This is a rare case, just released, on human smuggling under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Noteworthy is the fact that the court did not accept most of the alleged "mitigating" circumstances which included past hardships, but instead took into account the aggravating factors of prior criminal convictions in both Canad and the United States.
R. v. Alzehrani
BetweenHer Majesty the Queen, andMaitham Alzehrani and Fran Gashaj
[2009] O.J. No. 5797
No. C50042 Ontario Superior Court of JusticeToronto, OntarioA.M. Molloy J.February 5, 2009.
(71 paras.)
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
A.M. MOLLOY J.:--
A. Particulars of the Offence
1 Both Mr. Alzehrani and Mr. Gashaj were convicted by a jury of several counts of conspiracy to assist persons to cross the border between Canada and the United States, knowing those persons did not have valid documents to do so. This type of activity is often referred to as "human smuggling" and I will use that term throughout these reasons. With respect to three of the incidents of human smuggling, both Mr. Alzehrani and Mr. Gashaj were involved together along with others in the conspiracy. Those are counts 2, 17 and 21. On each of those counts, arrangements were made to recruit drivers in Detroit, who were then paid to drive their cars across the border between Detroit and Windsor with one or more illegal aliens hidden in the trunk. Due to wiretap intercepts that were in place, the police were alerted to the plot and all three cars were intercepted at the border. On one occasion an Asian man and woman were in the trunk. On each of the other occasions one Asian male was in the trunk. All were without the necessary documents to enter Canada.
2 On another occasion, (count 11), Mr. Alzehrani conspired with others to bring a person named Issa across the border from Detroit to Windsor. When the driver of the car was stopped by border guards and directed to a secondary inspection centre, the driver sped up and ran the border, evading police and delivering Issa to Windsor, where he was picked up by Mr. Alzehrani. Issa was later arrested by immigration authorities on a separate matter and it was learned he was without proper documentation.
3 Similarly, Mr. Alzehrani was part of a conspiracy under count 23, with others, (not including Mr. Gashaj) to smuggle two illegal aliens from Walpole Island in Canada into the United States, hidden in the back of a car driven by a woman Mr. Alzehrani had recruited and paid for this task.
4 The most serious of the charges in which Mr. Alzehrani was implicated is count four. On that occasion, he conspired with others (not including Mr. Gashaj) to bring an Albanian woman and her 23 year old son across the Detroit River by jet ski into Canada. Tragically, as the group was coming across the river, the son's jet ski capsized. Nobody went to his rescue and he drowned. Mr. Alzehrani was not on the river with the smugglers. His role was in planning the crossing and retaining the individuals who accompanied the mother and son on this journey.
5 Likewise, in the other five counts in which Mr. Alzehrani was involved, he was not the one who actually crossed the border with the illegal aliens. His role was as an organizer. He received the individuals to be transported illegally from various sources, recruited and supervised the actual smugglers and arranged for them to be paid.
6 With these six offences, Mr. Alzehrani was involved in smuggling or attempting to smuggle nine individuals across the border.
7 In addition to the three counts also involving Mr. Alzehrani, (counts 2, 17 and 21) Mr. Gashaj was convicted on one further count, count 19, of conspiring with others (not including Mr. Alzehrani) to transport eight illegal aliens originally from China across the border from Canada into the United States hidden in the back of a large truck. The truck was ostensibly delivering a load of plastics to a plastics recycling plant in the United States. The truck with the eight individuals locked inside was left in the parking lot of the recycling plant and somebody was supposed to release the people in the back from there. However, that person failed to carry out his role, and the eight migrants were left in the truck without food or water for 24 hours. They were only released when an employee heard pounding from inside the truck and opened it to find them there.
8 Mr. Gashaj's role was as an organizer. He obtained these illegal migrants from a source and made arrangements for them to be transported. His role on the three occasions on which he was convicted along with Mr. Alzehrani was similar in nature - an organizer and a supplier of the persons to be transported. The total number of persons that Mr. Gashaj was involved in smuggling was 12.
B. Statutory Provisions Relevant to Penalty
9 The provision which both accused contravened is s. 117 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which provides:
" (1) No person shall knowingly organize, induce, aid or abet the coming into Canada of one or more persons who are not in possession of a visa, passport or other document required by this Act."
