English translation of reasons for judgment in R. c. Bandaogo, 2023 BCSC 2514

Translated March 2026

Original text: British Columbia Supreme Court RFJ

This translation is not an authoritative English language translation.

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Citation:R. c. Bandaogo,
2023 BCSC 2514

Date: 20230831
Docket: 83703-1
Registry: New Westminster

Rex

Yannick Bandaogo

Presiding: The Honourable Justice G.R.J. Gaul

Oral Reasons for Sentence

Counsel for the Crown:

D. Loucks
J.-B. Deschamps

Counsel for the Accused:

G. Rivard
G. Garih

Place and date of hearing:

New Westminster, BC
July 5-7, 2023

Place and date of judgment:

New Westminster, BC
August 31, 2023

[1] THE COURT: On May 29, 2023, Yannick Bandaogo pleaded guilty to seven counts of an indictment, which are as follows:

Count 1: second-degree murder of A.M.B., contrary to s. 235(1) of the Criminal Code
Count 2: attempted murder of Sheloah Klausen, contrary to s. 239(1)(b) of the Criminal Code
Count 3: attempted murder of Gary Mortenson, contrary to s. 239(1)(b) of the Criminal Code
Count 4: attempted murder of Susanne Till, contrary to s. 239(1)(b) of the Criminal Code
Count 5: attempted murder of Emma Henderson, contrary to s. 239(1)(b) of the Criminal Code
Count 6: aggravated assult on Mahnaz Kolahi, contrary to s. 268(2) of the Criminal Code
Count 7: attempted murder of Haya Newman, contrary to s. 239(1)(b) of the Criminal Code

[2] Incidentally, I note that the parents of the deceased, during the course of the proceedings, asked that their child's name be anonymized. Out of respect to the victim and her family, I acceded to their request. Consequently, I will use the initials of the deceased instead of their full name in these reasons.

[3] Over three days in July, counsel for the Crown and the defense made submissions on the appropriate punishment to be imposed on Mr. Bandaogo. In support of their arguments, several pieces of evidence were admitted, including victim impact statements and psychiatric reports prepared by forensic psychiatrists.

[4] Having taken the time to reflect and study counsels' submissions, I must now decide whether to accept the joint sentencing recommendation of the Crown and the defense. In the case that I reject the recommendation, I must determine the appropriate punishment in the circumstances.

Background facts

Circumstances of the offenses

[5] At the sentencing hearing, the prosecution and the defense jointly submitted a document into evidence entitled "Déclaration conjointe des faits" ("Joint declaration of facts"), which outline the facts which underlie Mr. Bandaogo's guilty pleas to all counts of the indictment. The following summary is based on this document.

[6] In February 2021, Mr. Bandaogo came to in British Columbia. In the following months, he spent time around the library in Lynn Valley in North Vancouver.

[7] On March 27, 2021, Mr. Bandaogo went to the library around 9:30 in the morning. He spent most of the morning there. There was a book sale happening in a community room next to the library. Members of the public could enter the community room through a door leading to the lobby and had to exit through another door at the rear of the room.

[8] Between 1:00 PM and 1:45 PM, for a period of 45 minutes, Mr. Bandaogo could be found in a hallway near the book sale exit.

[9] A.M.B. was sitting to the side of the book sale entrance in the lobby. She was working on a laptop. Around 1:45 PM, Mr. Bandaogo directly approached her armed with a knife. When he reached A.M.B., he suddenly started to stab her. Mr. Bandaogo stabbed A.M.B. twelve times, causing fourteen different injuries. She suffered eight knife wounds and six lacerations. These injuries caused A.M.B.'s death.

[10] Sheloah Klausen was in the hallway with her child when the incident began. When Mr. Bandaogo started stabbing A.M.B., Ms. Klausen tried stopping Mr. Bandaogo by hitting him with her umbrella. Mr. Bandaogo turned towards Ms. Klausen, took her umbrella and threw it to the ground. Mr. Bandaogo kicked Ms. Klausen and stabbed her several times, leaving her on the ground. He stabbed her behind the left ear and in the neck. Ms. Klausen blocked a blow with her left hand, which caused an injury to one of her fingers.

