IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

[1]         These are my oral Reasons for Sentence. I reserve the right to make corrections and clarifications if written reasons are provided.

[2]         Fred Doe was one of four masked persons who forcefully broke into the home of Angelica Taylor and Brian Wong in Vancouver, B.C., in the early morning of September 23, 2020. The victims were threatened and assaulted including aggravated assaults with weapons. They suffered serious and permanent life changing injuries from these aggravated assaults.

[3]         Fred Doe and Shane White were before me for trial on the eight count Information. The issue at trial was whether or not the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt one or both of them committed the serious and violent crimes outlined in the Information. Mr. White was acquitted as I had a reasonable doubt about his identification as one of the perpetrators. I found Mr. Doe guilty of all offences he was charged with on January 9, 2023.

[4]         The Crown advised that in respect to these crimes, L.M. pled guilty in Youth Court to breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing an indictable offence while her face was masked, contrary to s. 348(1)(d) and 351(2) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (“C.C.”). She received a two year ISSO. Crown further advised that Mr. Houngbo Gody, who was at large for most of the trial and was not before me, pled guilty to all counts on the information before another judge and received the equivalent of a four year global sentence on January 8, 2024.

[5]         I convicted Mr. Doe of the following:

[6]         I found the recognition evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Fred Doe was guilty on Counts 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. I found him guilty of the robbery charges at counts 2 and 3 pursuant to s. 343(c) C.C. which states that everyone commits robbery who assaults a person with intent to steal from them. While I did not find direct evidence that Mr. Doe physically committed the aggravated assault of the female victim, I found pursuant to s. 21(1) and 21(2) of the C.C., he had an intention in common to carry out an unlawful purpose and assist the others in the aggravated assault of her.

[7]         The details of the offences in question are outlined in paragraphs 31 to 42 of my Reasons for Judgment, R. v. Doe, 2023 BCPC 161. The Reasons for Judgment were filed and posted on July 13, 2023.

[8]         Mr. Doe and two other men left the Riviera Hotel on Robson Street, Vancouver, B.C., at around 5:30 a.m. They took a cab that next went to an apartment building in Coal Harbour where a female entered the cab. This was recorded on CCTV. There was video evidence as well from the interior of the cab both prior to and following the subject offences.

[9]         The cab driver drove the offenders to the victims’ residence at 4^th Ave. and Commercial Drive in Vancouver, B.C. The offenders eventually all left the cab and physically forced their way into the victims’ home. They were masked and had gloves on. CCTV recorded the female offender and the male offender who sat in the front seat of the cab buying these items at a 7-Eleven on the way to the residence, following the cab stopping there en route to the victims’ home.

[10]      After the offenders forced their way inside, an imitation gun was pointed at Mr. Wong’s face. He was restrained by one man while another hit him numerous times with a metal bat, causing him serious and permanent injury in the face and legs. He was then pistol whipped by a man with an imitation gun who then went to Ms. Taylor’s room, kicked in her bedroom door, and while she was in bed, struck her a number of times in the face with the imitation gun, causing her serious and permanent injury, including loss of sight in one eye. She was unable to identify the offender who inflicted the grievous harm to her but based on the features of her attacker, I found it was likely not Mr. Doe.

[11]      He did however willingly participate in the offences he is otherwise convicted of, did not seek help for the victims, and returned to the Riviera Hotel with the other three individuals who participated in these crimes.

[12]      Ms. Taylor managed to call 911, at which time intruders left the victims’ home and took the waiting cab back to the Riviera Hotel. The intruders were in the victims’ home for approximately 13 minutes.

[13]       The victims have sustained serious injuries with permanent negative effects on their lives.

[14]      Both victims testified at trial and provided Victim Impact Statements that are before this court. Ms. Taylor read her Victim Impact Statement at the sentence hearing. She eloquently addressed the harm she suffered and continues to suffer as a result of the crimes before me and Mr. Doe’s role in them.