10 The penalty provisions are at ss. 117(2) and (3) which provide as follows:
(2)
A person who contravenes subsection (1) with respect to fewer than 10 persons is guilty of an offence and liable
(a) on conviction on indictment
(i)
for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $500,000 or to a term of imprisonment of not more than 10 years, or to both, or
(ii)
for a subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or to a term of imprisonment of not more than 14 years, or to both; and
(b)
on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $100,000 or to a term of imprisonment of not more than two years, or to both.
(3)
A person who contravenes subsection (1) with respect to a group of 10 persons or more is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction by way of indictment to a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or to life imprisonment, or to both.
11 Significantly stiffer penalties are provided for a person who organizes the coming into Canada by means of abduction, fraud, deception or the use of threat or force or coercion or if a person who is involved in disembarking persons at sea to assist their illegal entry into Canada. (See ss. 118 and 119 of IRPA). The maximum penalties for those offences are a $1,000,000 fine or life imprisonment, or both.
12 In this case, I am satisfied that s. 117(2)(a) applies, and not s. 117(3). The total number of persons transported by Mr. Alzehrani was under 10. Mr. Gashaj was involved in smuggling 12 people, but the largest number of people at any one time was 10. Section 117(2), when read in isolation, could conceivably be interpreted as being cumulative. However, I think the more logical interpretation is that it refers to the number of persons smuggled with respect to each individual offence. This interpretation is reinforced by the language used in s. 117(3) which refers to "a group of 10 persons or more", and not merely to "10 persons or more". In my view, the increased penalty in s. 117(3) is directed to the more dangerous situation of smuggling large groups of people at a time, rather than individuals or smaller groups.
13 Accordingly, since this matter proceeded by way of indictment, both Mr. Alzehrani and Mr. Gashaj are facing maximum penalties on each count of a $500,000 fine or imprisonment for 10 years, or both.
14 These provisions were enacted in 2002 when substantial amendments were made to Canada's immigration legislation. Under the legislation as it stood prior to 2002, the maximum penalty these accused would have been facing would have been 5 years. That maximum has now been doubled, and all of these offences were committed under the new regime. In my view, the amendment to the legislation is an indication of Parliament's concerns about the serious nature of human smuggling. The sentences imposed under the old regime must be looked at with caution for that reason.
15 The legislation stipulates circumstances that are to be taken as aggravating factors as follows at s. 121:
(1)
The court, in determining the penalty to be imposed under subsection 117(2) or (3) or section 120, shall take into account whether
(a)
bodily harm or death occurred during the commission of the offence;
(b)
the commission of the offence was for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization;
(c)
the commission of the offence was for profit, whether or not any profit was realized; and
(d)
a person was subjected to humiliating or degrading treatment, including with respect to work or health conditions or sexual exploitation as a result of the commission of the offence
(2)
For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), "criminal organization" means an organization that is believed on reasonable grounds to be or to have been engaged in activity that is part of a pattern of criminal activity planned and organized by a number of persons acting in concert in furtherance of the commission of an offence punishable under an Act of Parliament by way of indictment or in furtherance of the commission of an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute such an offence.
C. The Position of the Parties
16 The Crown seeks the same sentence for both accused, the equivalent of six to eight years in prison. Counsel for Mr. Alzehrani, Mr. Tsimiklis, submits that an appropriate sentence for Mr. Alzehrani would be time served. Some of the time he has spent in custody has been allocated to another offence. He has 9 months of dead time left, for which he would get the usual 2:1 credit of 18 months. In addition, he has spent from February 14, 2007 until now at the Toronto West Detention Centre and the Don Jail rather than in a penitentiary, where the conditions would have been better and programs would have been available. Mr. Tsimiklis submits a further credit should be allowed to compensate for that lost benefit, which he submits should be on a 1:1 basis for a total credit of 42 months.
17 Mr. Girvin, counsel for Mr. Gashaj, submits a sentence in the range of two to three years would be appropriate for Mr. Gashaj, which would result in a sentence of time served.
D. Aggravating Factors
18 With respect to Mr. Alzehrani, I agree with the submission of the Crown that all four aggravating factors listed in s. 121 of IRPA are present. With respect to Mr. Gashaj, his offences feature three of the four specified aggravating factors but not bodily harm or death.
