enter the bedroom.  There is a dispute between counsel as to whether or not Mr. Clark did.  After the bear spray was deployed Mr. Bowser grabbed a fanny pack containing financial information and bank cards belonging to Mr. A.  The three perpetrators then departed the residence having been inside for approximately one minute.

[20]        After leaving Mr. A.’s residence Mr. Clark, Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Bowser went to a local convenience store where attempts were made to obtain some cash utilizing Mr. A.’s bank cards and financial information from the fanny pack.  Some cash was obtained, although in none of the three sentencing procedures was the amount accurately specified nor was there any acknowledgment of where the cash went.

[21]        Mr. Clark was arrested on December 12, 2012.  Mr. Hawkins was arrested on December 21, 2012.  Mr. Bowser was not arrested until May 1, 2013.  All three remained in custody until their respective sentencings.

VICTIM IMPACT

 

[22]        As detailed in the Pre-Sentence Report, Mr. A. suffered several serious consequences as a result of the crimes perpetrated against him.

[23]        As a result of being bear sprayed he had immediate discomfort and pain to his eyes and an adverse reaction to his respiratory system which, as a result of his disability, resulted in the collapse of a lung on two occasions, resulting in a weeklong hospitalization.

[24]        In addition, he suffered emotional distress as to why a person like him with disabilities would be terrified in such a manner.  He wishes increased protective measures for himself and says he no longer trusts people either at home or on the street.

[25]        In addition, both his front and back doors were damaged during the home invasion resulting in repairs to the front door which cost approximately $2,600.00 and replacement of his backdoor which will cost an additional $2,000.00 plus labour.

SUBMISSIONS

            Crown

[26]        The Crown prefaced its submissions by stating that Mr. Clark’s involvement in this case is less aggravating than many of the cases involving s. 348.1 because although it was a home invasion there was no confinement, torture or extortion of the occupants and, as such, the Court need not consider the very serious range of sentences discussed in Bernier and Wright.

[27]        The Crown also acknowledged that there was a third party who was, in large part, the directing mind of the events of December 10, 2012.  That person, who the Crown acknowledges is a local drug dealer and a person of violence and ill repute, contended that both Mr. Bowser and Mr. Clark owed him a drug debt.  He was the one who supplied the bear spray and directed the three perpetrators to Mr. A.’s house upon finding out from Mr. Bowser that there may be money there.  Mr. Hawkins’ was sent along as the enforcer or “muscle”.  Mr. Clark had been staying at the third party’s residence since his release from custody the day before and the vehicle used to travel to Mr. A.’s residence was borrowed from that person.

[28]        Both Mr. Bowser and Mr. Clark contended that they were under a form of duress to carry out the third party’s wishes for fear of violent physical repercussions.  Mr. Bowser identified the third party but Mr. Clark has specifically declined to identify the person he was being directed by and under obligation to.

[29]        In arriving at its position on sentencing the Crown’s submissions can be summarized as follows:

            a)         mitigating factors include Mr. Clark was neither masked or in                        possession of a weapon, he entered a guilty plea and his                              successful and diligent undertaking of programming while                            custody awaiting sentencing;

            b)         aggravating factors include Mr. Clark participated in a home                         invasion, he has a lengthy criminal history including prior                            convictions for violence, he had been released the very day                                     before committing these offences, he knew or was                                          reckless to the fact that Mr. Bowser came armed with                                              bear spray and he came into the bedroom with Mr. Bowser                         to complete the theft;

            c)         Mr. Clark was equivocal in his acceptance of responsibility                           claiming he was unaware of what he Mr. Hawkins and Mr.                            Bowser were to be doing other than collecting on a                                           drug debt even though he acknowledged he was told                                           that he owed money to his drug supplier and when they                              arrived at the residence Mr. Bowser and Mr. Hawkins were                                  masked and attempts are made to force open the doors to                                     the residence;

            d)         Mr. Hawkins has the most serious criminal history of the                               three people involved.  Mr. Bowser had no criminal history.                           As such, Mr. Clark’s sentence should fall somewhere                                        between those received by the others;