[15]      I commend the victims of these senseless crimes for their strength and efforts in testifying at trial and for providing their Victim Impact Statements. It is very difficult to re-live these events through this process in addition to continuing with treatment and healing from the serious damage inflicted on them.

[16]      The victims have sustained permanent physical disabilities and great emotional distress as a result of being violently assaulted. Their lives have been permanently impacted in a negative manner by what occurred during the violent invasion of their home. Their home should have been a haven of sanctuary and security. This was violated by these crimes. They have lost work and recreational opportunities.

[17]      Mr. Wong sustained a right skull fracture, left quadriceps rupture, patella deformity, right arm numbness, and lacerations requiring sutures.

[18]      Ms. Taylor had been repeatedly, forcefully struck in the face with the butt of a gun, mainly in the right eye area. She sustained multiple fractures to facial bones and required full facial reconstruction with seven plates held in place with screws. She requires further surgery and has permanent visual impairment to her right eye and PTSD.

[19]      The Crown seeks a global sentence of nine years’ incarceration (less time served) with eight years for the break and enter; eight years for the two counts of robbery; five years for the two counts of aggravated assault; four years for the possession of a weapon; and three years for masking his face. All to be served concurrently. Crown seeks one year of consecutive incarceration for the use of an imitation firearm. This is mandatory under the Criminal Code.

[20]      The Crown seeks ancillary orders of, a mandatory DNA order pursuant to s. 487.051 and a lifetime firearms prohibition under s. 109. Defence does not challenge these orders.

[21]      The defence seeks a global sentence of five years’ incarceration less time served.  This is broken down to four years concurrent for all counts except the use of an imitation weapon during the break-in for which a mandatory one year consecutive is mandated by the Criminal Code.

[22]      Mr. Doe has been in custody for 945 actual days. With credit calculated at 1.5 days for each day, he has served the equivalent of 1417 days.

[23]      Mr. Doe is 37 years old. He was 34 when these offences were committed. His first criminal conviction was in 2012. His last substantive offence was a theft-under $5000 in 2016. He has four theft convictions, two assault convictions in 2014, and six convictions for breach of court orders. He also has two convictions for possession for the purpose of trafficking and received a seven month jail sentence in 2014, for these offences.

[24]      I have had the benefit of reading the Race and Cultural Assessment (“IRCA”) dated September 30, 2023, authored by Ms. Linda Masila. She has a Masters of Social Work and has been trained as an IRCA Assessor through a micro credit course at Dalhousie University. Her further qualifications are set out at page 6 of her report.

[25]      The report is of assistance in providing information about Mr. Doe’s life prior to and after his immigration to Canada when he was a teenager.

[26]      Mr. Doe was born in Liberia in 1988. There was much unrest in Liberia at that time. Civil war was active from 1989-1997 and 1999-2003. Mr. Doe’s mother was killed in the civil war when Mr. Doe was two years old. He has no memory of her.

[27]      When Mr. Doe was four years old, his father smuggled he and his sisters to Ghana. They moved in with an older woman named Angelina and her son. They did not know her before arriving in Ghana. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Doe’s father immigrated to Canada for work. The children stayed with Angelina for the next 10-12 years. Mr. Doe’s father would phone them and send money for support of his children. Mr. Doe did not really know his father until he and his sisters moved to Canada when he was 15 or 16 years old.

[28]      Mr. Doe reported that Angelina was very good to him. He considered her son as a father-figure. He stayed in touch with Angelina after moving to Canada in November, 2002. He reported her death made him feel lost and this was compounded when her son died shortly thereafter. Mr. Doe told Ms. Masila, “…he was like a father to him as he took care of him and his sisters in their father’s absence, guiding, protecting, caring and loving them … ‘this man was more like a father than my real father’…” (IRCA, p. 23).

[29]      Mr. Doe reported tension and arguments with his father shortly after moving to Canada in 2002. He and his sisters initially moved into a 2 bedroom apartment in Vancouver with his father, step-mom and step brother. All the children slept in one room until the family moved into co-op housing in 2008 or 2009.