(i)
Bodily Harm or Death
19 With respect to Mr. Gashaj, none of the offences in which he was involved resulted in any actual bodily harm or death. However, the incident involving the eight men abandoned in the back of a locked truck could very easily have resulted in tragedy. It was sheer luck that bodily harm or death was averted in that situation.
20 For Mr. Alzehrani, the death of the 23 year old Albanian young man who drowned after the jet ski capsized during the smuggling activity is a serious aggravating factor. I recognize Mr. Alzehrani was not himself on the river and that he was not personally responsible for abandoning the drowning man. However, he was the one who organized this venture and hired the individuals involved. It was most likely the illegal nature of the activity that caused the perpetrators to abandon the drowning young man. In that sense, the illegal nature of the activity is directly related to the death. That said, I recognize that it was an accident and that the smuggling activity per se was not factors listed in s. 121 of IRPA are present. With respect to Mr. Gashaj, his offences feature three of the four specified aggravating factors but not bodily harm or death.
(i)
Bodily Harm or Death
21 With respect to Mr. Gashaj, none of the offences in which he was involved resulted in any actual bodily harm or death. However, the incident involving the eight men abandoned in the back of a locked truck could very easily have resulted in tragedy. It was sheer luck that bodily harm or death was averted in that situation.
22 For Mr. Alzehrani, the death of the 23 year old Albanian young man who drowned after the jet ski capsized during the smuggling activity is a serious aggravating factor. I recognize Mr. Alzehrani was not himself on the river and that he was not personally responsible for abandoning the drowning man. However, he was the one who organized this venture and hired the individuals involved. It was most likely the illegal nature of the activity that caused the perpetrators to abandon the drowning young man. In that sense, the illegal nature of the activity is directly related to the death. That said, I recognize that it was an accident and that the smuggling activity per se was not as inherently dangerous as some other human smuggling schemes.
23 The conduct of the smugglers who were responsible for bringing the mother and son across the river was particularly egregious when they discovered that the son who drowned had in his pockets the money that was to be used to pay them. In particular, their conduct towards the mother, who had just lost her child, was shockingly brutal. They were completely unconcerned about the death of her son and concerned only about how their fee would be paid. The taped telephone conversations in which they can be heard threatening the grieving mother are heartbreaking. It must be noted, however, that Mr. Alzehrani was not involved in threatening the mother and he did try to calm the others down.
24 Also, Mr. Alzehrani has expressed great remorse about the death of this young man, and based not only on his assertion at the time of the sentencing, but on his conduct and tone in the telephone conversations intercepted at the time of the events, I accept that this is genuine remorse.
(ii)
Association with a Criminal Organization
25 Both Mr. Alzehrani and Mr. Gashaj were engaged in human smuggling as a business proposition. They had a number of contacts above their level who passed on people who were looking for a way to cross the border illegally. In turn, Mr. Alzehrani and Mr. Gashaj had a group of people below them that they used to do the physical work of actually transporting people across the border. Various different methods of transportation were used and various different workers were used to do the actual transport. These were not isolated incidents of smuggling. There was a pattern of criminal activity. The criminal activity was planned and organized and carried out by a number of persons acting in concert. This type of activity clearly falls within the definition of "criminal organization" set out in s. 121(2) of IRPA.
26 On the other hand, this was not the kind of criminal organization that is a permanent association of criminals with an established hierarchy and code of behaviour. It was much less structured and less rigidly controlled than many other criminal organizations engaged in this kind of activity.
(iii)
Profit Motive
27 Clearly the activity in question was driven simply by profit. It is not clear how much these offenders earned for each deal. It seemed to vary considerably and specific numbers are not clear. However, it would seem that a substantial portion, if not all, of the income of both offenders was obtained through their criminal activity. This is particularly so for Mr. Alzehrani.
(iv)
Humiliating or Degrading Treatment
28 This category is also met, but not to a substantial degree. The very nature of human smuggling entails some degree of degrading treatment. For example, it is degrading to transport people across the border in the trunk of the car, but the nature of smuggling is that it is surreptitious; it is hardly possible to smuggle people across the border openly. There is no evidence of individuals being assaulted or verbally abused or forced to endure humiliating or degrading treatment with the possible exception of the eight Chinese men in the back of the plastics truck. However, there is considerable evidence from the wiretap intercepts of people being treated as commodities and described in racist and dehumanizing terms.