            e)         Mr. Hawkins has very little in the way of redeeming social                              qualities.  Mr. Bowser is of otherwise good character with a                           pro-social background and family support who readily                                           admitted his participation in the offence and expressed                                 remorse.  Mr. Clark has a lengthy criminal record with little                         solid history of pro-social activity indications of pro-criminal                                  associations and attitudes and has been less genuine in his                               remorse and, as such, a longer sentence than Mr. Bowser’s                         is warranted in the circumstances;

            f)          based on the decision of R. v. Summers 2014 SCC 26 and                           R. v. Carvery 2014 SCC 27, Mr. Clark has been denied the                                 opportunity for early parole while on remand and therefore                               should be entitled to pretrial credit of 1.5 days for each day                               in custody pursuant to section 719 (3.1) of the Criminal                         Code.

            Defence

[30]        Defence counsel submissions on behalf of Mr. Clark can be summarized as follows:

            a)         he fell into serious drug abuse following the death of his                               father and has struggled with that ever since;

            b)         he has had a solid employment history when out of custody;

            c)         he has worked diligently during this most recent time in                                 custody in taking all the programs available to him,                                          maintained sobriety             and has quit smoking;

            d)         he is suitable for community supervision as indicated in the                         Pre-Sentence Report.  He is clearly capable of being                                     rehabilitated;

            e)         he has the support of a drug and alcohol counselor who lives                      in Squamish and is like a parent to him.  He wishes to help                               that person who is in ill health;

            f)          he was coerced into participating in the home invasion by a                          drug culture person who claimed he owed a drug debt and                           who told him    to participate or he would receive a beating.                             This is a common practice in Prince George by drug                                                dealers to collect debts through beating, torturing and                                          confining customers who have not paid;

            g)         he is remorseful and embarrassed about his participation                              particularly in light of the injuries caused to Mr. A., a                                        circumstance he had no knowledge of prior to going to Mr.                            A.’s residence;

            h)       his participation in the home invasion was limited and much                                    less culpable than either Mr. Hawkins or Mr. Bowser.  He did                        not wear a disguise and he was not in possession of a                              weapon nor is there any evidence that he knew about the                                     bear spray before it was deployed by Mr. Bowser;

            i)          he did not assault anybody and did not enter the bedroom                            during the home invasion.  He was largely a bystander;

            j)         he did not obtain any of the proceeds of the crime but both                            Mr.  Bowser and Mr. Hawkins obtained monies utilizing Mr.                                  A.’s bank cards;

            k)         he has a serious criminal record but he has no convictions                           for break and enters.  Despite that criminal record, he is the                               least culpable of the three perpetrators and he should                                           receive the least serious sanction;

            l)          he is prepared to pay restitution to Mr. A. for the damage                               done to his property; an important consideration as                                        described in s.718 of the Criminal Code;

            m)       his culpability, his circumstances and criminal history                                                 cumulatively suggest a sentence far less than those in                                  Bernier and Wright and less than that in Drydgen would be                            appropriate.

DISCUSSION

[31]        The sentencing of any person before the Court is an individualized process in which consideration must be given to the particular circumstances of the offence, the particular circumstances of the offender and the offender’s criminal history.

[32]        In order to determine a fit sentence for this offence, the first task is to determine the nature of the offence to which Mr. Clark has pled guilty.  Mr. Clark participated in the break and enter of a dwelling house in which indictable offences were committed, namely robbery and assault causing bodily harm.  Given that the place broken into and entered was Mr. A.'s residence, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

[33]        In addition, because the residence was occupied at the time of the break and enter, the aggravating circumstances described in s. 348.1 come into play.  Mr. Clark participated in a home invasion.  Although his counsel suggested Mr. Clark's participation was considerably less than that of Mr. Bowser and Mr. Hawkins, the fact remains he was a party to the offence as described in s. 21 of the Criminal Code.