[30]      Mr. Doe reported that at the age of 16 he began moving in and out of the family home due to constant conflict with his father. He reported his father was aggressive to him physically and emotionally abusive. Much of the conflict arose from Mr. Doe’s poor school performance which his father viewed negatively. Mr. Doe reported problems reading and his father viewed this as intentional rather than a learning difficulty or disability.

[31]      While at boarding school in Ghana, Mr. Doe reported that he was beaten by teachers for not reading well. He described the teachers there as tough and using corporal punishment.

[32]      Mr. Doe enrolled at Van Tech Secondary School in Vancouver for grade 10. He was placed in ESL classes and states he was treated as if he “did not know much” and was negatively labelled by teachers. He reported he faced a great deal of racism and was blamed for things he had nothing to do with and eventually expelled (IRCA, p. 15). He advised Ms. Masila he was bullied and called racist names.

[33]      At the end of 2002, he transferred to an alternate school operated by Britannia Secondary. He found this demoralizing as it was not part of the regular school. He reported racism towards him worsened and he felt punished more than White students. He gave an example of telling his teacher he was not feeling well while playing dodgeball. He stated he was removed from the class rather than be offered the option to sit out or go home that White students were offered.

[34]      There is social context evidence outlined in the IRCA of systemic discrimination against Black students and racial profiling by police at the relevant times. The use of social context evidence is not contentious in this matter.

[35]      After dropping out of school, Mr. Doe worked in construction, mainly as a painter and in demolition. He reported his longest held job was two years and that he has been mainly unemployed and living on the street (IRCA, p. 17). He has been working on his GED while detained. He wants to work in a trade.

[36]      Mr. Doe reportedly started using illicit drugs when he was 17 years old. The IRCA records his friends used drugs. He reported he used drugs to help him cope. He told the IRCA writer that he had been using crack and cocaine prior to his arrest.

[37]      His best friend was stabbed to death when he was 18. He said he has lost many friends to addiction and violence. He reported relying on drugs to mask grief and pain. His first criminal conviction was in his twenties.

[38]      The IRCA report writer obtained collateral information from Mr. Doe’s sisters, step-mother and father.

[39]      Mr. Doe’s elder sister opined drug and alcohol use has been negatively impacted him. She herself has been in addiction. She believes he would benefit from professional help to assist with his substance use and psychological issues. She confirmed their father was hard on Mr. Doe, especially when he was a teenager.

[40]      Mr. Doe’s younger sister reported in her letter to the Court that she had witnessed him discriminated against because of race, including being blamed for something he had not done. She also stated he would be followed by police and developed a fear of police.

[41]      In the IRCA, Mr. Doe is said to have reported being a frequent victim of “police brutality”. He said he was known to police due to his criminal history.

[42]      During this trial, several of the police officers that testified said they knew him from checking for his compliance with court orders and from seeing him frequently in the downtown area. There was evidence of police asking him to leave a bar and restaurant pursuant to the Bar Watch program. While there was no evidence that any of the officers that testified mistreated Mr. Doe, it is not disputed that Black men are more often targeted for police checks than others in Canada.

[43]      Mr. Doe reports he has hearing loss in his right ear, worsening eye sight and pericarditis that causes him chest pain. While he does not have any formal mental health diagnosis, he reported feeling constantly worried and stressed to the author of the IRCA report. He advised her he had not sought treatment for his mental health concerns.

[44]      He reported he has not sought treatment for mental health because as an African man, he is not supposed to show any weakness of expression of his emotions. He told Ms. Masila he needs to be strong and power through his struggles.

[45]      IRCAs are relatively recent in B.C. Courts (IRCA, p. 3, para. 1). Ms. Masila reports her assessment in respect to Mr. Doe is to serve as a relevant resource in sentencing him and provides insights into “the socio-cultural factors influencing his involvement with the law while considering and recognizing his position as a Black man in British Columbia.” (p. 3, last para.).

