Cite as: R. v. Bradshaw, 1990 NSCA 6 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL DIVISION
Jones, Macdonald and Matthews, JJ .A. BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant - and - KIM CONNOR BRADSHAW Respondent) THE COURT: Application for appeal allowed total sentence to be followed and conditions as directed by Judge Cacchione, per oral reasons J.A.i Jones and Matthews, JJ.A. concurring. s.C.C. No. 02193 NOVA SCOTIA
) Briant N. Burgess, Q.C. ) for the Appellant ) ) Christopher Manning ) for the Respondent ) ) ) ) Appeal Heard: February 14, 1990 ) ) Judgment Delivered: ) February 14, 1990 ) ) ) ) ) leave to appeal granted, and sentences varied for a of 12 months imprisonment by probation on the terms for judgment of Macdonald,
I .. l The reasons for judgment of the Court were delivered orally by: I MACDONALD, J. A. : I The respondent, Kim I in the County Court Judges Criminal One on a three-count bill of indictment alleging that he: I l. on July 12, 1988, to wit: cannabis resin, of the Narcotic Control Act; I 2. that on October 29, 1988, he had in his possession cannabis resin for I contrary to s. 4(2) Act; 3. that also on October 29, I of L.D.S., contrary and Drugs Act. ~ On the first count two months imprisonment by the Honourable Judge Felix Cacchione, I together with probation for two I conditions. On the second count imprisonment of two months consecutive to I On the third and last count, a term of imprisonment of four months to be served concurrently I with the sentence imposed on I sentence therefore was six months probation for two years. I The Crown now applies leave is granted, appeals against I generally that they are excessively 'I proper emphasis to the principle I Connor Bradshaw, was convicted Court of District Number trafficked in a narcotic, contrary to s. 4(1) the purpose of trafficking, of the Narcotic Control 1988, he had possession to s. 42(2) of the Food the respondent was sentenced to years with certain specified the sentence was a term of the first sentence. the respondent was sentenced to the second count. The total imprisonment together with for leave to appeal and, if the sentences contending lenient and do not give of deterrence and to the
- protection of the public. The factual background agreed to by counsel for both the appellant and the respondent is that on July 12, 1988 Mr. Bradshaw sold two grams of cannabis resin to an undercover police officer for 29, 1988 the residence of the respondent police and the following items were found: (1) a piece of cannabis resin bedroom weighing approximately $1000 street value, if sold by the gram; (2) a piece of cannabis from a rosebow1 in the respondent's bedroom; (3) a set of scales from the respondent's bedroom; (4) a knife with the residue it from a coffee table; (5) $270 in cash found respondent's bedroom; (6) thirty-eight pieces Diethylamide (L.S.D.) valued of a bureau on the respondent's bedroom. The respondent is 26 Grade 12 education and, at committed, was employed by Seawood Property Management. Mr. Bradshaw does have a prior criminal record dating back to 1981. This record reveals six convictions for property related offences and two for possession of illegal drugs. addition, he has twice been probation orders. Mr. Bradshaw received 2 Â of these three offences as $30.00. On October was searched by the from the respondent I s 70 grams valued at resin weighing five grams the top of a dresser in of cannabis resin on in the rosebow1 in the (hits) of Lysergic Acid at $190 found on top years of age, single, has a the time these offences were In convicted for violating terms of a quite favourable presentence
- report from Ms. Janis M. Aitken, She concluded her report by stating: " •.. As previously stated, of Mr. Bradshaw is that in his outlook on life and more pro-social values than were previously evident in contacts with him. He has accepted responsibility for placing himself in the situation in finds himself and is consequences of his behaviour." In imposing sentence, Mr. Bradshaw as a petty drug retailer who but who still could be reformed or rehabilitated. Deterrence must be imposing sentences upon those or possession of drugs for the this Court stated in R. v. Ferguson the range of sentences, even in this province between six and it should be. The sentences imposed by Judge Cacchione are therefore, in our opinion, inadequate to of deterrence. Having said that, however, that we accept the learned trial judge's opinion to the effect that the reformation and rehabilitation of the respondent are real possibilities and, therefore, taken into consideration in assessing the be imposed for these offences. Normally, the total committed by a person with the prior 3  a senior probation officer. this writer's impression he has certainly matured seems to have acquired which he prepared to accept the Judge Cacchione categorized had a troubled past, the dominant consideration in found guilty of drug trafficking purpose of trafficking. As C1988} 84 N.S.R. (2d) 255, for minor traffickers, is now twe I ve months. That is as properly reflect the element we would also state are proper factors to be proper sanction to sentence for these offences criminal record of Mr.
- Bradshaw would be in the range of two years or more. since there appears to be a real possibility that Mr. may be or is now reformed, we of the circumstances, a fit and months imprisonment on the first count, together with probation as directed by Judge Cacchione. vary the sentence to a consecutive six months. On the third count, sentence of six months imprisonment. therefore, as varied, is 12 months by probation on the terms and conditions as directed by Judge Cacchione. We, therefore, allow for leave to appeal, allow the appeal as we have just indicated. Concurred in: Jones, J.A.~ Matthews, J.~~~ 4 -
However, Bradshaw have concluded that under all proper sentence would be six On the second count, we would term of imprisonment of we would impose a concurrent The total sentence, imprisonment to be followed the application of the Crown and vary the sentences
CANADA PROVINCE OF NOVA SCOTIA C.R. 10936 1989 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA APPEAL DIVISION on appeal feom the COUNTY COURT OF DISTRICT NUMBER ONE BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Appellant - and -KIM CONNOR BRADSHAW Respondent A P PEA L o N SEN TEN C E HEARD BEFORE: The Honourable Judge Felix Cacchione PLACE HEARD: Ha1ifax~ Nova Scotia DATES HEARD: AU9ust 6~ 1989 (Application to Sever) September 6~ 1989 (Teia1) Novembee 6~ 1989 (Sentencin9) COUNSEL: Briant N. BURGESS A Q.C.~ foe the Ceown Stephen E. TURNER~ Esq.~ for the Defense
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.