[11] Mr. Gary Mortenson, 70 years old, was sitting in the lobby and tried to stop the attack on Ms. Klausen. He approached Mr. Bandaogo, who turned to attack Mr. Mortenson. Mr. Bandaogo punched Mr. Mortenson and the latter fell to the ground. Mr. Bandaogo stabbed Mr. Mortenson several times in the head and back, causing a serious laceration in the eyelid, several serious lacerations in the face, a broken nose and several injuries to the back.

[12] When Mr. Bandaogo arrived in the lobby, Susanne Till was sitting in the hallway close to A.M.B. She froze during the attacks on A.M.B., Ms. Klausen and Mr. Mortenson. After a few seconds, she tried to flee but Mr. Bandaogo attacked her at the entrance of the book sale. He stabbed her in the left eye and the knife penetrated the temporal lobe. As a result of this injury, Ms. Till lost her left eye and eventually received a prosthetic replacement.

[13] A witness at the lobby entrance observed Mr. Bandaogo trying to enter the book sale. The room was packed with people. This caused Mr. Bandaogo to instead follow the witness to the exterior of the building. Once outside, Mr. Bandaogo followed the witness toward a restaurant near the library. Passing by the restaurant, Mr. Bandaogo noticed Emma Henderson by a construction fence and approached her. He stabbed her in the head, once on the left side of the neck and once on the right eyebrow, and on the left hand.

[14] Mr. Bandaogo proceeded along Lynn Valley Road, where he found Mahnaz Kolahi outside her vehicle. Seeing people running around her, she was concerned for her spouse. She was to the side of her vehicle and her child was inside the vehicle. Mr. Bandaogo hit Ms. Kolahi in her face with the umbrella he took from Ms. Klausen, causing a right eyelid laceration, a comminuted fracture of the right orbital bone and a hand laceration.

[15] Mr. Bandaogo returned to the lobby entrance of the Lynn Valley Road library where he attacked Haya Newman. Mr. Bandaogo stabbed Mr. Newman on the road just outside the library. She fell to the ground where Mr. Bandaogo punched and stabbed her several times. Ms. Newman was stabbed in the right forehead, causing a comminuted depressed skull fracture, a frontal parietal hemorrhage and a subarachnoid hemorrhage. The blade of the knife remained lodged in her skull, penetrating the brain to a depth of seven millimeters. After surgery, the blade of the knife was retrieved.

[16] Mr. Bandaogo then proceeded south towards 29th Street. Several witnesses followed him to ensure that he would not escape. At the intersection of 29th Street and Lynn Valley Road, Mr. Bandaogo was surrounded by the police. Moments later, he slashed his own left wrist and was then arrested by the police.

[17] Mr. Bandaogo did not know any of the victims before the attacks.

Profile of the accused

[18] Mr. Bandaogo was born in Sherbrooke, Quebec and is thirty years old. His father is from Burkina Faso and his mother is from Quebec.

[19] His parents divorced when he was five years old and his father moved to Montreal. Mr. Bandaogo stayed with his mother and maternal step-brother in Sherbrooke.

[20] Mr. Bandaogo also has two paternal step-sisters.

[21] Mr. Bandaogo began consuming marijuana and strong beer when he was twelve years old. From twelve to seventeen, he was a member of many street gangs and participated in cannabis and weapon sales.

[22] When he was fifteen years old, Mr. Bandaogo was admitted to a Directory of Youth Protection welcome centre. Around this time, he faced difficulties at school and was transferred to a school for children with behavioural problems. He was also fifteen years old when he entered a boxing club. He continued his boxing training until he was twenty-three years old.

[23] Mr. Bandaogo has completed Secondary IV. He started a diploma of professional studies in building design in Quebec but never completed this course of study.

[24] In his twenties, Mr. Bandaogo regularly consumed drugs including crystal methamphetamine, amphetamines, cocaine and ecstacy. He has also tried opiates such as smoked heroin, GHB, LSD and hallucinogenic mushrooms.

[25] In 2018, Mr. Bandaogo took part in two therapy programs targeting addiction at Toxi-Co-Gîtes in Quebec. The first program was a failure because he was expelled for showing aggressive behaviour and selling drugs. The second program ended in a similar way because Mr. Bandaogo had an altercation with another client.