[46]      She states the reality for many Black persons in Canada is the presence of systemic racism and discrimination. Further, that it is only in the last eight years that systemic racism has been officially considered in sentencing of Black persons (IRCA, p. 4).

[47]      The first IRCA presented in court in Canada concerned a Black person in Nova Scotia in 2014 (IRCA, p. 5). The history and purpose of IRCAs are summarized at page 5 of her report. She notes funding for IRCAs is in its early stages (IRCA, p. 5, last para.).

[48]      The Crown is in agreement with defence that the contents of this IRCA are crucial in assisting the Court in determining a just and appropriate sentence for Mr. Doe, based on his unique personal circumstances (para. 25 Crown Submissions).

[49]      The role of IRCAs in sentencing was recently considered in B.C. by Madam Justice Winteringham in R. v. Handule, 2023 BCSC 1031. That case concerned the sentencing of two Black men for forcible unlawful confinement. Mr. Handule had used a firearm in the offence. It was stated:

[50]      She cited the case of R. v. Anderson, 2021 NCSA 62. It involved a sentence review of a young Black man convicted of possession of a loaded firearm. Mr. Anderson was born and raised in Nova Scotia. The historical racism toward Black persons in Nova Scotia for 100s of years is summarized in Anderson. She also follows R. v. Ellis, 2022 BCCA 278, which approved the use of social context evidence in the sentencing of a woman convicted of drug trafficking.

[51]      When Gladue factors are applied to the sentencing of Indigenous offenders, causation need not be established between the offence and the offender. Where social context evidence is used in respect to systemic racism in other communities, the BCCA requires:

[52]      Winteringham J. stated at para. 91 that the purpose of establishing “some connection” isn’t to prove a causal link between the social context and the crime but to ensure that the sentence is based on an offender's personal circumstances and background so that social context evidence can reasonably inform individualizing an offenders sentence.

[53]      She cited but did not follow the case of R. v. Peart, 2022 BCSC 680, wherein the court held the offender had failed to establish a connection between evidence of anti-black racism and discrimination against the offender and the offence of a violent sexual assault. She further considered R. v. Kehoe, 2023 BCCA 2, concerning an Indigenous offender who had been disconnected from his culture, noting his analysis was appropriate in the sentencing before her although the offender was Black and not Indigenous.

[54]      In summary Winteringham J. stated:

[55]      She considered the comments of Justice Derrick in Anderson regarding the differential treatment and substantive equality analysis in her consideration of the historical disadvantage and systemic inequality in respect to the two offenders before her (Handule, paras. 97, 98).

[56]      The purpose and principles of sentencing are set out in s. 718-718.2 of the C.C. S. 718 states:

[57]      S. 718.1 C.C. states that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[58]      For a sentence to be proportionate, the gravity of the offence must be analysed in conjunction with the degree of the responsibility of the offender. The proportionality analysis considers the seriousness of the offence and includes its effect on victims and the moral blameworthiness of the offender.

[59]      R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, provides guidance in balancing what often appear to be conflicting principles and objectives of sentencing. The SCC held:

[60]      As stated in R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64:

[61]      The statutory principles and objectives set out in the Criminal Code are considered within the context of the individual offender before the court. As stated in s. 718.2, an individual’s sentence should be increased if there are aggravating factors and decreased if there are mitigating factors.

[62]      Section 718.2(b) and (c) codify the principles of parity and totality. The parity principle provides a sentence should be similar to those imposed for like offences in like circumstances.

[63]      In respect to the principle of totality, where the court is sentencing an offender for multiple offences, where there are consecutive sentences imposed, the total sentence shall not be unduly long or harsh. This principle applies where an offender has been convicted of an offence, such as a s. 85(1) offence for use of an imitation firearm. Mr. Doe has been convicted of this offence and it carries a one year minimum mandatory consecutive sentence.

