Appeal tossed in Coquitlam cocaine trafficking case

A man who was found guilty of trafficking after tossing a brick of cocaine into a police officer’s unmarked car recently had his appeal rejected, following a recent Court of Appeal decision.

In the spring of 2019, Kevin Scott was sitting in his car in a mall parking lot when he made eye contact with a plainclothes Coquitlam RCMP officer in an unmarked car.

Scott nodded at the officer, who was in the parking lot doing surveillance for a different drug trafficking investigation, according to court documents.

The officer drove out of the lot and Scott followed, trailing him to the staff parking lot at the Coquitlam RCMP detachment.

The officer was planning to ask Scott why he was following when Scott, “tossed a tote bag into the constable’s car.” There was one kilogram of cocaine in the tote.

The two had a brief conversation about “the paper” before the officer told Scott he was going to “park properly.”

He called for uniformed officers and Scott, realizing the situation, tried to flee, “driving over a curb and endangering nearby pedestrians.”

After a brief pursuit, Scott parked and got out of his car. Before being arrested, he stomped on his two cellphones.

Besides the cocaine, Scott was carrying more than $85,000 in cash. He also had nearly 500 grams of MDA in a compartment under the front passenger seat, according to the judgment.

After pleading guilty, Scott was eventually sentenced to 26 months in prison for trafficking and for possession for the purpose of trafficking.

‘Real remorse’

Scott provided reference letters and proof of employment at his sentencing hearing.

Besides apologizing to the court and having “expressed real remorse,” Scott showed himself to be a productive member of society, according to the judgment.

He provided for his children financially and took responsibility for his daughter who is disabled and legally blind.

The judge concluded that Scott’s imprisonment would have an unfortunate effect on his children, but it was an: “unavoidable consequence of his criminal activity”

Elements of the appeal

The judge was wrong to find Scott: “demonstrated a level of sophistication and planning,” Scott argued in his appeal.

Because of that mistake, the judge didn’t give “serious consideration” to letting Scott serve his sentence in the community, Scott contended.

Scott also argued stomping the cellphones shouldn’t have been considered an aggravating factor, as it was: “informing his level of remorse,” according to the judgment.

His arguments failed to persuade the three justices ruling on his appeal.

“Scott may have been ‘entitled’ to destroy his own phones . . . but it was open to the judge to draw the inference she did,” wrote Justice Mary Newbury.

Generally, the Court of Appeal can only interfere with a sentence if the original judge made an error in principle, failed to consider something relevant, or “wrongly considered an aggravating or mitigating factor” when determining the sentence.

In this case, “no error has been shown,” Newbury wrote.

The original judge acknowledged Scott was: “essentially rehabilitated and that further deterrence is unnecessary for him personally.”

However, the judge had to balance the impact on Scott with other factors including deterrence, and to ensure the sentence wouldn’t be reduced to the point where it became: “disproportionate to the gravity of the offence.”

Newbury concurred.

“In my view, no error has been shown in the sentencing judge’s reasons and it is not open to us to substitute a different sentence merely because we might have reached a different result,” Newbury wrote. Two other justices agreed.