29 Again, this is an aggravating factor that was present to a certain degree, but not to as extreme an extent as is often seen in human smuggling cases. There is, for example, no indication that any of the people being smuggled across the border were destined for lives of essential slavery or the sex trade in either of the two countries.
E. Prior Criminal Records
30 Both offenders have prior criminal records, which is an aggravating factor.
31 Mr. Alzehrani was convicted of domestic battery in Illinois in May 1997 and was sentenced to two years probation. In April, 1998 he was convicted of sexual assault in Illinois, sentenced to six years, and served two and a half years in custody. Mr. Alzehrani entered Canada in 2003 and made a refugee claim. His claim was suspended on December 21, 2004 when he was charged with a sexual assault in Windsor, Ontario. The offences in this case were committed in 2005 and 2006 while he was on bail with respect to that sexual assault charge, a seriously aggravating factor. He has since been convicted on that sexual assault charge and was sentenced on February 14, 2007 to 78 months in addition to six months of pretrial custody.
32 Mr. Gashaj has a criminal record from 2001 for alien smuggling in Texas, for which he was sentenced to two months in custody.
F. Mitigating Factors/Personal Circumstances
(i)
Fran Gashaj
33 Fran Gashaj was born in Albania in 1966, one of nine siblings. His family experienced difficulty during the years of Communist rule in that country. He married in 1989, and in 1990 he escaped from Albania to Yugoslavia with his wife and two other family members. Eventually the entire extended family, parents and siblings, found their way to the United States. Mr. Gashaj apparently operated a successful restaurant business in Michigan for a number of years prior to his arrest for human smuggling in Texas in 2001. In 2004, as a result of his criminal convictions, the United States deported him back to Albania. By then his wife was a U.S. citizen and the couple had four children, all born in the United States. Mr. Gashaj stayed in Albania only for a matter of weeks before illegally entering Canada using his United States Green Card as identification. He applied for refugee status in Canada. The offences now before the court were committed while the refugee application was pending.
34 Mr. Gashaj' wife and children remained in Detroit as they had no status in Canada and the children could not attend school here. Mr. Gashaj lived in Windsor so that they were close by and his wife and children visited him there.
35 After his arrest on these charges, Mr. Gashaj was released on bail. He reportedly did well on bail, maintaining employment and doing voluntary work with his church. He reports having given up drinking, but there is no indication that drinking was in any way a factor in his criminal behaviour. Mr. Gashaj has no legal status in Canada and there is a deportation order against him pending the outcome of these charges.
36 He appears to be close to his wife and children. The author of the presentence report refers to his "loving and supportive family". However, it is very unlikely his wife was unaware of what was going on. Mr. Gashaj often arranged for her to drop off payments for others engaged in his criminal activity.
37 I do not agree that Mr. Gashaj's desire to be reunited with his family is a factor supporting a shorter sentence in this case than would otherwise be the case. His wife and children are in the United States. He cannot go there because of his criminal record. The United States has already deported him to Albania. Further, he is also subject to a Canadian deportation order that would send him back to Albania upon the completion of these proceedings and any sentence for these offences. He will only be reunited with his family if they move to Albania with him, which is not what he is contemplating. I do not see how anything about this situation warrants any reduction in his sentence.
(ii)
Mr. Alzehrani
38 Maithan Alzehrani was born in Baghdad, Iraq in 1972 and is now nearly 37. There is little that can be said by way of mitigation. His former girlfriend, Ms. Aziz, described him to the author of the presentence report as being generous and helpful to people, and she said that his friends tried to create trouble between them because they knew she would not allow him to do "anything wrong". Ms. Aziz, however, was actively involved on more than one occasion in assisting Mr. Alzehrani in his criminal activity. It is certainly not the case that she would not allow him to do anything wrong.
39 Keyra Cokley, his current girlfriend and mother of his three year old child, told the author of the presentence report that he was "really nice" and gets taken advantage of by people he helps because of his kindness. She said she needs him back in the United States and would not allow him to go back to "whatever he was doing". Again, this is ridiculous. Mr. Alzehrani cannot go back to the United States because of his criminal record. Further, Keyra Cokley knows full well what he was doing. She was one of the people driving over the border at his behest with illegal aliens in the trunk of her car.
40 Although Mr. Alzehrani has little or no insight into the serious nature of these offences, I do accept, as I already mentioned, that he feels genuine remorse for the death of the young man on the jet ski.