[64]      Section 718.2(e) of the C.C. requires that:

[65]      While Mr. Doe is not Aboriginal, counsel agree that systemic factors of racial discrimination, the social context evidence outlined in the IRCA report, and Mr. Doe’s personal circumstances, reduce his moral blameworthiness for these very serious crimes. The issue is, to what degree?

[66]      Home invasion per se is not a specific codified offence. The term is used in the case law as “shorthand” to denote crimes that generally involve several offences committed during break-ins of occupied residential premises. The offenders often use threats and actual violence. The victims are often injured by the offenders’ use of weapons. Section 348.1 of the Criminal Code deems such actions aggravating in reference to the crime of breaking and entering a dwelling.

[67]      The range of sentence for “home invasion” cases range generally from five to 15 years. The higher ranges have been held appropriate where serious injuries are inflicted on victims.

[68]      In R. v. D.A.W., 2002 BCCA 336, Mr. Justice Hall stated that a sentence range of eight to 12 years should be considered for planned home invasions involving violence (para. 32).

[69]      Generally, deterrence and denunciation are the paramount sentencing principles for the offences before this Court (R. v. Vickers, 2007 BCCA 554, at para. 12), although rehabilitation, parity, proportionality, and any factors specific to the individual offender in respect to reduced moral blameworthiness are considered and applied.

[70]      At trial the offender received a five year sentence of incarceration. It was reduced to four years by the Court of Appeal based on a factual error of the trial judge.

[71]       Mr. Bingley was convicted of a “home invasion” type offence involving robbery, possession of a knife and assault. These offences were committed while the offenders’ faces were masked. A firearm was pointed at occupants of the residence and one complainant was punched in the face.

[72]      The offender and his co-accused received a five year sentence following conviction by a jury for break and enter, aggravated assault and having their faces masked. The complainants were beaten with baseball bats causing serious injury. Both offenders were Indigenous. One had a criminal record and one did not.

[73]      The court noted that sentencing for “home invasions” was “highly fact-specific”. It was held that the offender, at 29 years of age, was not a young person but his prospects for rehabilitation were not diminished.

[74]      Using a home owner’s stolen key and fob, the offender and another person donned masks and entered the residence with a knife and a pellet gun that looked like a pistol. The three complainants were pepper sprayed and had their wallets and phones stolen. Mr. Houle had a record and was Indigenous.

[75]      The offender was a 21 year old Indigenous man. He was the “mastermind” of a break-in to a grow-op where the victim was hit with a gun, briefly confined but sustained no serious injury. It was not proven he had actually broken into the house. Three to four persons broke into the house. While Mr. Bernier was not proven to have been involved in the physical aspect of the crime, he was held to be a party to the offence under s. 21 of the C.C.

[76]      The court considered that the offender was Indigenous, young and had prospects for rehabilitation. The 14 year sentence imposed at trial was reduced to six years’ incarceration.

[77]      Three offenders engaged in a home invasion involving break and enter, robbery using a firearm, one complainant had a machete tip put to his throat and two others pointed handguns at his temples. One offender hit the complainant twice with the butt of a gun and split his head open. He was tied up. His vehicle was taken. The most involved offenders received a sentence of six years and one received a global sentence of five years and four months. Both offenders were Indigenous.

[78]      Two offenders each received a seven year sentence for a break and enter of a residence with robbery, use of an imitation firearm, unlawful confinement and wearing a mask while committing an indictable offence. Metal wire was wrapped around the victim’s neck and he had difficulty breathing as duct tape was put on his face. He was tied up. Both offenders had significant records that were more serious than Mr. Doe’s. Both were Indigenous.

[79]      The offender received a global eight year jail sentence for robbery during a home invasion with two others, pointing an imitation firearm at the woman that answered the door and then hitting her. They then pistol whipped her husband and demanded money. One of the offenders threatened to kill the couple. They were tied up and restrained. They had forced their way into the home after impersonating construction workers.

