IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

[1]           THE COURT:  This is my sentencing decision on File Number 3768-2-C and the 7-A, 8-A, and 9-A, as they relate to the young offender, L. G.-S. P.

[2]           In the evening hours of January 7, 2013, first responders found the badly beaten complainants, D. P. and H. W., in a snowbank behind an apartment block in Prince George.  Each of the complainants had been beaten with a variety of items.  They had been confined against their will and, in the case of Mr. W., sodomized with a mop handle.  They were victims of aggravated assault; unlawful confinement; assault with weapons, including a bottle and a frying pan; and in the case of Mr. W., aggravated sexual assault.

[3]           The viciousness and sexual nature of the attacks upon Mr. P. and Mr. W. attracted great public attention in this community.  Mr. P. and Mr. W. were attacked by a gang allegedly comprised of two adults and five youths.  The defendant, L. P., 15 at the time and now 18, was one of the attackers.

[4]           On Information 3768-2-C where Ms. P. is one of the five co-accused youths, she has pleaded guilty to Count 2, aggravated assault on Mr. W.; Count 3, the lesser included offence of assault causing bodily harm on Mr. P.; and Count 6, unlawful confinement of Mr. P.

[5]           The chronology of events has been set out in the agreed statement of facts and can be summarized as follows.

[6]           Ms. P. attended a party hosted by an adult female co-accused in an apartment block in Prince George starting on January 5 and remained there continuously until the evening of January 7, 2013.  During that time, she was smoking marihuana and consuming alcohol.

[7]           In the early morning hours of January 6, the adult female and Ms. P. awoke, having slept together in a bed, and discussed the similar dream they believed they had in which an unknown male entered the room where they were sleeping, tugged at their clothing in a sexual manner, and bear-sprayed the bedroom before leaving.  From this rather scanty information, Ms. P. concluded that she had been sexually interfered with by the owner of a white iPod that was found stuck to her stomach when she awoke in the bed.

[8]           Some of the other co-accused were already present in the apartment, and some arrived shortly thereafter, having been advised by the adult female that she and Ms. P. had been sexually interfered with.

[9]           Using what can be described only as deficient detective skills, Ms. P. came to the belief that the assailant was connected to the white iPod that had been left in the apartment and, upon conducting online inquires with the other co-accused through social media sites, determined that Mr. P. was the owner of the iPod.  Ms. P. suspected Mr. P. of having sexually interfered with her and the adult female.

[10]        Through Facebook, the adult female invited Mr. P. to her apartment.  He arrived at approximately 5 p.m. on January 7.  The adult female showed the iPod to Mr. P. and demanded that he have an explanation.  Immediately thereon, another of the co-accused punched Mr. P. in the jaw.  He tried to leave, but the group, consisting of the five youths and two adults, grabbed him and pulled him back into the apartment, indicating they were going to beat him up for touching girls.  The group closed and locked the door to the adult female’s apartment, then continued to strike Mr. P. with their fists.  One of the co-accused forced Mr. P. into a back room where another of the co-accused struck him in the forehead with an empty vodka bottle and another kicked him in the face.

[11]        Eventually, Mr. P. convinced the group that he was not involved in touching the adult female or Ms. P.  Part of the group then forced him to wipe the blood from his head and face, and he was detained further by the group.

[12]        It is accepted in the agreed statement of facts that Ms. P. did not physically participate in the attack on Mr. P., but she was aware, before he arrived, of the group's general intention to beat him up in retaliation for what he was believed to have done to her and the adult female.

[13]        Using yet another example of defective deductive reasoning, Ms. P. and the others determined that the assailant must be Mr. P.'s cousin, one H. W., and they told him he was not free to leave until Mr. W. arrived.  They forced him to message Mr. W. on Facebook and invite him over to the apartment.  The adult female also spoke to Mr. W. on the phone and personally invited him over to the apartment.

[14]        Ms. P. was part of the group that remained in the apartment and further questioned Mr. P. as to who else may have been responsible for the alleged sexual assault even though they had, at that point, determined it must be Mr. W.

[15]        Another of the group arrived at the apartment sometime after Mr. P. had been assaulted and participated in a discussion and planning of what the group was planning to do when Mr. W. arrived.  Ms. P. and the others agreed that they would cause harm to Mr. W. because they believed he had sexually touched the adult female and Ms. P.  Ms. P., however, was not aware of the group's specific intention or individuals of the group's specific intention to sodomize Mr. W.