G. Parity in Sentencing
41 As a general principle, it is important to have some parity in sentencing so that similar offenders who commit similar offence in similar circumstances receive similar sentences. However, the case law in this area does not identify a clear range for sentencing. Many of the cases are under the prior legislation. The fact that Parliament doubled the maximum range shows a clear legislative intention that these types of offences should be treated more seriously and attract more significant penalties. Cases under the old regime are of some, but only limited, guidance.
42 Of some assistance is the decision in R. v. Kola Bajraktari, Ontario Court of Justice, May 18, 2006, a decision of B. Brown, J., unreported. Mr. Bajraktari was involved in the same criminal group as Mr. Alzehrani and Mr. Gashaj and was doing the same type of activity during the same period of time. He was given an effective sentence of 2 1/2 years but after a guilty plea and based upon a joint submission. Clearly, Mr. Alzehrani and Mr. Gashaj are deserving of a more significant sentence than that.
43 In R. v. Damani, [2003] O.J. No. 5493, the offender was involved in smuggling from India and Pakistan into the United States via Canada. His role was similar to that of Mr. Alzehrani and Mr. Gashaj transporting migrants to smugglers who actually took them across the border. It is not completely clear from the case, but it does not appear that he had as much responsibility for the organization of the actual smuggling as Mr. Alzehrani and Mr. Gashaj did. Nor did he appear to have a supervisory role. He was involved in eight incidents with a total of 61 migrants, which is somewhat worse than Mr. Alzehrani and Mr. Gashaj. However, he was 63 years old, with a history of volunteer work for 15 years and no prior criminal record. He had health problems that were exacerbated by incarceration. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to one year in addition to a credit of three years served, for an effective sentence of four years. There were more mitigating factors for Mr. Damani than either Mr. Gashaj or Mr. Alzehrani, but the number of migrants he was responsible for having smuggled was significantly more.
44 In R. v. Khalid Qummar, (Court File No. CR-03-007200-00, March 14, 2005, Ont. S.C.J., unreported), Van Melle J. imposed what was effectively a 22 month sentence for participation in a smuggling operation transporting illegal migrants from Windsor to Detroit. Mr. Qummar was involved to some extent in the planning, but his role was not much more than a courier. He was 38 years old, had no criminal record, and had a history of involvement in the community and with counselling young people. He expressed remorse for his actions. He had more mitigating factors and a lesser degree of involvement than either Mr. Gashaj or Mr. Alzehrani, warranting a higher sentence for both of these accused.
45 R. v. Tewana, [2005] O.J. No. 4676 (O.C.J.) involved an offender whose role in human smuggling was quite similar to Mr. Alzehrani and Mr. Gashaj. However, his activity related to approximately 120 people being smuggled over a period of time. He was 40 years old and had no criminal record. He pled guilty during the course of the preliminary and was sentenced to three years.
46 I have taken into account a number of other authorities cited by the Crown. I do not find those authorities to be as helpful to the situation before me either because they were prior to the new legislation coming into force or because the nature of the criminal smuggling in that case was significantly more serious and dangerous to the people involved.
H. Analysis
47 In determining an appropriate sentence in this case, it is relevant to consider the objectives of sentencing and guiding principles, as well as the factors I have already reviewed.
48 I do not see rehabilitation as being a significant factor in this case. Neither of the offenders shows any insight into the serious nature of their crimes, both minimizing both the crimes and their own involvement.
49 Specific deterrence is also not a significant factor. Mr. Gashaj will be deported to Albania after serving his sentence. The length of his sentence is unlikely to play a role in whether he reoffends. Mr. Alzehrani has expressed his willingness to be deported to Iraq, but it is unclear whether Iraq is a country to which he can be deported. In any event, he does not appear to be deterred by the prospect of prison time.
50 In my view, the most significant factors influencing sentence in this case are general deterrence and denunciation. The implications of human smuggling are profound and far-reaching. The integrity of Canada's borders are compromised when criminals such as these smuggle illegal aliens across. There are no checks on the type of people entering, making it possible for criminals and terrorists to move back and forth between these countries at will. In this particular case, there is no evidence that the individuals being transported were anything other than people who were desperate to get across the border but not entitled to do so. There is no evidence that any of them were criminals. However, these smugglers were completely unconcerned about who they were transporting. They were simply in it for the money. The risk to society generally of this kind of criminal activity are great. It is important for national security and public safety to send a message that those who would compromise our international borders in this manner will be dealt with severely. Illegal smuggling of human beings cannot be permitted to become a profitable business operation in Canada.
