Dean Clifford: Sentencing & Beyond

[Hyrion]

... that breaks down to 36 months. He has already served 15 months. This means that Dean Has 21 months left ...

Possibilities:

• 1) As Burnaby49 stated: time served was not applied - so it's 36 months flat

• 2) As you suggest: it's 36 months minus 1x time served = 21 months

• 3) 36 months - 1.5x = 13.5 months

• 4) It was verbally covered and is not in the docs and was really [max assigned] - [factor] = 36

For possibility 4, the actual assigned max might be 51 or 58.5 (depending on 1x or 1.5x factor).

And... I'm sure I've missed out on possibilities that should be in the list. At this point, we just don't know what fully happened.

[Burnaby49]

Possibilities:

1) As Burnaby49 stated: time served was not applied - so it's 36 months flat
2) As you suggest: it's 36 months minus 1x time served = 21 months

Not what I was saying. I agree with choice 2. I said Clifford doesn't seem to have been given the usual 1.5 times multiple for time served before trial. He seems to have been allowed just the straight time served, which is very unusual. The courts seem to generally just rubber-stamp the 1.5 multiple. I'm assuming he didn't get the time and a half boost because of his disruptive behavior before trial.

[Wake Up! Productions]

... that breaks down to 36 months. He has already served 15 months. This means that Dean Has 21 months left ...

Possibilities:

• 1) As Burnaby49 stated: time served was not applied - so it's 36 months flat

• 2) As you suggest: it's 36 months minus 1x time served = 21 months

• 3) 36 months - 1.5x = 13.5 months

• 4) It was verbally covered and is not in the docs and was really [max assigned] - [factor] = 36

For possibility 4, the actual assigned max might be 51 or 58.5 (depending on 1x or 1.5x factor).

And... I'm sure I've missed out on possibilities that should be in the list. At this point, we just don't know what fully happened.

I think you misunderstood Burnaby.

commentary on why a 1/1.5 ratio sentence reduction does not appear to have occurred.

The 1:1 ratio was applied, which means Dean was given credit for the 15 months he spent in remand, but nothing extra.

The 1:1.5 ratio would have given Dean 22.5 months credit for time served.

[bmxninja357]

It's not just that he was disruptive. He also plea bargained some charges early on. Plus he did not make a reasonable effort to seek bail early on. The time spent in custody pre trial was almost entirely his own doing.

Ninj

[Hyrion]

Not what I was saying.

Ahh, I misunderstood your use of the slash:

commentary on why a 1/1.5 ratio sentence reduction does not appear to have occurred

Consider:

• He/She said they were going to Earl's for lunch

/ meaning "or"

And of course WUP shows what my experience identifies in the math perspective, so the "or" that I mistakenly understood would be (listing fully for clarity):

• 1:1/1:1.5

Gotta love misunderstandings of language brought on by different uses of meanings.

Edited to add: or the typo brought on because : is so close to / on the keyboard

...

Or the automatic change a spell check might have applied - whatever the reason, a change in the meaning.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Possibilities:

1) As Burnaby49 stated: time served was not applied - so it's 36 months flat
2) As you suggest: it's 36 months minus 1x time served = 21 months

Not what I was saying. I agree with choice 2. I said Clifford doesn't seem to have been given the usual 1.5 times multiple for time served before trial. He seems to have been allowed just the straight time served, which is very unusual. The courts seem to generally just rubber-stamp the 1.5 multiple. I'm assuming he didn't get the time and a half boost because of his disruptive behavior before trial.

As I was reading my own comment under yours, the answer came to me.

The 1:1.5 ratio would have given Dean 22.5 months credit for time served.

This is only 6 weeks shy of 2 years. Given it is a 3 year sentence, and early release can be applied for after 2/3rds served, if Dean was given the 1:1.5 ratio, technically he would only have to serve 6 weeks before being eligible for early release.

I think this is why the 1:1.5 ratio was not applied.

[bmxninja357]

This is canada. In many cases you can apply for pre release at 1/6 of your sentence for non violent offenses. Often not till half on violent offenses.

I doubt dean gets any break but the 2/3 due to his behavior and lack of remorse. In fact if he pushes it enough he will do every day of his sentence.

Plus I wonder how many minutes he is out before he violates his parole....

Peace
Ninj

[Wake Up! Productions]

Plus I wonder how many minutes he is out before he violates his parole....

The only reason why Dean was on relatively good behaviour while on bail was due to the money his father and step-father put up. Without that family loyalty, Dean will undoubtedly violate his parole, and get locked back up to finish out the rest of his sentence.

[Wake Up! Productions]

I just added up all the concurrent sentences. Had they not run concurrent to the Prohibited Firearm charge, it would have resulted in an additional 21 months on top of the 3 years. This would have made his total sentence 4 years, 9 months.