[26] As previously stated, Mr. Bandaogo came to British Columbia in February 2021. He lived on the streets and used social services for the homeless. He spent his time taking the SkyTrain and walking along the waterfront while smoking marijuana. He did not have any friends and did not maintain contact with his family. At the beginning of March 2021, he tried to contact his father to obtain some money but did not receive any response.

[27] Two expert reports concerning Mr. Bandaogo's psychiatric state were admitted into evidence. The first, dated March 23, 2023, was prepared by Dr. Marie-Michelle Boulanger, a forensic psychiatrist. This report was prepared by request of the Crown. The second, dated May 1, 2023, was prepared by Dr. Joel Watts, a forensic psychiatrist. This report was prepared by request of the defense.

[28] The two experts agree that Mr. Bandaogo suffers from antipersonal society disorder. In particular, he shows signs of aggression, irritability, impulsiveness and a lack of consideration for the well-being of others.

Criminal history

[29] Mr. Bandaogo has an adult criminal history beginning in 2014 and consisting of thirteen convictions:

one conviction for operating a conveyance while impaired;
one conviction for failure to stop after an accident;
one conviction for breach of a court order;
one conviction for obstruction of a peace officer;
two convictions for assault;
two convictions for assault causing bodily harm;
two convictions for uttering threats;
three convictions for assault on a peace officer;

Pre-sentence detention

[30] Paragraphs 719(3) and (3.1) of the Criminal Code provide:

(3) Pour fixer la peine à infliger à une personne déclarée coupable d'une infraction, le tribunal peut prendre en compte toute période que la personne a passée sous garde par suite de l'infraction. Il doit le cas échéant restreindre le temps alloué pour cette période à un maximum de un jour pour chaque jour passé sous garde.
(3.1) Malgré le paragraphe 3, si les circonstances le justifient, le maximum est de un jour et demi pour chaque jour passé sous garde.

(3) In determining the sentence to be imposed on a person convicted of an offence, a court may take into account any time spent in custody by the person as a result of the offence but the court shall limit any credit for that time to a maximum of one day for each day spent in custody.
(3.1) Despite subsection (3), if the circumstances justify it, the maximum is one and one-half days for each day spent in custody.

[31] Mr. Bandaogo has spent 159 days in custody for the counts currently before the court. The Crown and the defense agree that a credit of a day and a half per day of custody is appropriate. This amounts to 239 days or approximately eight months credit.

Victim impact

[32] By virtue of s. 722 of the Criminal Code, the court must consider all victim impact statements. I have in evidence the victim impact statements of A.M.B.'s mother and father; A.M.B.'s boyfriend's mother, Mary Bradshaw; Susanne Till; Emma Henderson; Emma Henderson's mother, Jenny Henderson; Haya Newman and Mahnaz Kolahi.

[33] I listened attentively to all the victims who provided an oral statement. Additionally, I re-read all the written statements in evidence to ensure that I have a comprehensive understanding of the massive impact that the offences of Mr. Bandaogo have had on the victims and their families. In their written submissions, the Crown writes:

En quelques minutes, le 27 mars 2021, Yannick Bandaogo a détruit la vie de nombreuses personnes. La communauté de Lynn Valley a été fortement ébranlée et traumatisée, un traumatisme qui se répercute encore aujourd'hui.

On March 27, 2021, within the span of a few minutes, Yannick Bandaogo destroyed the lives of numerous individuals. The Lynn Valley community was shakened and traumatized. The trauma reverberates to this day.

[34] I adopt these statements.

[35] In my opinion, it is evident that Mr. Bandaogo's monstruous and criminal actions have had devastating consequences for the victims and their families. The victim impact statements explain how that sadness, depression, anger and psychological trauma are now a part of their daily lives.

Positions of the Crown and the defense

[36] The Crown and the defense have put forward a joint sentencing submission they deem appropriate for Mr. Bandaogo.

[37] For the count of second-degree murder, for which I must impose a sentence of life imprisonment, the Crown and defense propose a joint sentence of fifteen year period of parole ineligibility.

[38] For each count of attempted murder, the prosecution and defense propose a joint sentence of eight years' imprisonment concurrent to the life imprisonment sentence for the count of second-degree murder.