[80]      Another family member and two children were upstairs. The adult called police who arrived about 10 minutes later. None of the victims sustained injury apart from bruises.

[81]      A real firearm and baseball bat were linked to the offenders.

[82]      Mr. Ridgeway was found not to have personally participated in the robbery or threats to the victim. He was however found to have assisted the other offenders in their purpose and s. 348.1 was applied to his circumstances as an aggravating factor.

[83]      Mr. Ridgeway was a 26 year old at the time of the offences. He was Black, had a prior youth record, including a custodial sentence for robbery, and had been subjected to racial discrimination and prejudice growing up.

[84]      By the time of trial, he had successfully rehabilitated himself. He had many letters of support from family, employees and community members. He operated a company that employed 15 people.

[85]      His sentence was calculated at eight years’ custody for robbery, plus one year consecutive for use of an imitation firearm, plus one year consecutive for possession of a loaded firearm. The totality principle was applied by the court and the sentence was reduced to seven years for robbery and one year consecutive as required for the s. 85 offence.

[86]      The court considered the offender’s race and history of being discriminated against. This case pre-dated the use of IRCA reports in British Columbia and the use of social context evidence allowed in Ellis.

[87]      Two 20 year old males, one with no criminal record and one with a criminal record, were convicted of breaking and entering a home and committing robbery, aggravated assault, and discharging a firearm with intent to wound therein. They were found to be principal offenders in the break and enter and parties to the other offences.

[88]      Their intent was to steal money from a grow-op in the home’s basement. One victim was shot and another severely beaten with a crow bar.

[89]      Each offender received an eight year jail sentence with double credit for time served.

[90]      The offender and others violently entered a home containing a grow operation. The offender was 26 at the time. He was convicted at trial and had a prior record.

[91]      A gun was used in these crimes. The owner of the home tried to defend himself and was shot in the leg three times. Another of the offenders struck the victim with a bat. The victim sustained serious injuries.

[92]      Items including firearms, drugs, and cash were stolen. The offences took place over an approximate period of 1.5 hours.

[93]      The Court of Appeal upheld the 10 year sentence. While he was not the one who used the gun or bat to inflict injury, he was a party as he was a participant in the break and enter of the residence.

[94]      In upholding the sentence of 10 years, the Court cited R. v. Vickers, 2007 BCCA 554 with approval. The 24 year old offender had committed a residential home break-in with other masked offenders. They had loaded guns and the home owner’s son was shot in the leg and hit with a pipe wrench. It was not known which of the offenders had done this.

[95]      The offender had a significant record for violence and evidence was lacking on the prospects of rehabilitation despite the offender being 24 years old at the time of the offence commission.

[96]      Both Chudley and Vickers state deterrence and denunciation are the primary factors in sentencing for crimes of violence, especially when the sanctity of the home is violated.

[97]      The offender pled guilty to an early morning hour break and enter of a residential home with intent to commit robbery and theft while armed with an imitation weapon. He threatened to kill the homeowner while pointing the imitation gun at the victim demanding drugs and money.

[98]      The other offender maced the homeowner, punched him in the face and counted down to kill him if the safe was not opened. These events occurred over approximately 15 minutes.

[99]      The court considered Gladue factors and the guilty plea along with the aggravating factors.

[100]   The 24 year old offender plead guilty to break and enter to commit robbery and possession of a knife. The break-in took place with a co-accused at the home of an elderly couple. They were robbed and the male was held at knife point while the co-accused sexually assaulted his wife. The phone lines were cut and the home ransacked. The offences occurred over approximately 30 minutes and they threatened to slit the victims’ throats if they called police.

[101]   The offender had a long history of substance abuse, family dysfunction and had been sexually and physically abused as a child. A psychological assessment opined he was at moderate to high risk to re-offend although he was said to be receptive to treatment.

[102]   The Court of Appeal upheld the 10 year sentence of imprisonment imposed at trial.

