IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

[1]           Chang Jun Lee, A.K.A. “Sal” (the “accused”), entered a guilty plea on June 29, 2016, to a single count of trafficking in cocaine and heroin from 18 March, 2013, to the 11th day of April, 2013, at Vancouver, British Columbia, contrary to s. 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (the “CDSA”).

[2]           The sole issue to be determined is what is a fit and proportionate sentence having regard to the personal circumstances of the accused and the circumstances surrounding his trafficking in cocaine and heroin.

[3]           The Vancouver Police Department (the “VPD”) commenced an investigation into what investigators believed to be a busy and well organized dial-a-dope operation operating primarily in Vancouver’s Southeast District.

[4]           VPD investigators believed that the accused was one of three drug delivery workers recruited by R.E.M., the principal proprietor of this dial-a-dope organization.

[5]           The accused was surveilled on multiple occasions attending at two stash houses in Vancouver identified during the investigation: the first being a property on Oben Street and the second being a property on Crowley Drive.

[6]           On March 18, 2013, March 26, 2013, and April 9, 2013, the accused was the driver of a Toyota Camry (the “Camry”).  On the three dates above, he was observed to engage in approximately 33 short meetings with mostly unknown individuals consistent with a dial-a-dope scheme.

[7]           On March 18, 2013, members of the VPD surveilled the accused driving to the Oben Street property.  At the Oben Street property, the accused was observed to receive what the VPD believed to be a key fob from R. G., an alleged drug delivery driver and co-accused.

[8]           R.G. then drove off in a Mazda 3 (the “Mazda”).  The accused went into the Oben Street property and a short time later was observed leaving the property and driving away in the Camry.

[9]           Between 7:55 a.m. and 10:41 a.m., the accused conducted numerous meets with individuals.  The VPD believed the purpose of these meets was for the purpose of selling drugs.

[10]        After one of the meets with a customer by the accused, the customer (later identified as “G.B”) was arrested.  During the course of a search of G.B., he was found to be in possession of cocaine that was trafficked by the accused.

[11]        At 10:51 a.m., the accused parked the Camry near the Crowley Drive property where he met up with another co-accused, B.M., at 10:58 a.m.  The accused got into B.M.’s automobile and they drove to the 800 block of W. 69^th Ave. where the accused got into the driver’s side of a black Ford Focus (the “Ford”) and drove off.

[12]        The accused used the Ford to conduct three short meets with unknown individuals the VPD believed were customers of the accused in the dial-a-dope scheme.

[13]        At 2:22 p.m., the accused was observed parking the Ford near the Oben Street property and then walking to the Camry that was parked on Crowley Drive.  The accused was observed driving away in the Camry.  Between 2:38 p.m. and 6:22 p.m., the accused was observed to conduct seven more short meets with unknown individuals who the VPD believed were customers of the accused in the dial-a-dope scheme.

[14]        At 7:30 p.m., the accused was observed at the Oben Street property.  R.G. met the accused at the front door to let him enter the property.  Approximately half an hour later, the accused left the Oben Street property and drove away in the Camry.

[15]        At approximately 7 a.m. on March 26, 2013, the accused was observed parking his Camry at the Crowley Drive property.  He was then seen leaving the Camry and entering the Crowley Drive property.

[16]        At 7:30 a.m., the accused left the property and drove off in his Camry.

[17]        Between approximately 7:40 a.m. and 11:40 a.m., the VPD observed the accused driving around various areas of Vancouver where he met with 13 unknown males and females who the VPD believed were customers of the accused in the dial-a-dope scheme.

[18]        Shortly after 7 p.m., the accused was observed driving to the Crowley Drive property where he exited his vehicle and used a key fob to enter the front door of the Crowley Drive property.

[19]        At approximately 7 a.m. on April 9, 2013, the accused was observed parking his Camry at the Crowley Drive property where he was ‘buzzed’ into the property via an intercom located at the front door.

[20]        Sometime later, R.G. was observed arriving at the Crowley Drive property in his Mazda where he used a fob to enter the front door.

[21]        At 7:42 a.m., the accused was seen leaving the Crowley Drive property and driving away in his Camry.

[22]        Between 8:11 a.m. and 8:40 a.m., the accused conducted four meets at various locations in Vancouver with individuals who the VPD believed were customers of the accused in the dial-a-dope scheme.

[23]        On April 11, 2013, the VPD executed three search warrants associated with the dial-a-dope scheme, including a search of the Crowley drive property.

[24]        A search of the Crowley Drive property was conducted by the VPD.  In the living room and the kitchen the VPD located the following items:

[25]        In the bedroom the VPD located the following items:

[26]        The Crown seeks a custodial sentence of eight to nine months.  The Crown also seeks ancillary orders pursuant to s. 109 (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Code”) and s. 487.051 of the Code.

[27]        The Crown submitted that the personal circumstances of the accused would not amount to exceptional circumstances sufficient to overcome the need to emphasize general deterrence and denunciation.

[28]        The Crown submitted that it was mitigating that the accused entered a guilty plea thus saving both court time and resources.  In addition, the accused is relatively young and does not have a prior criminal record.

