COURT FILE NO.: 0480/06 DATE: 2008/07/18 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: ) ) HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) B Stagg, for the Crown. ) ) ) ) ) and - ) ) ) DARREN CAMERON ) NGorham, for the Defendant ) ) ) ) ) ) ) HEARD: May 13, July 9, and July18, 2008 REASONS FOR SENTENCE SPEYER [1] On the eve of his Superior Court jury trial, Mr, Cameron pleaded guilty to one count of robbery. He appears before me this moming for sentence.The Circumstances of the Offence [2] On the morning of September 9, 2005, Robert Lazar, the manager of Shell gas station, in the Lawrence-Dufferin area of Toronto, was walking to the bank to make a deposit on behalf of his employer. He was carrying in a back-pack an amount of money just in excess of $14,000. As Mr. Lazar walked north on Dufferin, he was accosted from behind by Sean Petrie and violently assaulted. Lazar was punched three times as he attempted to resist Petrie’s efforts to grab the backpack containing the proceeds service station deposit. [3] Mr. Cameron did not p cipate in the assault of Mr. Lazar. His role in the robbery was to act as the driver of the getaway car. Petrie was successful in ‘grabbing the backpack containing the money and ran to Mr. Cameron’s car which was parked a short distance away. [4] In the process of making their hasty escape, Cameron's vehicle, with Cameron driving, struck a pole causing significant damage to the vehicle, [5] It is agreed Cameron's share of the stolen proceeds from the robbery was $1,000. In addition, Petrie gave Cameron an additional $600-$700 to repair damage to his vehicle. None of the proceeds from the robbery were ever recovered, Insurance proceeds recompensed Shell for its $14,000 loss.[6] Atte time of the offence, Mr. Cameron was working as an employee for a company called Greenwall. He was eaming union wages of $32.00 an hour. On the morning of the robbery, Cameron went to work at 7:00 am but testifies he was sent home by his boss a short time later as a result of illness. Shortly after arriving home, he received a phone call from the co-accused Sean Petrie asking him to participate in a venture Cameron knew to be illegal. Cameron’s evidence is he was a reluctant participant because he had a good job and, to use his words, “he did not ‘want to screw things up”. [7] Cameron states he agreed to assist Petrie, in part because he owed Petrie a favour as a result of Petrie coming to his assistance during an incident at a club sometime earlier. Further, Cameron testifies that he was assured by Petrie that no ‘weapons would be used with respect to the robbery. Circumstances of the Offender [8] At the time of the offence, Mr. Cameron was residing with his long time girltriend, Sarah Clark, Mr. Cameron and Ms. Clark have three children with fourth expected in the next four months. [9] Mr. Cameron was arrested on October 26, 2005 for his participation in this robbery. He was released almost immediately with a term of his recognizance“4. being that he resides with his parents. Ms. Clark, since the time of the offence, has resided with her parents. [10] Since Cameron’s arrest, Ms. Clark has primary custody of the couple's two daughters while Mr. Cameron has been the primary caregiver for his young son. Notwithstanding the no-contact order between Cameron and Clark, except for communicating with counsel, it came to light in eross-examination that Ms, Clark present pregnancy occurred at a time when there was to be no contact order between Cameron and Clark. This fact is only relevant to the issues of Cameron’s ‘willingness or rather unwillingness to adhere to court orders., a matter I will say something more of when I deal with the defendant's criminal record. [11] There is evidence before me that Mr. Cameron cares deeply for his children and that he is a good father. He is also gainfully employed as a mechanic. A letter filed by his employer indicates he is a good employee. Mr. Cameron’s common law spouse, Ms. Clark, is currently in school hoping to complete her course later this year as a dental assistant, She testified as to the trying circumstances she presently finds herself, with the burden of child care responsibilities for three children and no money to employ outside help. Inlistening to Ms. Clark's evidence, and I do. ‘The Criminal Record of the Accused is difficult not to sympathize with her plight ‘Mr, Cameron has a significant prior criminal record. Offence 1996-03-26 Youth 1997-06-17 Youth 1997-11-05 Youth 1997-12-03 Youth 1998-11-09 1999-09-24 Date of Offence Assault CBH Poss. of prohibited ‘weapon, Poss. of prohibited ‘weapon Assault with a weapon Robbery with violence Robbery and forcible Disposition Probation 12 months and 50 hours community service. Probation 2 years and prohibition firearms ordet for five years ‘One day secure custody and time served of 50 days Time served. Probation 12 months. Five-year firearms prohibition, ‘Three months in jail. 33 days pre-trial custody. Three years and nineConfinement ‘months. Five months! and 15 days pre-sentence custody. 