PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA
Citation: R. v. Greencorn, 2014 NSPC 2
Date: 20140127
Docket: 2669902, 2670225, 2673217
Registry: Pictou
Between:
Her Majesty the Queen
v.
Matthew David William Greencorn
SENTENCING DECISION
Judge: The Honourable Judge Del W. Atwood
Heard: January 27, 2014 in Pictou, Nova Scotia
Charges: Section 5(2) Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
Section 92(1) Criminal Code of Canada
Section 145(3) Criminal Code of Canada
Counsel: Bronwyn Duffy, for the Public Public Prosecution
Service of Canada
Andrew O’Blenis, for the Nova Scotia
Public Prosecution Service
Douglas Lloy, for the Matthew David William
Greencorn
By the Court:
[1] The court has for sentencing Matthew David William Greencorn. Mr. Greencorn is before the court to be sentenced for a charge of possession of cannabis marihuana for the purposes of trafficking contrary to sub-section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, a charge of breach of recognizance contrary to sub-section 145(3) of the Criminal Code, and a charge of possession of a firearm, knowing that he was not the holder of a license under which he might possess it, contrary to sub-section 92(1) of the Criminal Code. All charges proceeded indictably, Mr. Greencorn elected to have his matters dealt with in this court, and he pleaded guilty.
[2] The mitigating factors are Mr. Greencorn’s young age. Mr. Greencorn is coming up on his 22nd birthday. Having conducted recently another sentencing hearing with Mr. Greencorn, pertaining to unrelated charges, Mr. Greencorn was employed up until the time he received his earlier penitentiary sentence. He had an educational plan. Unfortunately, that is now going to be substantially interrupted because of the sentence that the court must impose here and because of the sentence that the court imposed in 2013 NSPC 112. Mr. Greencorn has entered guilty pleas to the charges before the court, and, that indeed, is a mitigating factor.
[3] The primary aggravating factor in this case is that the possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking is always of great concern to the court. I agree with the Federal prosecutor that, first of all, this is a designated offence within the definition of s. 2 of the CDSA. In my view, applying the principles that have been enunciated by our Court of Appeal going away back to R. v. Fifield, [1978] N.S.J. No. 42, and R. v. MacLean [1988] N.S.J. No. 29, the court must ensure that the message is sent to those who are prepared to traffic in controlled substances–even petty retailers such as Mr. Greencorn– that the law is extremely clear. It is an extremely serious offence. It has a major impact on the community. There is no evidence that Mr. Greencorn was selling to young persons so as to attract the aggravating principles under sub-s. 10(2) of the CDSA; however, it is certainly well known to the court that persons who have ingrained drug habits will resort to property crime and crimes of violence in order to place their hands on the cash necessary to acquire illegal drugs. Drug dealers will seek to rip off one another, and the court has dealt with a number of home-invasion-style offences involving those sorts of turf wars. Accordingly, the sale of illegal drugs has a direct impact upon community safety.
[4] In addition, there is the coupling of the firearms charge with this possession for the purpose of trafficking, and it is not lost on the court that when you were sentenced, Mr. Greencorn, back in 2011, 15 September 2011, there were two charges before the court at that time: a possession of a controlled substance and an unauthorized possession of a firearm, both arising from the same date of the 18th of January, 2011. The coupling of contraband drugs and firearms is extremely alarming and the combination of the two frequently is played out in the community in a way that jeopardizes public safety very profoundly. Today, we are dealing with a sawed-off shotgun, which, I am informed, had been partly dismantled. It’s the sort of thing that is not going to be used for hunting game.
[5] Given these factors, in my view, the focus must be on denunciation and deterrence, not losing sight of prospects for rehabilitation that are real here, taking into account Mr. Greencorn’s young age.
[6] There was a joint submission before the court in accordance with R. v. MacIvor, 2003 NSCA 60 . I believe that the joint submission is reasonable in the circumstances.
[7] Therefore, the sentence of the court, Mr. Greencorn, in relation to the 5(2) count, case number 2669902 will be a sentence of one (1) year imprisonment to be served consecutively to any time currently being served.
[8] In relation to the sub-section 145(3) count, there will be a sentence of thirty (30) days imprisonment but to be served concurrently to time being served.
[9] And in relation to the sub-section 92(1) count, a sentence of ninety (90) days, but to be served concurrently to any time being served.
[10] There will be a Section 14 CDSA forfeiture order in relation to the contraband as well as a Section 491 Code order in relation to the dismantled sawed-off shotgun and the related ordinance.
[11] In addition, this is a matter that falls under the provisions of Section 109 of the Criminal Code. The court prohibits you from possessing any firearm other than a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm and any cross-bow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance commencing today’s date and running for a term of fourteen (14) years. And you are also prohibited from possessing any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition for life.
[12] These offences occurred following the in force date of the amendments to Section 738 of the Criminal Code dealing with victim-surcharge amounts. There is no discretion now not to impose a victim-surcharge amount. In my view, that is an appropriate evolution of the law, as it recognizes that it is appropriate for services for victims to be appropriately funded by persons who break the criminal law. There is nothing unfair, in my view, or unconscionable in regards to that amendment to the Criminal Code; this is because, as with any fine, time may be allowed for payment, and extensions to pay may be sought and granted. Therefore, in relation to each of the charges before the court, there will be a $200-victim surcharge amount in relation to each count, and Mr. Greencorn, given the duration of the sentence, which is tacked on to the penitentiary term you received last year, you will have five (5) years to pay those victim-surcharge amounts.
[13] Anything further in relation to Mr. Greencorn, counsel?
[14] Ms. Duffy: No, thank you very much, Your Honour.
[15] Mr. Lloy: Not by defence, Your Honour.
[16] Mr. O’Blenis: No, Your Honour.
[17] The Court: Mr. Greencorn, I’ll have you accompany the sheriffs, please, sir.
J.P.C.