51 There are various aggravating factors involved for both these offenders and very little that can be said by way of mitigation.
52 Taking all of these factors into account, in my view, the appropriate sentence for Mr. Alzehrani, before adjustment for time served, is four-and-a-half years. I see Mr. Gashaj's situation as not quite as bad. There are more mitigating factors in his situation and his criminal record is less serious than Mr. Alzehrani. His sentence prior to adjustment for time served is four years.
53 Mr. Gashaj was held on these charges alone from his arrest on February 14, 2006 until March 10, 2006, a total of 24 days. Thereafter, he was released on a recognizance with respect to these charges but held in custody on an immigration hold until July 28, 2007, a further 16 months, 18 days. Finally, upon his conviction by the jury, I revoked his parole, and he has been in custody from October 24, 2008 until today, February 5, 2009, a total of 104 days.
54 Mr. Gashaj is entitled to the usual 2:1 credit for the first 24 days and also the last 104 days, for a total of 144 days. The Crown argues that there should be no credit for the 16 1/2 months in the middle, as Mr. Gashaj was detained only on an immigration hold. Defence counsel argues that Mr. Gashaj should get full credit because he would not have been placed on the immigration hold merely because of his immigration status. At the immigration bail hearing, evidence was led with respect to these smuggling offences. In my view, the critical point is that Mr. Gashaj was first held on these criminal charges, but then released. Although the existence of these charges was a factor in his subsequent detention, that detention was imposed under the IRPA, not under the Criminal Code, and flowed from the fact that he had entered Canada illegally and had no status to remain here. Accordingly, I agree with the Crown that he should not receive any credit for those 16 months.
55 Accordingly, the total credit against Mr. Gashaj four-year sentence will be 9 1/2 months, so the actual sentence will be three years in addition to time served. That sentence is imposed on each count concurrent.
56 Mr. Alzehrani has been in custody since his arrest on February 14, 2006. However, some of that dead time has already been taken into account at the time of his sentencing for his most recent sexual assault conviction, such that there are now only 9 months of time to be allocated to these charges. At a 2:1 credit, that would be a total credit of 18 months.
57 Since February 14, 2007, when he was sentenced on the sexual assault, Mr. Alzehrani has been serving his time on that offence. However, rather than serving that time in a penitentiary, he has been at the Toronto Don Jail where conditions are worse and no programming is available. His counsel submits that he should get some credit for that time because of where he is serving it.
58 I do not agree. I do not see the cases cited by counsel as supporting that proposition. (See R. v. Mitchell, (Ont.C.A.) September 26, 2003, unreported; R. v. Warren, (Ont. C.A.), November 25, 1999, unreported). Mr. Alzehrani is serving his time in Toronto because he committed these offences while on bail for the sexual assault offences. He needed to be in Toronto for his trial on these charges. While I recognize that he has not had access to the type of programming he would receive in a federal penitentiary, this is not, in my view, a basis for reducing the time he should serve on these charges. To do so would be to treat the fact that he committed these further offences while on bail for the sexual assault charge as being mitigating rather than aggravating. As I have already indicated, the fact that he was on bail while committing these offences is a seriously aggravating factor.
59 Accordingly, the only credit to which he is entitled on these charges is 18 months, so his sentence is three years plus time served. Does that work out right?
60 MR. TSIMIKLIS: Originally you had indicated four-and-a-half years and 18 months.
61 THE COURT: That's three years plus time served.
62 Did I have that right on Mr. Gashaj?
63 MR. GIRVIN: Yes, Your Honour.
64 THE COURT: Any other issues?
65 MR. TSIMIKLIS: No, Your Honour.
66 MR. CONNOLLY: So the bottom line for Mr. Gashaj was three years?
67 THE COURT: Plus time served.
68 MR. CONNOLLY: Right.
69 THE COURT: And Mr. Alzehrani, also three years plus time served.
70 MR. CONNOLLY: My request is that Mr. Alzehrani's time be consecutive to the time he's now serving.
71 THE COURT: Oh, yes. And with respect to both of them, those sentences are with respect to each count, all concurrent, but Mr. Alzehrani is consecutive to the time he has served.
No comments:
Post a Comment