[16]        Approximately 30 minutes before Mr. W. arrived at the apartment, Mr. P. was taken by the group to another location in the building.  Mr. P. was confined to that location under the supervision of two of the co-accused and was not permitted to leave.

[17]        When Mr. W. entered the apartment, the adult female confronted him with the iPod and then one of the co-accused punched him in the face, knocking him into a wall, and then everybody attacked him.

[18]        Ms. P. hit Mr. W. on the head with a frying pan two times.  When Mr. W. fell to the floor, four of the assailants, including the co-accused, rolled him over, and one of the assailants removed his pants and sodomized him with a mop handle.  Mr. W. fell into unconsciousness, and his body was dragged into the kitchen where the assailants poured cold water on his face, slapped his cheeks, and told him to wake up.

[19]        One of the co-accused, Ms. P.'s boyfriend, grabbed Mr. W.'s face as he lay on the floor and yelled, "Look at my face and know whose girlfriend you tried to rape."  The adult female then kicked Mr. W. in the head while he was lying on the floor.  Then three of the assailants carried Mr. W., who was by now unconscious, down the stairs and dumped his body in the snowbank in the back alley near a dumpster.

[20]        In a subsequent independent RCMP investigation into the alleged sexual assault, Ms. P. lied to the police, saying nothing had happened and declined to give a further statement.  Subsequently, other investigatory techniques linked Ms. P. to the scene of the crime.

[21]        Ms. P. accepts, in the agreed statement of facts, that as a result of the incident, Mr. P. sustained a cut to his forehead and to the back of his head and to the right side of his mouth which left scars and a headache which resolved after approximately one week.  She also accepts, for the purposes of the agreed statement of facts, that as a result of this incident, Mr. W. sustained bruising and lacerations, a rectal injury, and memory loss secondary to a traumatic brain injury.

[22]        Victim impact statements were provided by Mr. P. and Mr. W.  Mr. P. described being emotionally traumatized over his role in getting Mr. W. to come to the apartment.  He was overwhelmed by what happened to Mr. W., particularly the aggravated sexual assault, and he feels guilt and shame over his role in causing that to occur to Mr. W.  He says that family members and the community treat him differently now that that has occurred, and his friendship with Mr. W. has been shattered.  They were best friends since elementary school.

[23]        As a result of his dealing with the guilt and the shame, he says that he fell into drug use for approximately two years, although he is now battling against that addiction.

[24]        He says he suffered a concussion after being struck in the head with the bottle.

[25]        Mr. W.'s victim impact statement says that he is very afraid for himself and his family.  He has nightmares and cries regularly.  He says it interferes with the spousal relationship he has with his wife.  He feels less of a man as a result of the sexual assault, and he does not want what he describes as "these people" to hurt anyone else.

[26]        Ms. P. was born in Whitehorse, Yukon, to a single mother.  She did not know her father.  She and her mother resided mostly in Quebec until she was 12, when her mother found employment in Prince George.  Ms. P. has a half-brother now aged 8.  The father of that child lived with the family for six years, leaving about three years ago.  Ms. P. did not establish a child-parent relationship with that man.

[27]        The move from Quebec to Prince George was difficult for her.  At the time, she spoke little, if any, English and had some difficulty adjusting at first.  The relationship between Ms. P. and her mother became strained from the time she was about 10 or 11.  It became unmanageable for both of them by the time she was 14.  Either Ms. P. would run away or her mother would kick her out of the residence when they had disagreements, many of which were verbally vicious and demeaning in each direction.

[28]        Ms. P. describes both herself and her mother as quick-tempered and stubborn and that often, neither of them would back down during a disagreement.

[29]        Eventually, Ms. P. left the family home and was absent for about two years.  That period was described by her as "couch-surfing" and "doing a lot of weed."  It was during that time that Ms. P. met her then boyfriend and his social group, many of whom are the co-accused with regard to the matters before the court.

[30]        During her upbringing, there was no suggestion that Ms. P. was either neglected or abused, either physically or sexually.  Ms. P. does describe her extended family on her mother's side as dysfunctional, and she was not close to any of them except her grandfather who passed away in 2014.