[103]    In this case two young offenders committed a home invasion with a third person, broke into the victims’ home wearing masks and carrying unloaded shotguns. They threatened the family with death and bound and gagged some of them while making a demand for $50,000. When another family member came home they pointed a gun at her head and forced her to demand $50,000 from her husband for her return. The offenders drove away with her in the trunk of a vehicle. She was rescued after the car was abandoned. Although there was no permanent physical injury the family was left traumatized.

[104]   At trial the judge found, despite the offenders’ records, there was a realistic chance for rehabilitation. While noting long term jail could undermine rehab, the paramount sentence objectives were held to be denunciation and deterrence. On appeal the sentences were reduced to 11 years for A.J.C. and 13 years for Mr. Joseph. The court noted that after giving effect to four years credit for pleading guilty and time in custody prior to sentencing, A.J.C. had an actual term of seven years imprisonment with nine years for Mr. Joseph (para. 47).

[105]   Aggravating:

[106]   Mitigating:

[107]   Deterrence and denunciation are the primary sentencing principles for the offences before the court, which include a violent invasion of the sanctity of the victims’ home. Both victims have suffered permanent serious physical and emotional injury that will continue to negatively impact them. While Mr. Doe was not likely involved in the assault of Ms. Taylor, he was an active crime participant.

[108]   I have considered that these are the first crimes of serious violence committed by Mr. Doe. He was 34 years old when they were committed. I find that there are genuine prospects for his rehabilitation and give weight to this sentence principle. Mr. Doe has insight into the role negative relationships play in his life and has had the ability to go periods of his life without committing crime.

[109]   He acknowledges he needs assistance dealing with his issues, including substance abuse. His sisters acknowledge he has had such problems and would benefit, in their view, from counselling. In the IRCA he reported that as a Black man, he always learnt he had to be strong and not speak of his pain and suffering (p. 21). One of his sisters and father confirm this ethos in their community.

[110]   His sisters opine in their letters to the court that he has had long standing substance abuse problems and attribute these to his offending before the court. They are positive in respect to his prospects for rehabilitation with proper supports.

[111]   While he has not undertaken counselling to date, he has been in custody for a significant amount of time including during COVID. I do not consider his not obtaining counselling to date as aggravating in the circumstances.

[112]   The Crown accepts the social context and evidence of discrimination against Mr. Doe in Canada are mitigating factors that should be applied to reduce his moral blameworthiness.

[113]   IRCA reports were not in use in B.C. until late 2022, as funding was not provided until late 2021 (IRCA, page 4). Handule most succinctly summarizes the law on how both social context evidence as outlined in Ellis and evidence on systemic discrimination impact Black men in B.C. Social context evidence in respect to Mr. Doe’s life before moving to Canada is relevant and considered in the challenges he faced after he moved to Canada in his late teens.

[114]   Following my review and consideration of the statutory sentencing principles, case law, the contents of the IRCA and recent case law on the use of IRCAs in sentencing, social context evidence, consideration of Mr. Doe’s individual circumstances and mitigating and aggravating factors, I impose a global sentence of eight years’ imprisonment less time served, broken down as follows:

[115]   In addition, Mr. Doe is sentenced to one year consecutive incarceration to the above for use of an imitation firearm contrary to s. 85 of the C.C.

[116]   After the 1417 days of time served with credit are deducted from the eight year sentence, Mr. Doe has 1138 new days to serve on the robbery and concurrent offences with an additional 365 days consecutive to serve pursuant to s. 85(2) C.C.

[117]   Mr. Doe would benefit from counselling for substance abuse and mental health while in custody. He would likely benefit from time in a treatment or healing centre prior to completing his sentence. It is hoped treatment will assist in his rehabilitation and that he will become a law abiding member of the community.

[118]   I impose the following Ancillary Orders:

[119]   As Mr. Doe will be incarcerated and does not have means to pay the Victim Surcharge, I waive this payment.