[39] For the count of aggravated assault, the prosecution and defense propose a joint sentence of three years' imprisonment concurrent to the sentences imposed for second-degree murder and attempted murder.

[40] Additionally, the Crown and defense agree on the following ancillary orders:

an order pursuant to s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code that Mr. Bandaogo provide a sample of his DNA; and
an order pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code forbidding Mr. Bandaogo from possessing firearms for life.

Analysis

Objectives and principles of sentencing

[41] In fashioning an appropriate sentence, I must take into consideration the objectives and principles of sentencing as set out in s. 718, 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

[42] The objectives of sentencing are found in s. 718, which reads:

Le prononcé des peines a pour objectif essentiel de protéger la société et de contribuer, parallèlement à d'autres initiatives de prévention du crime, au respect de la loi et au maintien d'une société juste, paisible et sûre par l'infliction de sanctions justes visant un ou plusieurs des objectifs suivants :

a) dénoncer le comportement illégal et le tort causé par celui-ci aux victimes ou à la collectivité;
b) dissuader les délinquants, et quiconque, de commettre des infractions;
c) isoler, au besoin, les délinquants du reste de la société;
d) favoriser la réinsertion sociale des délinquants;
e) assurer la réparation des torts causés aux victimes ou à la collectivité;
f) susciter la conscience de leurs responsabilités chez les délinquants, notamment par la reconnaissance du tort qu'ils ont causé aux victimes ou à la collectivité.

The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.

[43] S. 718.1 of the Criminal Code provides the fundamental principle of sentencing which the court must consider when determining a punishment. It stipulates that the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offense and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[44] S. 718.2 of the Criminal Code provides a non-exhaustive list of other principles which the court must consider when determining a punishment, including aggravating and mitigating circumstances pertinent to the perpetration of the crime and the circumstances of the accused.

[45] I repeat that the Crown and the defense have presented a joint sentencing recommendation for Mr. Bandaogo. The Supreme Court of Canada has provided useful and effective guidance for sentencing when there exists a joint sentencing recommendation. In R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, Justice Moldaver explained:

[25] Le fait, pour les avocats du ministère public et de la défense, de convenir d'une recommandation conjointe relative à la peine en échange d'un plaidoyer de culpabilité constitue une pratique acceptée et tout à fait souhaitable. Les ententes de cette nature sont monnaie courante, et elles sont essentielles au bon fonctionnement de notre système de justice pénale et de notre système de justice en général. Habituellement, de telles ententes n'ont rien d'exceptionnel, et les juges du procès les acceptent d'emblée. À l'occasion cependant, une recommandation conjointe peut sembler trop clémente, ou peut-être trop sévère, et le juge du procès n'est pas tenu de l'accepter ... Dans de tels cas, les juges ont besoin d'un critère pour apprécier le caractère acceptable de la recommandation conjointe. La question se pose alors : quel critère appliquer?
...
[32] Selon le critère de l'intérêt public, un juge du procès ne devrait pas écarter une recommandation conjointe relative à la peine, à moins que la peine proposée soit susceptible de déconsidérer l'administration de la justice ou qu'elle soit par ailleurs contraire à l'intérêt public ...
...
[34] ... il ne faudrait pas rejeter trop facilement une recommandation conjointe ... Le rejet dénote une recommandation à ce point dissociée des circonstances de l'infraction et de la situation du contrevenant que son acceptation amènerait les personnes renseignées et raisonnables, au fait de toutes les circonstances pertinentes, y compris l'importance de favoriser la certitude dans les discussions en vue d'un règlement, à croire que le système de justice avait cessé de bien fonctionner. Il s'agit indéniablement d'un seuil élevé ...
[35] Les plaidoyers de culpabilité consentis en échange de recommandations conjointes relatives à la peine constituent une [TRADUCTION] "partie appropriée et nécessaire de l'administration de la justice criminelle" ... Lorsque les ententes sur le plaidoyer sont "menées correctement, [elles] sont bénéfiques non seulement pour les accusés, mais aussi pour les victimes, les témoins, les avocats et l'administration de la justice en général" ...
[36] Les personnes accusées tirent un avantage à plaider coupable en échange d'une recommandation conjointe relative à la peine ... L'avantage le plus évident est le fait que le ministère public accepte de recommander une peine que l'accusé est disposé à accepter. Cette recommandation est susceptible d'être plus clémente que ce à quoi l'accusé pourrait s'attendre à l'issue d'un procès ou d'une audience de détermination de la peine contestée. Les personnes accusées qui plaident coupables rapidement sont en mesure de minimiser le stress et les frais liés aux procès. De plus, pour ceux qui éprouvent des remords sincères, un plaidoyer de culpabilité offre une occasion de commencer à reconnaître leurs torts. Pour de nombreux accusés, il est crucial de favoriser au plus haut point la certitude quant au résultat - et une recommandation conjointe, même si elle n'est pas inviolable, offre à cet égard une assurance considérable.
...
[39] Du point de vue du ministère public, l'acceptation certaine, ou presque certaine, de recommandations conjointes relatives à la peine offre plusieurs avantages potentiels. Premièrement, la garantie d'une déclaration de culpabilité qui accompagne un plaidoyer de culpabilité rend le règlement souhaitable ... Il peut y avoir des failles dans le dossier du ministère public, comme un témoin réticent, un témoin de valeur douteuse ou un élément de preuve potentiellement inadmissible - des problèmes pouvant mener à un acquittement. En convenant d'une recommandation conjointe en échange d'un plaidoyer de culpabilité, le ministère public évite ce risque. Deuxièmement, l'accusé peut avoir des renseignements ou un témoignage à offrir au ministère public pouvant s'avérer inestimable dans le cadre d'autres enquêtes ou poursuites… Troisièmement, le ministère public peut considérer qu'il vaut mieux régler un dossier donné dans l'intérêt des victimes ou des témoins. Lorsqu'un accusé plaide coupable en échange d'une recommandation conjointe relative à la peine, on épargne aux victimes et aux témoins [TRADUCTION] "le coût, au plan émotionnel, d'un procès" ... De plus, les victimes peuvent trouver du réconfort dans un plaidoyer de culpabilité, étant donné que cela "indique que l'accusé reconnaît sa responsabilité et peut équivaloir à une expression de remords" ...