[31]        Ms. P.'s education was uneventful until 2010 when her academic progress declined and her attendance became spotty.  When she was at school, she was disruptive and noncompliant.  Eventually, she was removed from her school and barred from returning in early 2012.

[32]        Since then, Ms. P. has enrolled in a variety of different educational resources.  In many cases, her progress began in a positive way, but on most occasions, her absenteeism and disruptive behaviour caused her to be removed from the programs in question.  She did complete a work-oriented program in 2013.

[33]        In the several reports prepared for the court concerning Ms. P., there is a repeating theme of her expressing interest in some leisure activities but rarely pursuing them.  She expressed considerable interest in hanging out at the local mall and associating with peers, many of whom are the co-accused in this matter.

[34]        After the lead charges were laid, Ms. P. said she had made friends who are not engaged in criminal behaviour, but those friends were not revealed to any of the report writers.

[35]        Ms. P. is in good physical health.  Her mental health has posed concerns for several years, and she has been referred to several agencies.

[36]        Some attempts were made for a parent-teen mediation, but they broke down after only a few sessions.

[37]        Ms. P. has continued with a referral to a local agency that provides assistance of an outreach worker.  That arrangement appears to have been positive for Ms. P.  The worker was able to identify several triggers that interfered with Ms. P.'s relationship with her mother.  The worker described Ms. P. as personable, likable, polite, and with a good work ethic but that she also struggles with low self-esteem and low self-worth.

[38]        It was also noted that when Ms. P. was around peers, she appeared to be enamoured with a high-risk lifestyle. 

[39]        Ms. P. was an infrequent user of alcohol.  She was a very heavy user of marihuana for several years and dabbled in the use of other drugs, most recently methamphetamine.  She was described by Dr. Morgan, a psychiatrist, as fulfilling the DSM- V diagnostic criteria for severe marihuana use disorder and severe stimulant use disorder.  Ms. P. professes that she has ceased marihuana use since early 2013 after the incidents before the court occurred.

[40]        Ms. P.'s behaviour while in and out of custody has been extremely variable.  At various times while she has been in custody, Ms. P. has been described as generally respectful, quiet and compliant, interacting well with peers, arrogant and entitled, threatening to harm small animals, belonging to a clique of "mean girls," engaged in programs and activities, bullying peers in the custody centre, progressing well, angry and argumentative with staff, easily frustrated and angry, targets the vulnerable and fragile centre residents, and is a principal bullier.

[41]        During the time Ms. P. was out of custody and under the supervision of Youth Corrections, her behaviour also varied.  When Ms. P. was initially released being required to reside with her mother after a multiple year absence was a very difficult thing for both of them.  They simply did not get along.  Ms. P. regularly refused to follow some of the terms of her bail order, including following her mother's house rules.  The Ministry of Children and Family Development had to become involved on several occasions.

[42]        Ms. P.'s behaviours in 2013 resulted in two convictions for breach of bail.  Her further noncompliant behaviour in late 2014 and early 2015 resulted in three more bail breach charges that are being resolved today.

[43]        Since being detained in February 2015, Ms. P. has been engaged in a variety of schooling and other programming at the Burnaby Youth Centre.  She is taking numerous school courses at the grade 10 level, and is progressing at different speeds.

[44]        In her letter to the Court, Ms. P. also makes mention of other activities she is engaged in, such as life skills, counselling, and having a sponsor for Narcotics Anonymous.  She says she needs and wants the structure, routine, and enforced responsibilities offered at the Burnaby Youth Centre which assists her in getting ready to be released back into the community.

[45]        The Court must consider that letter, but it is, of course, not bound by the requests of Ms. P.

[46]        Ms. P. has received assessments by a psychiatrist, Dr. Morgan; a psychologist, Dr. Fuhr; and a psychiatric social worker, K. Kilsby.  A summary of those assessments includes:

[47]        Ms. P. was also given a variety a psychological tests.  A summary of those test results includes:

[48]        By way of a description of Ms. P.'s actions and thoughts about the incident, Dr. Fuhr says, at page 12 of his report:

[49]        Dr. Fuhr, in consultation with the other professionals who met in a case conference on November 4, 2014, concerning Ms. P., made a number of recommendations which include the following, as set out on page 13 of his report, that her therapeutic needs include:

[50]        The professionals who met at the case conference provided further recommendations to the court, including:

[51]        In the face of what I have just described as the crimes against Mr. W. and Mr. P. and Ms. P.'s involvement in them, the Crown and Defence counsel made a joint submission for a 21-month probation order with an intensive support and supervision program included for the assault causing bodily harm on Mr. P., the unlawful confinement of Mr. P. - both of which Ms. P. was not directly responsible for but was an organizer of and a party to - and the aggravated assault of Mr. W. by striking him on the head with a frying pan twice, which no doubt resulted in some traumatic brain injury.  The court rejected the joint submission for the following reasons:

[52]        That leaves me to determine what is the proper sentence in this circumstance.  In doing so, I first refer to s. 39 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and particularly subsection (1(a) and (d).  Section 39(1)(a) is that the young person has committed a violent offence.  Clearly that occurred here.  Section 39(1)(d) is:

[53]        In my view, that is clearly the case here.  There were aggravating circumstances.  This is an exceptional - I would even describe it as a notorious - set of circumstances.  And it is, to use the words of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. W.(R.E.) (2006), 2006 CanLII 1761 (ON CA), 205 C.C.C. (3d) 183, "so shocking as to threaten widely-shared community values."

[54]        I have also considered s. 39(2) as to whether there are any alternatives to custody, and I have determined there are not.  I have considered s. 39(6) because I have considered the Pre-Sentence Report and the sentencing proposal of the Crown and Defence, and I have considered s. 39(9) which requires me to state reasons why I have determined that a noncustodial sentence is not adequate to achieve the purposes set out in s. 38.

[55]        Section 38(1) requires me to impose just sanctions and meaningful consequences on a youth.  38(2)(a) requires me to impose a sentence no greater than an adult sentence for the same offences in similar circumstances.  Sub (b) requires me to impose a similar sentence as that imposed on other young persons.  Sub (c) requires me to consider the seriousness and degree of responsibility of Ms. P.  These acts were serious.  Her responsibility level was high.

[56]        Subparagraph (d) requires me to consider all other available sanctions, and sub (e) requires me to consider least restrictive sentences capable of achieving the purposes of the sentence that will also be most likely to rehabilitate Ms. P. and to promote a sense of responsibility in her.

[57]        Subparagraph (f), which was recently put back into the Youth Criminal Justice Act by Parliament, requires me to denounce unlawful conduct and to take steps to deter the young person from further criminal activity.

[58]        Section 38(3) sets out how I must determine a sentence and what I must take into account.  Sub (a) requires me to take into account the degree of participation by the young person in the commission of the offence.  These offences would not have occurred at all if Ms. P. and the adult female had not come to the conclusion that they had been sexually interfered with.  It is perhaps true that they were, but they used what can only be described as innuendo to conclude, first, that Mr. P. was responsible and then, after beating him up, come to the conclusion they were wrong about that and then lure Mr. W. into the scene and attack him.

[59]        Furthermore, although Ms. P. did not directly participate in the striking of Mr. P., she was certainly involved in the process of getting him to the residence and ensuring that he was later confined until Mr. W. arrived.  She was also directly responsible for the serious injuries to Mr. W. by striking him on the head with a frying pan, causing a traumatic brain injury.

[60]        Subparagraph (b) requires me to consider the harm done to victims and whether it was intentional or reasonably foreseeable.  The harm done to these victims was physical, emotional, and psychological.  It was extremely serious, and in my view, it was intentionally inflicted upon them by Ms. P. and her colleagues, or alternatively, Ms. P. could have reasonably foresaw that those injuries would be inflicted upon those two men.

[61]        Subparagraph (c) requires me to consider any reparations made by the young person to the victim or to the community.  Well, with the exception of one minor reference to expressing some remorse, there has been no reparations made or even suggested by this young person with regard to this matter.  She seems more to prefer to keep it out of her mind rather than confront what she has done and perhaps even offer some words of condolence to the victims.  Even given the opportunity here in court to say something, she chose to say nothing, and hence I can take no consideration, in my view, that she is in any major way remorseful for these events.

[62]        Subparagraph (d) requires me to keep in mind the amount of time she spent in detention as a result of the offences.  So far, Ms. P. has spent 150 days in custody.

[63]        I have to consider previous findings of guilt.  That is sub (e).  She has had two breaches.

[64]        Finally, sub (f), which I think is probably the most relevant of all the factors, is I must consider the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of these events.