[29]        The Crown submitted that it was aggravating that the accused was surveilled over a three-day period being involved in upwards of 33 illicit drug transactions with men and women.  The dial-a-dope organization was characterized by the Crown as a “busy” enterprise.

[30]        The Crown submitted that it was aggravating that the accused was not casually involved in R.E.M’s dial-a-dope organization.  Rather, the accused was involved not only in making drug deliveries, but was also involved in the packaging of the drugs and maintaining a precise financial account (“Sal” Ledger) of his drug deliveries.

[31]        In support of their position that an eight to nine month custodial sentence was appropriate the Crown relied upon the Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Cisneros, 2014 BCCA 154, at paras. 12-14.

[32]        The accused submitted that his personal circumstances were exceptional circumstances and that the imposition of a Suspended Sentence with strict conditions of probation could be a fit and proportionate sentence.

[33]        The accused is now 25 years old.  He was born in South Korea and came to Canada at an early age.  He apparently completed grade 12 and is considering future business interests which may include becoming a physical trainer.

[34]        He is ashamed of his involvement in drug trafficking so has not disclosed his activities to his immediate family.

[35]        He has no prior criminal record.  He has been subject to bail conditions imposed on October 16, 2014, which include a reporting condition.

[36]        The accused has been residing at Reaching Out Supportive Recovery Facility since on or about August 18, 2016, and is described by the director of that facility as a “hard worker”.  One of the other support workers at the recovery house has described the accused as an “asset... in almost every way”.

[37]        The accused submitted that his judgment was clouded by his drug addiction that was actively in place at the time of his trafficking.  As a result of his addiction, he developed debt problems which drove his trafficking involvement.  He has been clean of his drug addiction for the last six and one fifth months.

[38]        In support of his position that a Suspended Sentence would be appropriate the accused relied upon the Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Voong et al., 2015 BCCA 285.

[39]        I find that the accused was involved in a mid-level and well organized dial-a-dope organization.  He was not casually involved but was rather a trusted member of the organization in his capacity not only as a drug delivery worker, but also involved in the packaging of his deliveries and the maintenance of a precise financial ledger relating to his deliveries.

[40]        The entries in the ledger were concise and well organized.  For example, on April 6, 2013, the accused started the day with cocaine and heroin wrapped in different colored packaging and weights with a projected retail market value of $4,120.  At the end of the day, the accused was left with cocaine and heroin with a projected market value of $1,480.

[41]        I find the daily ledger entries that follow support a further finding that the accused was involved in a busy and economically sustainable dial-a-dope organization.

[42]        While the accused professed to be in the grip of a drug addiction at the time of his involvement in R.E.M.’s dial-a-dope operation, it would not appear that his drug addiction affected the precision of the records he entered in his ledger.  As well, on the dates that the VPD surveilled the accused trafficking in drugs, there was no indication that they observed him to personally be taking any illicit drugs.

[43]        While the accused may not have lived a lavish lifestyle, I infer that the accused’s involvement in the dial-a-dope organization resulted in a direct financial benefit to him.  At the time the accused was surveilled by the VPD, his drug dealing activities would support the inference that his full time occupation was that of a drug dealer.

[44]        I find it mitigating that the accused has no prior criminal record.  He is a young man.

[45]        I find it mitigating that the accused has taken steps to address his drug addiction issues through his residency at the Reaching Out Supportive Recovery Facility.  He still has some distance to go in achieving recovery.

[46]        The accused has taken some steps to address his drug addiction.  While the letters of support from Reaching Out Supportive Recovery Facility provide some collateral confirmation that the accused is addressing his drug addiction, there is little independent evidence outside of those letters to confirm that the accused is committed to his recovery.

[47]        It is of concern that, post-offence, the accused was still using drugs in contravention of his recognizance of bail.  Additionally, the accused was charged with a series of fraud offences ranging from August 2015 through to May 2016 while still being subject to conditions of bail imposed in relation to the CDSA charges.

[48]        Concerns have also been expressed by his probation officer that the accused has been, at times, non-compliant while being supervised on bail.

[49]        I find that the accused has not demonstrated that he has taken significant and objectively identifiable steps towards his rehabilitation as a drug addict.  As noted by Bennett J. A. in Voong, at para. 59, the question to be asked is has the accused established that he has truly turned his life around such that the protection of the public was better served by a non-custodial sentence?  To that, I must answer no.

[50]        Additionally, the scale and scope of the accused’s involvement in R.E.M.’s dial-a-dope organization militates against the imposition of a Suspended Sentence.  The accused was a trusted participant in a busy and well organized dial-a-dope enterprise in which Schedule I drugs were being sold to addicts.

[51]        The principles of general deterrence and denunciation are paramount in this case.  I must also give weight to the accused’s rehabilitation as he is a young man with no prior criminal record.

[52]        I find that a fit and proportionate sentence is a custodial sentence of six months to be served in a corrections facility.

[53]        The accused shall be subject to a 10 year prohibition pursuant to s. 109(1) of the Code.

[54]        The accused shall be required to provide a sample of his DNA pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Code.

[55]        The Victim Surcharge shall apply.  I direct that it is payable forthwith.  In default of payment there will be a concurrent sentence of one day in custody.