[34]        Although the leading case concerning home invasions is Bernier, the Crown is not asking the Court to impose a sentence within the range suggested by the Court of Appeal in that case.  The Crown acknowledges that the appropriate consideration of Mr. Clark's personal circumstances, his criminal history and his level of participation in the matter should result in a sentence somewhat less than described in Bernier.

[35]        The approach suggested by the Crown was addressed by Mr. Justice Joyce in Broussault where he said at paragraph 86:

            [86] What I take from all of this is that the Court of Appeal has          suggested that the majority of cases of "home invasion" will fit             somewhere in the range of 5 to 8 years, depending upon the            circumstances of the particular offences said to constitute home invasion and the circumstances of the particular offender but that   there will be cases that fall on either side of that general range. A   case may warrant a sentence in excess of that range because of   particularly egregious circumstances concerning the offence or      particular high moral blameworthiness on the part of the offender,   and the lack of any mitigating circumstances. Other cases may          warrant a sentence under the usual range because the   circumstances of the offence are not egregious, and/or the             circumstances of the offender are exceptional, such as the lack of any significant record, the youth of the offender, aboriginal status,      evidence of remorse and a clear potential for the rehabilitation of   the offender.

 

[36]        Based on the facts alleged and the submissions made, the aggravating factors in this case are:

            a)         Mr. Clark participated in a home invasion which had very                              serious consequences for Mr. A., both physically and                                                 emotionally;

            b)         Mr. Clark was an active participant in the criminal activity.                              He was the one who initiated the tactical step of breaking the                window on the door to gain entry when forcing the doors did                            not work;

            c)         Mr. Clark's criminal record of 38 convictions spanning 12                               years is not enviable particularly when compared to the lack                                     of criminal history of Mr. Bowser.  Despite Defence counsel's                assertions to the contrary Mr. Clark's criminal record is quite                               similar to that in Drydgen;

            d)         Mr. Clark participated in the matter almost immediately after                           being released from custody in circumstances where he had                                    told the Court at the previous sentencing proceeding that he                               was leaving immediately for the lower mainland;

            e)         Mr. Clark's acceptance of responsibility is clearly equivocal                           and his explanation of his level of participation is vague and                                disingenuous.  That diminishes the effectiveness of his                                     expression of remorse for the events.

 

[37]        On the other hand, there are several mitigating factors including;

            a)         Mr. Clark has entered a guilty plea thereby saving the                                                 victims the trauma of testifying at a trial;

            b)         Mr. Clark was both unarmed and unmasked during the                                  events;

            c)         Mr. Clark has made very diligent efforts while in custody to                            improve himself in many areas of his life;

            d)         Mr. Clark has expressed a wish to pay restitution for the                                 damage done to Mr. A.'s residence.

 

[38]        In considering the provisions of s. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code it is clear from the case law that the primary considerations in cases such as this are denunciation, deterrence and protection of the public.

[39]        It is a fundamental tenant of our criminal law that the public must be protected from crime whenever possible and particularly from crime which invades their own residence.

[40]        However, there are other factors that must be considered.  Mr. Clark has taken impressive steps while in custody to prepare himself for a successful pro-social reintegration in the community upon his release.

[41]        In addition, Mr. Clark has expressed the desire to reimburse Mr. A. for his out-of-pocket expenses resulting from the damage to property perpetrated by all three accused.

[42]        The offence here was grave.  Invasion of a person's residence attracts a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.  However, the nature of this home invasion and Mr. Clark's direct involvement in it suggests a sentence much less than the maximum and even less than the range of sentence discussed in Bernier.

[43]        Mr. Clark's involvement in and responsibility for the offence is quite similar to that of Mr. Hawkins and somewhat less than that of Mr. Bowser.  However, even though Mr. Bowser carried the weapon used, Mr. Clark still bears responsibility as a party to the offence.

[44]        In the end of the analysis the position of Crown for a sentence of four years is, on the face of it, more than warranted for Mr. Clark.  However, it does not adequately recognize the mitigating factors determined by the Court to apply here.

[45]        Mr. Clark has been in custody for 619 days.  He is entitled to credit of 1.5 days for each day in custody which results in the credit of 929 days.