[65]        The aggravating circumstances, in my view, are as follows: 

[66]        Having considered all of those factors, the only reasonable sentence in this case is a custody and supervision order under s. 42(2)(n).  Because of the joint submissions of counsel, no case law was provided to the court as to what would be an appropriate sentence in these circumstances.  In coming to what I determine is the appropriate sentence here, I have considered the following factors: 

[67]        The appropriate sentence on Information 3768-2-C is a concurrent sentence on Counts 2, 3, and 6, and normally, it would be a custody and supervision order, in my view, of 180 days' custody and 90 days' supervision for a total of 270 days.  That would be followed by a probation order under s. 42(2)(k) of the Act for 20 months with an ISSP component under s. 42(2)(l). 

[68]        However, Ms. P. has been in custody on these matters before the court on the following dates:  (a) January 10 to February 8, 2013 - 30 days; (b) February 6 to June 4, 2015 - 120 days, for a total of 150 days.

[69]        Under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, time in pre-sentence custody need not be considered at all, but it may be credited in a variety of approaches.  Several approaches were discussed and considered in the case of R. v. D.M.T., 2012 ABCA 142.  The four of those approaches described by the Alberta Court of Appeal included: (a) that pre-sentence custody should be credited to the global sentence; (b) that pre-sentence custody should be credited entirely against the custody portion of the sentence and the community sentence remain intact; (c) that the pre-sentence custody be at the discretion of the sentencing judge; and (d) that the pre-sentence custody be credited against the custody component and the time divided 2:1 with regard to the remainder.

[70]        However, that is not the only approach that the courts have taken in these matters.  Another approach was discussed recently by my sister Judge Keyes in R. v. Lazarre in which she referred to and relied on the case of R. v. J.E.O., 2013 SKCA 82, in which the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal discussed the various sentencing credit options before settling on a credit option of 1.5:1 for pre-sentence time in custody.  That is the approach I intend to apply in this case.

[71]        Ms. P.'s time in custody of 150 days, if multiplied by 1.5, amounts to 225 days' worth of credit because the sentencing I would intend to impose would be a total of 270 days, being 180 days' custody and 90 days' community supervision.

[72]        The sentence, Madam Clerk, will show as follows, that there is a sentence of 180 days' custody and 90 days' supervision, but that Ms. P. receive credit for 225 days, which would be the equivalent of 150 days in custody and 75 days of community supervision.

[73]        Ms. P., please stand up.

[74]        So the remainder of the sentence you are going to serve with regard to the lead Information, Ms. P., will be 30 days in custody and 15 days of supervision.  That will be followed by 20 months of probation with an ISSP component, and I will detail those conditions in a moment.

[75]        There will also be a firearms prohibition and a DNA order which I will detail in a moment.

[76]        I next turn to the situation of the breaches, the 7-A, 8-A, and 9-A.  The 7-A Information occurred on October 23, 2014, when Ms. P. failed to report, and she lied to the youth probation officer about her circumstances.  She was absent without reporting until November 17, a total of 25 days.

[77]        The 8-A Information occurred on January 27 and 28, 2015, when Ms. P. was found in possession of methamphetamine which she brought into her mother's home.  Her mother became suspicious and took it to the youth probation officer.

[78]        The 9-A Information occurred on January 29, 2015, when Ms. P. disappeared for a period of time and was on the lam until February 6, 2015, when she was arrested and detained on these matters.

[79]        There are two previous breaches of court orders, so jail is available in these circumstances and more available given that these are all part of the behaviour which has been continuing on Ms. P.'s part since the lead Information.

[80]        The 7-A Information is separated in time from the 8-A and 9-A Information, so the 7-A Information will have consecutive time to the lead Information, and the 8-A and 9-A will have consecutive time to the 7-A Information but will be concurrent one to the other because they are part of the same set of actions.

[81]        The last breach that Ms. P. was sentenced on was the 5-A for which she received 20 days' custody and 10 days' community supervision.

[82]        So it is appropriate here to consider that the sentence be increased because of Ms. P.'s increasing disruptive behaviour and general breaches of court direction.

[83]        So under s. 42(2)(n), a custody and supervision order will be put in place on the 7-A Information, Madam Clerk, of 30 days' custody plus 15 days' community supervision, which is consecutive to the time on the lead Information.  The 8-A and 9-A Informations will each have a sentence of 40 days' custody and 20 days' community supervision concurrent one to the other but consecutive to both the lead and the 7-A Informations.

