IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Citation:

R. v. Sahanovitch,

 

2018 BCSC 424

Date: 20180302

Docket: X080524

Registry: New Westminster

Regina

v.

Deane Sahanovitch

Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ball

Oral Reasons for Sentence

Counsel for the Crown:

S. Rail
C. Giles

Counsel for the Accused:

T. Russell

Place and Date of Hearing:

New Westminster, B.C.

March 2, 2018

Place and Date of Judgment:

New Westminster, B.C.

March 2, 2018

 

[1]             THE COURT:  These are very brief oral reasons for sentence in this case. Mr. Sahanovitch has pleaded guilty to manslaughter with a firearm. I am giving these reasons at this time and in this fashion so that those who have sat through the submissions today and have waited this morning to hear the Court's decision will not have to return at a later time.

[2]             As with any serious crime — and there is no doubt the crime to which Mr. Sahanovitch has entered a guilty plea this morning is a serious crime — no sentence that this Court can impose will pay for, or otherwise “settle-up” for the death of Jonathan Patko, or the desperate loss which the victim impact statements read this morning have described.

[3]             The principles of sentencing that are contained in the Criminal Code, and in particular s. 718 and following of that Code, have been described in very careful detail by Crown counsel, whose submission has been of great assistance here. Those submissions on the law have been adopted as well by defence counsel.

[4]             The facts of the case have been placed before the Court in an agreed statement of fact and read aloud by Crown counsel; I do not intend to repeat those circumstances other than to say that the circumstances that led to the killing of Mr. Patko by Mr. Sahanovitch reveal a very serious crime. Mr. Sahanovitch fired a handgun three times at close range. The first two bullets killed the victim; the latter bullet was, as described, gratuitous violence. As a result, and I agree with the submission that was made by Crown counsel, this offence clearly falls at the high end of the spectrum in a manslaughter offence for the reasons I have already stated.

[5]             The range of sentence, as Crown counsel has submitted and that has been agreed to by Mr. Russell for Mr. Sahanovitch, is six to eight years. It is a range. It could be higher, it could be lower, but taking a number of similar cases and considering sentences in those cases, it is certainly that range which is appropriate here.

[6]             The other factors that have to be taken into account include aggravating factors and mitigating factors in relation to the accused.

[7]             Some aggravating factors have been noted above. In addition, this offence occurred in circumstances of extensive drug dealing taking place. Violence with a handgun seems to be a feature of the drug subculture; it is something that must be removed from our society. The handgun was used in different ways in this case — both as a threat and as a weapon, as Crown counsel has described — and finally three bullets were shot into the victim.

[8]             The several victim impact statements — those of Janet Patko, John Patko, Wendy Naso, Michelle Mahovlich and Mia Rushton — have all expressed their desperation, and their loss of someone that was a very strong supporter and protector of members of his family. All have expressed the very profound effect that the loss of what they considered to be the "bright light" in their family has had on them. Collectively, they expressed how a darkness seems to have followed that loss. I certainly hope that that darkness will not last permanently and time will heal.

[9]             As you have heard, one mitigating factor in this case is that, to an extent, there is provocation. The very significant mitigating factor here is a guilty plea. As Mr. Russell stated, it was not a guilty plea where the conclusion at trial was without doubt. There may have been contested matters advanced on behalf of the accused during a lengthy trial. The trial was set for 30 days or six full trial weeks with a jury, so the trial would have been a very significant expense to the public purse.

[10]         In this case, there is a unique circumstance: as a result of a suicide attempt, Mr. Sahanovitch sustained very serious, life-changing injuries that will keep him under medical care and likely in a wheelchair for the rest of his life.

[11]         Applying a range of sentence to the particular facts has been described by superior courts as an art rather than a science. I have received from counsel a joint submission as to a fit and proper sentence in this serious case. That simply means that the Crown and defence are putting before the Court the same suggested duration of sentence, together with case law that supports the suggested sentence as being a fit and proper one.

[12]         Both Crown and defence are experienced counsel, in whom the Court has the ability to place its trust. The courts, over time, have made it very clear that where a joint submission is placed before the court in these circumstances, a sentencing judge must pay close attention; the judge must review and consider the joint submission with great care. For a judge to reject the joint submission because that judge might have given a more significant sentence is simply not acceptable. Rejection of a joint submission without good cause would prevent the process of Crown and defence working together to achieve, among other things, the goal of reducing the length of time that a case is going to take, and potentially a disposition short of trial. As a result, there may be a substantial saving in the cost to the people involved, the emotional cost that was mentioned earlier, but also a very real savings to the pocketbook of the nation.

[13]         I have considered the joint submission with care, and accept the sentence proposed by counsel. I am satisfied based on the circumstances of the offence and the circumstances of this accused, in light of the joint submission, that the fit and proper sentence for Information X080524‑7, the indictment to which Mr. Sahanovitch pled guilty, is six-and-a-half years. Mr. Sahanovitch has spent significant time in custody, for which he will receive 740 days of credit. The result is that the sentence he shall serve beginning today is 1,630 days, or four years plus 172 days.

[14]         In addition to that sentence, I make the ancillary orders which follow.

·       Within 14 days from today, Mr. Sahanovitch will provide a sample of his DNA suitable for analysis pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code.

·       I am advised that the accused agrees to a Crown request for a life-time firearms and weapons prohibition pursuant to s. 109(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

·       There will be a victim fine surcharge of $200 pursuant to s. 737(2)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Code.

·       The firearm used in the killing in this case will be forfeited to the Crown. I have signed an order to give effect to that forfeiture, and that order can now be entered.

[15]         The copies of the sentencing exhibits, the admissions of fact, the criminal record, and the victim impact statements, together with these reasons, once transcribed, shall be forwarded to the Correctional Service of Canada.

[16]         I should say one of the writers of a victim impact statement thanked those that have worked hard on this file and produced the result in this case today. That is, in my view, appropriate. To both Crown counsel and Mr. Russell, I express the Court's appreciation to them for the very hard work they have done.

[17]         All subsequent court dates fixed for this file and the dates set for the jury trial are struck.

“Ball J.”