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. Prasad, 2016 BCPC 421 (CanLII)

Date:
2016-12-26
File number:
219254-1
Citation:
R. v. Prasad, 2016 BCPC 421 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/gwmdj>, retrieved on 2024-04-20

Citation:      R. v. Prasad                                                               Date:           20161226

2016 BCPC 421                                                                             File No:               219254-1

                                                                                                        Registry:                     Surrey

 

 

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Criminal Court

 

 

 

 

 

REGINA

 

 

v.

 

 

RYAN ANAND PRASAD

 

 

 

 

 

ORAL RULING ON APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL INTERIM RELEASE

OF THE

HONOURABLE JUDGE G.S. GILL

 

 

 

 

 

Counsel for the Federal Crown:                                                                           T. Spasojevic

Counsel for the Accused:                                                                                    E. dos Santos

Place of Hearing:                                                                                                      Surrey, B.C.

Date of Hearing:                                                                                                October 26, 2016

Date of Judgment:                                                                                             October 26, 2016


[1]           Seeking his release on a variety of charges that include trafficking in what Crown alleges is a dial-a-dope operation, as well as some firearms and ammunition-related offences, is Mr. Prasad.  He faces a reverse onus by virtue of the narcotics and firearms aspects of the allegations. 

[2]           The Crown alleges a total of four telephone dial-a-dope-type purchases in the amount of $40.00 each, as well as when arrested, a variety of different packaged narcotics in his vehicle, and the cell phone that was used.

[3]           A search of his residence pursuant to a search warrant at the residence where he resides with his mother produced additional evidence of this alleged criminal endeavour, including baggies, packaging materials, narcotics residues and a firearm that was, I am told, concealed in a box, this firearm being a .38-calibre, loaded, unregistered firearm that is prohibited by virtue of its short barrel length.  Mr. Prasad does not possess, it is alleged, any acquisition or possession licences for firearms.  It is not known whether the room was locked in any kind of a fashion that Mr. Prasad apparently made reference to when making a statement to the police, so it may have been locked, but I am not able to necessarily conclude that it was not locked.

[4]           So, those are the allegations.  He has no prior record. 

[5]           His counsel alleges any motivation for these types of transgressions to the extent they may have occurred to be, at their root, related to a very significant drug addiction that has actually damaged, according to counsel, Mr. Prasad's heart and pulmonary veins or vessels. 

[6]           There is no allegation before me that the firearm allegedly in his possession was in any way actually used in the commission of an offence, nor is there any particular allegation that he is acting in concert with others in any kind of a gang-type situation, but rather seems to be, based on everything I have heard, a lone actor.

[7]           There is a plan that has been put forward by his counsel involving treatment. 

[8]           Crown suggested that the tertiary ground, in particular, is of sufficient seriousness to render his release difficult, if not impossible, and opposes his release on that basis.

[9]           Having regard to all the circumstances that I have recited, including the lack of a record, the underlying manner in which these offences are allegedly committed, including that he appears to be a lone actor engaged in this enterprise, as alleged, motivated by addiction, I am satisfied his release can be facilitated in a fashion that addresses the tertiary ground concern, as well as, to the extent it exists, any secondary ground concern.  I find no concerns on the primary ground.

[10]        The secondary and tertiary ground concerns, in my view, can be addressed sufficiently by releasing him on a recognizance in the amount of $1,000.00, by way of a cash deposit or a surety.  I am not going to name his mother necessarily.  She will have to justify at the registry. 

[11]        The conditions will be as follows.  He is to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.  He will be released only to the care and custody of an authorized representative of Luke 15 House. 

[12]        You must report within 24 hours of your release to a bail supervisor, in person, and thereafter as and when directed.

[13]        You must reside at Luke 15 House located at 11861 - 99th Avenue in Surrey, or otherwise as directed by your supervisor.  You must obey all rules and regulations of your place of residence. 

[14]        You are to take and successfully complete such counselling as directed by your bail supervisor including, but not limited to, your residential treatment programs.

[15]        You must not possess any of the items, and they will be enumerated, set forth in s. 515(4).1 of the Criminal Code.

[16]        You are not to possess any weapons as defined by the Criminal Code.

[17]        You are to abstain absolutely from the consumption and possession of alcohol and any non-prescribed drugs.

[18]        You are to be confined to your place of residence unless personally accompanied by someone approved of in advance by your bail supervisor, or unless you otherwise have the prior written approval of your bail supervisor.

[19]        You must not possess any cell phones, pagers or other portable telecommunication devices.

[20]        Are there any other terms or conditions that anyone thinks might be helpful?

[21]        MS. SPASOJEVIC:  No, Your Honour.

[22]        THE COURT:  Next appearance?

[23]        MR. DOS SANTOS:  Yeah, Your Honour, in that – if I may, he can be excused of the residence in company of somebody from Luke 15.  They go to meetings outside of the house sometimes.

[24]        THE COURT:  Yes, all right.  I will add that as an exception.

[25]        MR. DOS SANTOS:  Thank you very much, Your Honour.

[26]        THE COURT:  Or unless accompanied by an authorized representative of Luke 15 House.

[27]        MR. DOS SANTOS:  Okay, I appreciate that.

(RULING RE JUDICIAL INTERIM RELEASE CONCLUDED)