[84]        If I have done my math correctly, the lead Information provides for 30 more days of custody, the 7-A provides for 30 more days of custody consecutive, and the 8 and 9-A provide for 40 more days of custody consecutive, which by my count adds up to 100 days' further custody.

[85]        The community supervision portions of all three of those would add up to a further 50 days of community supervision.

[86]        I will say immediately that there will be liberty to apply to vary the custody portion of the sentences if an opening becomes available at a residential resource that Youth Probation feels would be appropriate for Ms. P. before the custody portion has expired.

[87]        Ms. P. that is the term of your custody order.  Now we have to get to the issue of your probation order which will be for 20 months.  It will have the following terms and conditions.

[88]        You shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour.  You shall appear before the Youth Justice Court when required to do so by the court.

[89]        Within 24 hours after completion of your term of custody and supervision, you shall report in person to the youth worker located at ‑‑ now, I want to ask the youth workers.  If she is going to be released out of Burnaby, where would she want to report?  We are not going to bring her all the way back here, are we?

[90]        YOUTH WORKER:  Maybe report by telephone, Your Honour.  We can make some further arrangements.

[91]        THE COURT:  Okay.  You are to report by telephone to the youth worker located at the Youth Probation Office at 1040 - Third Avenue, Prince George, British Columbia - and we will put the telephone number in, Madam Clerk, so she knows who she has to call - and after that you shall report as and when directed by the youth worker.

[92]        You shall reside at a residence approved by the youth worker, and you shall not change your residence at any time without first obtaining the written consent of the youth worker.

[93]        You shall obey all the rules and regulations of your residence.

[94]        You shall obey a curfew by being inside of your residence or on the lot on which your residence is located between the hours of 8 p.m. and 7 a.m. each day except as follows:  (a) with the written consent of the youth worker obtained in advance.  Such consent is to be given only for compelling personal, family, or employment reasons.  And then down to (d), Madam Clerk:  in the event of a medical emergency and then only when travelling directly to or returning directly from a hospital emergency ward.

[95]        You shall present yourself at the door of your residence when any peace officer or youth worker attends there for the purpose of determining your compliance with the curfew conditions of this order.

[96]        You shall respond personally and immediately to the telephone when a peace officer or youth worker makes a telephone call to your residence for the purpose of determining your compliance with the curfew conditions of this order.

[97]        You shall have no contact or communication, directly or indirectly, with H. W., D. P., M. J., H. A., L. R., B. F., R. S., and D. S.  All those names are in the report, Madam Clerk, which you will have in your file.

[98]        You shall not attend at or be within 100 metres of any place which you know to be the residence, school, or workplace of H. W. or D. P.

[99]        You shall not possess or consume any alcohol or drugs except as prescribed for you by a physician.

[100]     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 licence.

[101]     You shall not possess any weapon as defined in s. 2 of the Criminal Code.

[102]     You shall not possess any knife outside of your residence except for the immediate preparation or eating of food or for purposes directly and immediately related to your employment.

[103]     You shall (a) attend school regularly and not be absent except in accordance with either a medical certificate or the advance written consent of the youth worker, or (b) make reasonable efforts to seek and maintain employment approved by the youth worker.  If on any occasion that you report to the youth worker you are not actually employed, you shall provide the youth worker with a report describing the efforts you have made to find employment since your last report.  Such report may be verbal or written in the discretion of the youth worker.

[104]     You shall attend, participate in, and successfully complete any assessment, counselling, or program as directed by the youth worker.  Without limiting the general nature of this condition, such assessment, counselling, or program may relate to anger management, alcohol or drug abuse, psychiatric and psychological health, a violent offence treatment program, and you shall comply with the rules and regulations of any such assessment, counselling, or program.

[105]     You shall attend, participate in, and successfully complete the Oasis program or other full-time attendance program as and when directed by the youth worker.  While you are in attendance at these programs, you shall comply with all the rules and regulations of the program to the satisfaction of the youth worker and the program manager.

[106]     You shall attend, participate, obey all the rules and regulations, and successfully complete an intensive support and supervision program to the satisfaction of the youth worker.

[107]     Now, in addition to that, Ms. P., there is a firearms prohibition which I am going to impose on you.

