PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA
Citation: R. v. Greencorn, 2014 NSPC 10
Date: 2014 03 25
Docket: 2673215, 2668653
Registry: Pictou
Between:
Her Majesty the Queen
v.
Travis Alexander Paul Greencorn
Judge: The Honourable Judge Del W. Atwood
Heard: March 25, 2014, in Pictou, Nova Scotia
Charge: 91(2) Criminal Code, 5(1) Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act
Counsel: Bronwyn Duffy for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada
William Gorman for the Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service
Stephen Robertson, Nova Scotia Legal Aid, for Travis
Alexander Paul Greencorn
By the Court:
[1] Thank you very much Mr. Greencorn, you may have a seat. The Court has for sentencing Travis Alexander Paul Greencorn. Mr. Greencorn is before the Court in relation to one summary offence sub-section 91(2) Criminal Code charge, possession of a prohibited weapon, as well as one indictable count of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking under sub-section 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
[2] The mitigating factors are that Mr. Greencorn elected to have his matters dealt with in this Court and entered guilty pleas at a very early opportunity. Mr. Greencorn was 18 years of age at the time of the commission of these offences, and so just into the adult system; Mr. Greencorn has no prior record.
[3] Mr. Greencorn would appear to be a guardedly favourable candidate for rehabilitation and I state that based on these facts: Mr. Greencorn’s completion of high school, the very favourable comments provided by his parents in the PSR, the fact that Mr. Greencorn was close to enlisting in the military, and, finally, Mr. Greencorn worked for a period of time at the local YMCA and appeared to have taken up a number of pro-social activities.
[4] The negative factors or aggravating factors in this case are as outlined by Ms. Duffy, the federal prosecutor, and by Mr. Gorman. Mr. Greencorn chose to become involved in the trade in cocaine; it is a controlled substance under Schedule I of the CDSA. Furthermore, it is a highly refined and potent narcotic, not one that is synthesized locally, although is certainly distributed locally. Cocaine is distributed through networks that are linked to organized crime at the apex. As was noted by Bateman J.A. in R. v. Butt 2010 NSCA 56 at para. 13:
13 I would agree with the Crown that cocaine has consistently been recognized by this Court as a deadly and devastating drug that ravages lives. Involvement in the cocaine trade, at any level, attracts substantial penalties (see, for example, R. v. Conway, 2009 NSCA 95; R. v. Knickle, 2009 NSCA 59; R. v. Steeves, 2007 NSCA 130; R. v. Dawe, 2002 NSCA 147; R. v. Robins, [1993] N.S.J. No. 152 (Q.L.) (C.A.); R. v. Huskins, [1990] N.S.J. No. 46 (Q.L.) (C.A.); and R. v. Smith, [1990] N.S.J. No. 30 (Q.L.) (C.A.)). It is significant that the CDSA classifies cocaine as one of the drugs for which trafficking can attract a life sentence.
[5] The Court certainly is aware from the number of charges that it has dealt with over the preceding three years–involving substances such as cocaine, MDPV, MDMA, also the illegal use of analgesic prescription narcotics–that the trafficking of these sorts of substances in the community has a direct impact on community safety. Drugs such as cocaine are directly implicated in property crimes and crimes of violence.
[6] The combination of drugs with firearms, particularly prohibited firearms– such as Mr. Greencorn’s sawed-off 12 gauge–is emblematic of the level of danger that this sort of trade poses to the public. It is not at all uncommon to find those who traffic in cocaine and other illegal substances armed with illegal firearms. The risks of this trade are obvious. Someone’s going to try to rip you off or you try to rip someone else off or someone’s not getting paid on time, Mr. Greencorn, and gun play is a very real risk and that obviously engages public safety in a very big way. What is alarming here is Mr. Greencorn’s belief that he acquired useful business skills through drug trafficking; this is something that speaks volumes.
[7] How it is that someone who is unlicensed is able to acquire a firearm? This is also a matter of great concern to the Court and to the public.
[8] Ms. Duffy has outlined in detail the need for denunciation and deterrence. In imposing a sentence, the Court must be mindful, first of all, of the principle of proportionality and also of the need not to impose a sentence that would crush the prospect of rehabilitation.
[9] I do treat the firearm as an aggravating circumstance in determining an appropriate sentence for the CDSA count; what impact should that have upon the sentence to be imposed for the section 91 Code charge? This was an issue raised insightfully in obiter in a recent decision of Rowe J. in R. v. Kelly 2014 NLCA 9 at paras 30-31. If the facts pertaining to a subsidiary charge are found to constitute an aggravating circumstance in assessing the seriousness of a primary charge, what sort of total sentence ought to be imposed? In my view, Mr. Gorman is completely correct on this point, and the court should impose a concurrent sentence in relation to the sub-s. 91(2) Code charge.
[10] First of all, in relation to ancillary orders, there will be a victim surcharge amount of $200.00 in relation to the CDSA charge and $100.00 in relation to the firearms charge, with 36 months to pay those respective amounts.
[11] There will be a subsection 491(1) firearm and ammunition forfeiture order under the Code, a section 16 CDSA order regarding forfeiture of the drugs and offence-related property.
[12] There will be a secondary-designated-offence DNA collection order in relation to the CDSA count.
[13] And furthermore, in relation to the CDSA count, it is necessary Mr. Greencorn that the Court prohibit you under the terms of section 109 of the Criminal Code. You are prohibited from possessing any firearm other than a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm and any crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance commencing today’s date and running for a period of 13 years. You are also prohibited from possessing any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition for life.
[14] In relation to the CDSA count, the federal prosecutor sought a three-year federal term; defence counsel acknowledged that this was within the range. Following the clearly directory guidance of our Court of Appeal in R. v. Butt 2010 NSCA 56, R. v. Knickle 2009 NSCA 59 and R. v. Jamieson 2011 NSCA 122, the court imposes a sentence of three (3)-years’ imprisonment in a federal institution; and in relation to the sub-section 91(2) Code charge there will be a sentence of three (3) months but to be served concurrently.
[15] Anything further in relation to Mr. Greencorn counsel?
[16] Ms. Duffy: No, thank you, Your Honour.
[17] Mr. Robertson: No, Your Honour.
[18] The Court: Mr. Greencorn, I’ll have you go with the Sheriffs please sir. Thank you very much.
_____________________________________
J.P.C.