I know that the Scott Duncan crowd was accusing Dean of being a "Crown Rat", cutting a deal to reduce his sentence.

Even Burnaby noted that Dean's sentence was very light. I was wondering what are the chances that Dean did actually rat out a few people in order to secure a lighter sentence?

[RaccoonMother]

I was wondering what are the chances that Dean did actually rat out a few people in order to secure a lighter sentence?

My non-expert opinion is that it probably had more to do with the fact that concurrent sentencing is pretty common even when the defendant does not respect the court process and harasses the judge and the court staff as is the case with the Free Keene libertarian activists who helpfully put all of their trials and sentencing hearings online (youtube.com/user/FreeKeene) - they often get concurrent sentences despite previous convictions and lack of regard for the court.

And there probably was not any evidence that Dean has actually used the guns for anything – he never talked about hunting or target shooting or 'travelling' with the guns that I recall, so if hypothetically speaking the only evidence the crown had was that he just had them unloaded in his basement untouched for years that might justify a low sentence.

[bmxninja357]

Dean used the sks in a video and they were present at a drug manufacturing facility.

Ninj

[notorial dissent]

Question on the lifetime ban, does that include use and possession without ownership?

I'm not betting on Deano behaving himself once he is incarcerated, so what are the odds on extended sentence for bad behavior?

[RaccoonMother]

Dean used the sks in a video

Fair enough, but just because it happened does not mean that the crown did a good job presenting that evidence, as you will recall form this post you made earlier about the uttering threats case.
viewtopic.php?t=9364&start=1020#p183538

It is certainly possible that Dean used his guns all the time but if they could not prove it in court (or never bothered to due to sloppiness) that might explain the short sentence.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Question on the lifetime ban, does that include use and possession without ownership?

I'm not betting on Deano behaving himself once he is incarcerated, so what are the odds on extended sentence for bad behavior?

http://firearmslaw.ca/gun-law-resources ... of-canada/

Section 109 of the Code sets out the system for firearms prohibition order, where individuals convicted of certain offences may be banned from owning firearms for periods ranging from ten years to life.

It applies to "possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance".

Also, Dean can be sentenced anywhere from 6 months to 10 years for violating this order.

EDIT: Having thought about it a little more, the maxim "possession is nine-tenths the law" comes to mind. Unless the gun is legally registered in someone else's name, simple possession of it may actually constitute ownership.

[RaccoonMother]

Question on the lifetime ban, does that include use and possession without ownership?

The statute says:

the court that sentences the person or directs that the person be discharged, as the case may be, shall, in addition to any other punishment that may be imposed for that offence or any other condition prescribed in the order of discharge, make an order prohibiting the person from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance during the period specified in the order as determined in accordance with subsection (2) or (3), as the case may be.

Source: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... =109#s-109

Also as an aside the only way a person can use a firearm if they do not have a licence is under the supervision of someone who does have one, i.e. a Citizen-Slave of Her Majesty the Queen

[Wake Up! Productions]

Also as an aside the only way a person can use a firearm if they do not have a licence is under the supervision of someone who does have one, i.e. a Citizen-Slave of Her Majesty the Queen

You are speaking in terms of going to a shooting range, using a registered handgun. In Canada, the "long gun" registry was a total FAIL, so it is actually very easy for someone like Dean to use another person's riffle. However, if Dean is caught red-handed with that riffle in his hands, it would be a violation of the lifetime ban.

"Citizen-Slave of Her Majesty the Queen" - Just wondering, is this your belief, or are you merely mimicking Dean?

[bmxninja357]

possession of anything requires three elements.

1)knowledge
2)control
3)consent

peace,
ninj

[Wake Up! Productions]

possession of anything requires three elements.

1)knowledge
2)control
3)consent

peace,
ninj

Not sure about the consent part. One can be charged with possession of stolen property. I hardly think consent applies there.

[bmxninja357]

yup it does. it always requires knowledge consent and control. you can physically have stolen property in your possession and not know it was stolen. in this case it is generally taken away but no charges laid. or if they are laid and you can prove you made reasonable effort upon acquiring it as to justify a reasonable belief it was not stolen you would beat the charge.

possession of anything always requires those three elements.

peace,
ninj

[RaccoonMother]

You are speaking in terms of going to a shooting range, using a registered handgun. In Canada, the "long gun" registry was a total FAIL, so it is actually very easy for someone like Dean to use another person's riffle.

Well as this firearm school points out:

You can shoot a gun without a firearms license as long as you are under the direct supervision of an adult 18 years or older who has a firearms license for the category of the firearms you wish to shoot.

Source: http://cfa-ltd.ca/firearms_questions/Ca ... license/8/

It applies to all firearms, of course if you are not at a range no one would be around to check most likely, but it would be illegal.

"Citizen-Slave of Her Majesty the Queen" - Just wondering, is this your belief, or are you merely mimicking Dean?

It is not my belief, no.