[46]        Given Mr. Clark's diligent efforts to make improvements in his life during this time in custody and his desire to pay restitution for the damage done, the appropriate sentence here would be 1216 days or approximately 40 months.

[47]        That means Mr. Clark has to serve an additional 287 days or approximately 9 1/2 months.

[48]        The jail sentence will be followed by a Probation Order of three years.  The length of the Order is in large part determined to allow Mr. Clark plenty of time to pay the restitution to Mr. A.

ORDERS

[49]        The offence of break and enter a dwelling house is a primary designated DNA offence.  Therefore,  pursuant to s. 487.051(3)(b) of the Criminal Code I make an order in Form 5.04 authorizing the taking of the number of samples of bodily substances by any Peace Officer for the Province of British Columbia that is reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis and registration from Joel Milton Clark by September 12, 2014 .

           

[50]        In addition, the offence requires a mandatory prohibition under s. 109 of the Criminal Code.  This is the second time Mr. Clark has faced such a prohibition and therefore, he is prohibited from possessing any firearm, crossbow, restricted weapon, prohibited weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substances for life.

[51]        The appropriate period of imprisonment in this case is 1216 days.  Mr. Clark will receive credit for 929 days leaving remaining sentence to be served of 287 days.

[52]        Following the term of imprisonment Mr. Clark will be on a Probation Order for a period of three years the following terms and conditions:

            (a)      You shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

            (b)      You shall appear before the court when required to do so by the court.

            (c)        You shall notify the court or the Probation Officer in advance of any                                              change of name, or address, and promptly notify the court or the                                          Probation Officer of any change of employment or occupation.

(d)      Within 48 hours after completing your jail you shall report in person            to the Probation Office located at #101 - 250 GEORGE STREET,   PRINCE GEORGE, B.C. and after that you shall report as and when directed by the Probation Officer.

(e)      After your first reporting to the Probation Officer, further reporting    may include reporting by telephone, at the discretion of the Probation Officer.

(f)       When first reporting to the Probation Officer you shall inform            him/her of your present residential address and phone number, and   you shall not change your address or phone number at any time             without first providing written notice to your Probation Officer.

(g)      You shall have no contact or communication, directly or indirectly, with John R. Hawkins, Joshua Bowers, H. I., G.           P., or R. A.

(h)      You shall not attend at, or be within 150 kilometers of Prince            George, British Columbia.  This term will commence 72 hours after    your release from custody.

(i)         You shall not attend at, or be within 25 meters of any place which   you know to be the residence, school or workplace of H. I., G. P., or    R. A.

(j)         You shall not possess or consume any alcohol or any controlled    substance within the meaning of Section 2 of the Controlled Drugs       and Substances Act, except as prescribed for you by a physician.

(k)        You shall not enter any liquor store, beer and wine store, bar, pub, lounge or other business premises from which minors are excluded    by the terms of their liquor license.  

 

(l)         You shall not possess any tools or instruments capable of use for   criminal activity except for the purposes of work and then only when   immediately engaged in work or travelling to and from work.

(m)      You shall attend, participate in and successfully complete any                     assessment, counselling or program as directed by the Probation    Officer.  Without limiting the general nature of this condition, such       assessment, counseling or program may include and relate to:

            (i) alcohol or drug abuse

            (ii) a full-time attendance program for alcohol or drug abuse and      you shall comply with all the rules and regulations of any such   assessment, counselling or program.

(n)      You shall pay restitution in the sum of $5,000.00 to the Clerk of the             Court for the benefit of R. A. such restitution to be made by       monthly installments of $200.00 each, payable on the 1st day of    each month commencing two months after your release from    custody and continuing on the 1st day of each month until such time          as the restitution is paid in             full.

(o)      You must carry a copy of this Probation Order with you at all times   when you are in public. If you are stopped by a Peace Officer for          any reason you shall immediately provide the Peace Officer with a   copy of this document without being requested to do so.

 

 

 

__________________________

M. J. Brecknell

Regional Administrative Judge

Northern Region

Provincial Court of BC