2004-07-28 Assaulting a police Suspended sentence and officer and mischief 167 days pre-sentence custody. 2005-02-08 Causing a disturbance Suspended sentence and probation. 77 days pre- sentence custody. [12] As noted, the accused was arrested for the present robbery on October 26, 2005. While on bail awaiting trial on this charge, he was convicted of trafficking in cocaine. He was released following a guilty plea for time served after 176 days of pretrial custody. So, in a nutshell, what we have is an individual who, in addition to a serious record, while on bail contravenes no contact order and, as well, commits a serious indictable offence, ‘Victim Impact Statement [13] An edited victim impact statement was filed at this proceeding. Mr. Lazar indicates he received a large bump on his head due to the numerous blows delivered by Mr. Petrie, Counsel both agree that the physical nature of the victim's injuries were non-life threatening. Nevertheless, Mr. Lazar’s statement certainlyindicates that he was emotionally shocked by these events and such physiological scarring remains to this day. ‘The Position of the Parties [14] Mr. Stagg argues that @ penitentiary term of three years is the appropriate penalty. In making his submission, crown counsel asks the court to take into account Mr, Cameron's previous serious criminal record and the circumstances of the robbery. [15] Mr. Gorham, on behalf of Mr. Cameron, argues that a conditional sentence is appropriate in the circumstances of the present case after taking into account ‘mitigating factors, In support of his submission, Mr. Gorham submits that the absence of planning by Mr. Cameron combined with the restricted level of his participation in the robbery must be taken into account. Further, he argues that no ‘weapons were used, Moreover, it is argued this robbery bears no similarity to the home invasion style robbery Mr. Cameron was convicted of in 1999 for which he received the functional equivalent of five years in prison. [16] Counsel asks me to take into account Mr. Cameron’s remorse and indeed his general reluctance to particpate in the criminal enterprise with which he ispresently charged. He requests that I note the positive references filed on the accused behalf with respect to Cameron being a good father and a good worker. Sentence and Reasons [17] Section 742.1 of the Criminal Code lists four criteria that a Court must consider before deciding to impose a conditional sentence: (1) the offender must be convicted of an offence that is not punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment; (2) the Court must impose a term of imprisonment of less than two years; (3) the safety of the community would not be endangered by the offender serving the sentence in the community; and (4) a conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2. [18] Giveg Mr. Cameron a conditional sentence, in my view, would be a serious error. Inote that this is Cameron’s third conviction for robbery. T observe that, in addition to his robbery convictions, the accused has three convictions for various forms of assault. [19] Indeed, a close inspection of the accused’s criminal record indicates that he has almost been in continuous trouble for the past 12 years.[20] As noted, even after he released on bail on the present charge, the accused proceeded to traffic in cocaine. Further, I cannot help but be struck by the fact that ‘on the morning of the robbery, Mr. Cameron was too sick to work, at a job that paid $32.00 an hour, yet was not too ill to participate in a relatively large robbery from which no proveeds were recovered, [21] Mr. Gorham argued forcefully that in view of the mit described above, his client should be treated leniently and receive a term of imprisonment to be served in the community. I disagree. It is my view that Mr. Cameron’s record indicates he is both a chronic offender and a continuing danger to the public. Imposing a conditional sentence would fail to take into account the sentencing objectives of deterrence and denunciation. [22] Tt is my view that the recommendation of 3 years in jail is very fair and, indeed, lenient given the circumstances of the case and the defendant's criminal antecedents. Mr. Cameron is sentenced to three years in jail It is ordered pursuant to $487,051 (1) (@), Mr.Cameron will provide a DNA sample for the purpose of forensic analysis. I impose a weapons prohibition order pursuant to section 109(2) (b) of the Criminal Code for life.=10- Speyer J