[25] It is an accepted and entirely desirable practice for Crown and defence counsel to agree to a joint submission on sentence in exchange for a plea of guilty. Agreements of this nature are commonplace and vitally important to the well-being of our criminal justice system, as well as our justice system at large. Generally, such agreements are unexceptional and they are readily approved by trial judges without any difficulty. Occasionally, however, a joint submission may appear to be unduly lenient, or perhaps unduly harsh, and trial judges are not obliged to go along with them ... In such cases, trial judges need a test against which to measure the acceptability of the joint submission. The question is: What test?
...
[32] Under the public interest test, a trial judge should not depart from a joint submission on sentence unless the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest ...
...
[34] ... a joint submission should not be rejected lightly ... Rejection denotes a submission so unhinged from the circumstances of the offence and the offender that its acceptance would lead reasonable and informed persons, aware of all the relevant circumstances, including the importance of promoting certainty in resolution discussions, to believe that the proper functioning of the justice system had broken down. This is an undeniably high threshold ...
[35] Guilty pleas in exchange for joint submissions on sentence are a "proper and necessary part of the administration of criminal justice" ... When plea resolutions are "properly conducted [they] benefit not only the accused, but also victims, witnesses, counsel, and the administration of justice generally" ...
[36] Accused persons benefit by pleading guilty in exchange for a joint submission on sentence ... The most obvious benefit is that the Crown agrees to recommend a sentence that the accused is prepared to accept. This recommendation is likely to be more lenient than the accused might expect after a trial and/or contested sentencing hearing. Accused persons who plead guilty promptly are able to minimize the stress and legal costs associated with trials. Moreover, for those who are truly remorseful, a guilty plea offers an opportunity to begin making amends. For many accused, maximizing certainty as to the outcome is crucial - and a joint submission, though not inviolable, offers considerable comfort in this regard.
...
[39] From the Crown's perspective, the certain or near certain acceptance of joint submissions on sentence offers several potential benefits. First, the guarantee of a conviction that comes with a guilty plea makes resolution desirable ... The Crown's case may suffer from flaws, such as an unwilling witness, a witness of dubious worth, or evidence that is potentially inadmissible - problems that can lead to an acquittal. By agreeing to a joint submission in exchange for a guilty plea, the Crown avoids this risk. Second, the accused may have information or testimony to offer the Crown that can prove invaluable to other investigations or prosecutions. But this information may not be forthcoming absent an agreement as to a joint submission. Third, the Crown may consider it best to resolve a particular case for the benefit of victims or witnesses. When an accused pleads guilty in exchange for a joint submission on sentence, victims and witnesses are spared the "the emotional cost of a trial" ... Moreover, victims may obtain some comfort from a guilty plea, given that it "indicates an accused’s acknowledgement of responsibility and may amount to an expression of remorse" ...