[108]     It is imposed on the assault causing bodily harm and the aggravated assault on the lead Information.  It is under s. 51(2) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

[109]     Ms. P., I prohibit you from possessing any firearm, crossbow, restricted weapon, prohibited weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, and explosive substances for 10 years.

[110]     In addition to that, there is a DNA order that is required because the offences of assault causing bodily harm and aggravated assault are primary designated offences.  

[111]     Pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code, I make an order in Form 5.03 authorizing the taking of a 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 in the national DNA databank from L. G.-S. P.

[112]     Now, finally, counsel, I am inclined, Mr. Fatt, unless your client takes exception to this, to provide an order that the reports of the various people who prepared reports be provided to the Burnaby Youth Centre and to the youth probation officers and to anybody who is dealing with Ms. P. in any assessment, counselling program, or attendance program.

[113]     THE COURT:  There will be a s. 119 order that the three Pre-Sentence Reports, the psychological report, the psychosocial report, all be provided to Youth Probation, to the Burnaby Correctional Centre, and to any resource provider who provides assessments, counselling programs, or residential long-term attendance programs.

[114]     Anything else, Ms. Mengering?

[115]     MR. FATT:  How about limited to while she is on probation on this charge under the youth ‑‑ Young Offender Act.

[116]     THE COURT:  Well, while she is under the charge of the authorities, yes.

[117]     MR. FATT:  Yes ‑‑ no, under the charge of the youth authorities for this sentence.  Then it should stop.

[118]     THE COURT:  I don't know that they would have any right to continue to hold that item after she has finished her sentence.  She would no longer be under the ‑‑ but I mean, I will put it in the order that only for so long as she is under the authority of the youth correctional system.

[119]     MR. FATT:  Yes.  Thank you.

[120]     THE COURT:  Once she times out, there is no reason for these people to continue to hold that material because she will no longer be in the system.

[121]     THE COURT:  Well, I am not going to say anything further than the order I have made.

[122]     Ms. P. is there anything ‑‑ I know it is a very long order.  It will be read to you again, at least twice more.  Is there anything that you do not generally understand about what I have imposed on you?

[123]     THE ACCUSED:  No, Your Honour.

[124]     THE COURT:  Thank you.

[125]     MS. MENGERING:  And just be clear, with respect to her time served, then, it was 150 days which she has times one and a half makes it 225, so credit for 225 but not applying towards her sentence; is that correct?

[126]     THE COURT:  Well, the total sentence should have been 180 plus 90.

[127]     MS. MENGERING:  Yes.

[128]     THE COURT:  The appropriate sentence here should have been six months' custody, three months' supervision.  Using the Saskatchewan model of calculating time, I have deducted the 225 days from the 270, leaving a total of 45 days left:  30 custody and 15 supervision.  But I want the record to reflect that the appropriate sentence here for those three offences should have been six months' custody, three months' supervision.  How that gets detailed by Corrections, I do not know.  I do not want somebody to come along later and say, "Well, she got a 30-day sentence for this," because she did not.

[129]     MS. MENGERING:  Right.

[130]     THE COURT:  Much the same way as we do it in an adult case.

[131]     MR. FATT:  But the bottom line is, she gets 100 new days.

[132]     THE COURT:  Yes.  Total.

[133]     MR. FATT:  I think that's the important thing.

[134]     THE COURT:  Well, that is the important thing for the people who are assisting her now, but if anybody looks at her record in the future ‑‑

[135]     MR. FATT:  No, I understand.

[136]     THE COURT:  ‑‑ if she commits another similar violent offence, they will say Judge Brecknell gave her six months for the aggravated assault.

[137]     MR. FATT:  I have to say that ‑‑ and I'm very sorry to bring this up because it's just my ignorance of it.  I don't understand how much out-of-custody time she has to do before the probation kicks in.

[138]     THE COURT:  Neither do I.  That is up to ‑‑ I should say, I did forget one thing.  Madam Clerk, this sentence is to be served in open custody.

[139]     THE CLERK:  Thank you, Your Honour.

[140]     MS. MENGERING:  And with respect to 3768-2-C and with respect to Ms. P. only, we direct a stay of proceedings on Counts 1, 4, and 5, again, Ms. P. only.

[141]     THE COURT:  Thank you, Madam.  Please go with the sheriff.