UPDATE: OCTOBER 18, 2019
The appellant appeals from a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment imposed for one count of possessing a prohibited firearm loaded with ammunition contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46, to be served concurrently with a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment for one count of pointing a firearm contrary to s. 87(1) of the Criminal Code. The appellant purchased a prohibited handgun and stored it at a restaurant he owned. One evening, under the influence of alcohol and cocaine, he brandished the handgun and pointed it at some of his employees. He pushed and struck an employee with his hand while in possession of the handgun. The appellant’s offending behaviour was out of character, and he was otherwise a model citizen. He purchased the handgun because he felt he needed it for protection. At the time of the offence, he was experiencing problems with alcohol and depression. After his arrest, he took significant rehabilitative steps. Held: Appeal dismissed. A 30‑month sentence is at the bottom of the range for s. 95(1) offences of a “true crime” nature. The sentencing judge understood that she could depart from the range if the appellant’s circumstances were “exceptional” so as to warrant a departure. In light of the significant aggravating factors, and considering the significant mitigating factors, including the appellant’s rehabilitative steps, she found that a sentence at the bottom of the range was appropriate. There is no basis on which to interfere with the sentencing judge’s discretion.
JAWAHAR Singh Padda, a Surrey businessman who runs a pizza joint in Newton, was sentenced to 29 months and 22 days in prison in Surrey Provincial Court on June 26, according to court documents. He also received a sentence of 18 months and both sentences will run concurrently.
Padda was charged with pointing a firearm, uttering threats, unlawful confinement, and assault in connection with an incident on November 1, 2016.
At the time, Surrey RCMP Cpl. Scotty Schumann told The VOICE that there was an argument at the place “between two people that were known to each other.” As a result of that four charges were laid.