Applicable legal framework

Second-degree murder

[46] The mandatary sentence prescribed by the Criminal Code for second-degree murder is life imprisonment. The period of parole ineligibility is an element of the sentence. For second-degree murder, the minimum period is ten years. Depending on the circumstances, the court may increase this period up to twenty-five years.

Second-degree murder

[47] The maximum sentence for attempted murder is life imprisonment. There is no minimum penalty.

Aggravated assault

[48] The maximum sentence for aggravated assault is fourteen years. There is no minimum penalty.

Jurisprudence

Second-degree murder

[49] In their submissions, the Crown and the defense referred me to several decisions where the parole ineligibility period was set between fourteen and eighteen years.

[50] In R. v. Miel, 2017 BCSC 1446, the accused was found guilty of second-degree murder in a jury trial. The offender attacked the victim with a hatchet, striking him fifty times. The attack was excessive and brutal. The offender was young and had limited criminal history. The court concluded that the offender's schizophrenia made her dangerous and justified a parole ineligibility period of fourteen years.

[51] In R. v. Klein, 2021 BCSC 1391, the accused was found guilty of second-degree murder in a judge-alone trial. The offender stabbed two other children in her school. One girl passed away. The other was seriously injured. The offender was young and did not have a criminal history. The period of parole ineligibility was set at sixteen years.

[52] In R. c. Côté, 2021 JQ 6620^TR1, the accused was found guilty of second-degree murder in a jury trial. The offender used a firearm. He had a considerable criminal history. He was violent, impulsive and did not show respect for others' lives. An eighteen-year period of parole ineligibility was set.

[53] Finally, in R. v. Schuff, 2021 MBCA 54, the accused was found guilty of second-degree murder after a jury trial. The Manitoba Court of Appeal upheld a fifteen-year period of parole ineligibility imposed by the trial judge.

Attempted murder

[54] In regards to the sentence for attempted murder, counsel brought my attention to two decisions.

[55] In R. v. Dhaliwal, 2010 BCCA 50, the accused pleaded guilty to attempted murder. He had stabbed his wife while saying that he was going to kill her. The offender had no criminal history. The trial judge sentenced the offender to eight years' imprisonment. The sentence was upheld on appeal.

[56] In R. v. Fletcher, 2013 BCSC 2159, the accused, having been kicked out of a bar, returned with a firearm and fired in the direction of the bar fourteen times. One person was seriously injured. The offender pleaded guilty to attempted murder and other counts. The court accepted a joint sentencing proposal and imposed a sentence of eight years' imprisonment.

Aggravated assault

[57] In R. v. Craig, 2005 BCCA 484, the range for aggravated assault was set between two and six years' imprisonment.

Aggravating factors

[58] The Crown and the defense agreed on the following aggravating factors:

Mr. Bandaogo has a criminal history that includes several convictions for crimes of violence;
Mr. Bandaogo was subject to two probation orders when he committed the crimes in this case;
Mr. Bandaogo used a hunting knife in the commission of these crimes and possessing such a knife was a violation of his probation orders;
Mr. Bandaogo attacked three people in a peaceful and crowded community centre and four others who were just outside;
the impact on the victims and the Lynn Valley community continue to this day.

Mitigating factors

[59] For mitigating factors, I have taken into account that Mr. Bandaogo has pleaded to all counts against him.

[60] The plea demonstrates Mr. Bandaogo's remorse and understanding of his responsibility for his actions. I note that I carefully listened to Mr. Bandaogo's statement to the court. Additionally, I have taken into account Mr. Bandaogo's mother's statement which explains the family history of her child and expresses her sadness and remorse for the horrific crimes that Mr. Bandaogo has committed.

