Citation: Regina. v. Galt - Excerpt Reasons for Sentence
Date: 2003 04 22
2003 BCPC 0160
File No:64564-1

Registry: New Westminster
IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
REGINA v. RICHARD THOMAS GALT

EXCERPT FROM PROCEEDINGS
REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF
THE HONOURABLE JUDGE G. ANGELOMATIS

Counsel for the Crown: C. Grant
Counsel for the Defendant: C. Flerlage

Place of Hearing: New Westminster, B.C.
Date of Hearing: April 22, 2002
Date of Judgment: April 22, 2002

[1] THE COURT: There is an unusual fact pattern in this case and that is that Mr. Galt committed a robbery which he brandished a cloth over part of his hand, pretending there was a gun. What is unusual about this matter is that he subsequently turned himself in to the police.

[2] There, however, in the background of Mr. Galt is a great deal of self-pity and a great deal of under-reporting and a great deal of minimizing what he has done. I am concerned about some of his past crimes, but I am not sentencing him for those past crimes. The incidents he mentions with respect to the sexual assaults, what he tells the probation officer and what he tells the psychiatrists are evidently at odds with the police reports. I do not know which is correct and, as I say, I am not punishing him for those crimes.

[3] However, reports by his collateral associates, namely stepsisters, sisters and family, show that he has had a continuing history in the past of being a bully and being oppressive and belligerent and aggressive and violent towards people.

[4] I am troubled by one of the things that is in the pre-sentence report, but again, I am not sentencing because of this. On page 11 on the faxed report, he says that he was coerced by - and he says it is not the Hell's Angels - but he was coerced by persons to commit a crime. He says that he owed his captors $1800 for uncut cocaine worth, in his opinion, $3,000. That cocaine had been seized by the Vancouver Police. So I take it that that cocaine was cocaine that he would have possessed, whether for his own use or for trafficking. But he goes on to say, "During those two days, I made over 15 grand for them and this was the last job."  What I take from that - and I am not sentencing for it - is he has done other robberies, other crimes in that two-day period that he is not being called to account for. If he truly was repented and he truly was remorseful, I would have thought he would have made a clean breast of it all.

[5] He has, in here, made a statement that he wishes to reconnect with society and to get some treatment and, to his credit, he understands and acknowledges that the only place he is going to get this is in the federal system.

[6] The Crown has indicated that they want three years. I would have given him more, regardless of the fact he turned himself in, but I am going to acquiesce in what, in effect, is a joint submission. Mr. Flerlage feels it should be at the lesser end of federal time, i.e. two years, two-and-a-half years. Three years is what the Crown asked for, three years is what I am going to give him. I feel that a sentence of five to six years would have been eminently justified.

[7] However, I take some solace in the fact that he is only 34 years old. I see there is present, in the gallery, acquaintances or relatives, so he does have some support system. I also feel that he has the background, I would think, to reconnect. He has evidently First Nation roots. He is not proud of them or, if he is proud, he has not acknowledged them and does not seek help from the First Nations. The First Nations are now in a voyage of discovery, in that their historical oppression has been recognized, the government gives them money, there are programs where First Nations persons can avail them of it, and Mr. Galt clearly is not someone who has his own inner resources to find redemption or to be reformed and rehabilitated on his own resources. He should use whatever resources he can find.

[8] THE DEFENDANT: Christ, give me the five years and shut up!

[9] THE COURT: Yeah, well, you know, if that is what you want to hear, that is what you want to hear. You are indicating you have not seen the path, you have not seen the light, and you are not going to unless you start --

[10] THE DEFENDANT: Well, you haven't even listened to a fucking thing that was said here today.

[11] THE COURT: I have read it all, and I do not think you have read it and you have not understood it very well.

[12] THE DEFENDANT: I read both.

[13] THE COURT: Okay. And in there, you seem to be blaming everybody but yourself.

[14] THE DEFENDANT: You haven't read nothin'. You're fucking daft. 

[15] THE COURT: Okay. Okay, good. I will leave it. He has expressed himself. Three years.

[16] THE DEFENDANT: Fucking goof!

[17] THE COURT: See, I should have given him four!

[18] I will find hardship. There is no way he is going to pay the victim surcharge.

[19] Maybe I should torture him more with reasons for judgment. Do you want to bring him back?!

(EXCERPT CONCLUDED)