R. v. DEOL, 2024 MBCA 84, NOVEMBER 4, 2024.
FACTS: The accused was convicted of the offences of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA) for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The sentencing judge imposed a period of fourteen years of imprisonment for the fentanyl offence and eight years concurrent for the MDA offence.
The Crown appealed from the sentence imposed for the fentanyl offence.
The circumstances were described by the Manitoba Court of Appeal in the following manner (at paragraph 3):
The offender was the driver of a rented van that was pulled over by police for speeding. In the back of the van, police located twenty-six kilograms of fentanyl, sixteen kilograms of which was combined with benzodiazepines, and fifty kilograms of MDA. This was the largest seizure of fentanyl in Manitoba at the time and one of the largest seizures of fentanyl in Canada.
HELD: The appeal was allowed. The Manitoba Court of Appeal increased the sentence imposed for the fentanyl offence to eighteen years of imprisonment. It held that “the appropriate sentencing range for couriers with no decision making power involved in a high-level fentanyl trafficking organization is twelve to eighteen years” (at paragraph 6).
Concurrent and Consecutive Sentencing:
The Court of Appeal indicated that the “no-free-ride principle is a component of proportionality that ensures that where concurrent sentences are imposed for multiple offences, the length of sentence for the most serious offence does not give the offender a free ride for any criminal conduct…This means that a sentencing judge must first determine if it is proper to impose concurrent sentences for multiple offences according to section 718.3(4) of the Code…Once a sentencing judge determines that concurrent sentences are appropriate, they are also required to ensure that the sentence for the most serious offence does not give the offender a free ride for the other offences; a sentencing judge is entitled to impose a lengthier sentence for the most serious offence to reflect the fact that separate offences were committed together” (at paragraphs 71, 72 and 74).