[61] Furthermore, Mr. Bandaogo's guilty plea has reduced the burden on the judicial system and avoided the elevated expenses inherent to a trial.

[62] More importantly, the victims and their families have been spared from needing to testify in a trial. Having to relive the horrors of March 27, 2021 and recount the events of that day to a jury would have been traumatizing.

Decision

[63] I am of the view that the primary sentencing factors I must consider in the case at bar are the denunciation of unlawful conduct and specific and general deterrence of Mr. Bandaogo's monstruous actions. These principles necessitate Mr. Bandaogo's separation from society for the protection of the public.

[64] Even though Mr. Bandaogo is not able to explain the reasons for his violent and monstruous attacks on strangers in North Vancouver, by pleading guilty, he has taken responsibility for his crimes and has accepted the serious repurcussions associated with them.

[65] In my view, the degree of moral responsibility of Mr. Bandaogo is elevated. I accept the Crown's position that the degree of danger that Mr. Bandaogo represents is an important consideration. Taking the principles of sentencing into account and after thorough consideration, I accept the joint sentencing recommendation of the Crown and the defense.

[66] To use the words of Justice Moldaver in Anthony-Cook, I conclude that the joint sentencing proposal is just and appropriate and would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute. In my humble opinion, it is manifestly in the public interest to adopt the joint sentencing recommendation.

[67] Please stand, Mr. Bandaogo.

[68] Mr. Bandaogo, you have pleaded guilty to horrific crimes. During your furious rampage on March 27, 2021, you caused the death of A.M.B., a young girl who had a whole life ahead of her. Additionally, you inflicted several serious injuries and caused psychological trauma to other victims of your crimes.

[69] By pleading guilty, you admitted that when you attacked A.M.B., Ms. Klausen, Mr. Mortenson, Ms. Till, Ms. Henderson and Ms. Newman, you had the specific intent to kill them. In regards to Ms. Kolahi, you have admitted that you intentionally assaulted her.

[70] Therefore, I impose the following sentences on you:

for count 1, second-degree murder of A.M.B., I sentence you to life in prison. Additionally, you will not be eligible for parole before serving fifteen years of your sentence;
for counts 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, the counts for attempted murder, I sentence you to eight years' imprisonment for each count; and
for count 6, aggravated assault, I sentence you to three years' imprisonment.

[71] Each of these sentences will be served concurrently.

[72] You may be seated.

[73] As I previously indicated, Mr. Bandaogo has accrued 239 days of pre-sentence credit. I grant eight months of credit for this period of incarceration. This credit will apply to the three-years sentence on count 6.

Ancillary orders

[74] The defense does not oppose the ancillary orders as set out by the Crown. In the circumstances, the ancillary orders appear to be appropriate. Consequently, I order that:

pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code, Mr. Bandaogo is prohibited from posessing firearms and ammunition for life; and
pursuant to s. 487.051 ofr the Criminal Code, I authorize the taking of bodily substances for the purposes of forensic DNA analysis.

[75] Mr. Loucks, Mr. Deschamps, is there anything else?

[76] MR. LOUCKS: The only question remaining is about the victim surcharge. In the circumstances, I cannot imagine that Mr. Bandaogo is currently or would ever be in a position to pay it.

[77] THE COURT: Mr. Rivard, do you have any submissions on the victim surcharge?

[78] MR. RIVARD: Yes. We ask that Mr. Bandaogo be exempted.

[79] THE COURT: I agree and accept the proposal. Therefore, I will not impose a victim surcharge. Thank you, Mr. Loucks, for raising that. Anything else before we conclude?

[80] MR. LOUCKS: Nothing else, thank you.

[81] THE COURT: Mr. Rivard, anything else?

[82] MR. RIVARD: No.

[83] THE COURT: Very well, that will bring an end to this tragic and horrific affair. I thank the Crown counsel, Mr. Loucks, Mr. Deschamps, and defense counsel, Mr. Rivard and Mr. Garih, for your efforts in this matter. You have done very well.

[84] We are adjourned.

"The Honourable G.R.J. GAUL J.

TR1. 2021 QCCS 2449 (CanLII)