PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN JODY LYNN LOCKHART

Transcription

1 PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION Citation: Queen v. Lockhart 2005 PESCTD 51 Date: Docket: S2-GC-9 Registry: Summerside BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN AND: JODY LYNN LOCKHART Appearances: Before: The Honourable Justice David H. Jenkins Decision on Sentencing David P. O Brien, Q.C. - Solicitor for the Crown Patricia L. Cheverie - Solicitor for the Offender Place and date of hearing - Summerside, Prince Edward Island September 15, 2005 Place and date of sentencing - Summerside, Prince Edward Island October 7, 2005

2 Citation: Queen v. Lockhart 2005 PESCTD 51 Date: Docket: S2-GC-9 Registry: Summerside Between: And: Her Majesty the Queen Jody Lynn Lockhart Prince Edward Island Supreme Court - Trial Division Before: Jenkins J. Date of Sentencing Hearing: September 15, 2005 Date of Sentencing: October 7, 2005 (11 pages) Criminal Law Sentencing - Aggravated Assault - Section 268(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada shaken baby syndrome sentence of two years imprisonment in a penitentiary. Cases Considered: R. v. Habib (2000), 147 C.C.C. (3d) 444 (Ont.C.A.); R. v. Ewen, [2000] S.J. No. 155 (Sask.C.A.); R. v. McCrindle, [1997] O.J. No (Ont.Ct.Jus., Gen. Div.); R. v. Matteau, [2005] J.Q. No (Que.Ct.-Crim.Div.); R. v. S.E.C., 2003 BCCA. No. 421; R. v. Weiler (1991), 92 Nfld. & PEIR 87 (PESCTD); R. v. Evans, [1996] A.J. No. 233, (Alta. Prov.Ct.); R. v. Pike, [2000] O.J. No. 5715, (Ont. S.C.J.); R. v. Carle, [2001] B.C.J. No (BCCA); R. v. Gallant, [2002] PEIJ. No. 44; R. v. T.S., [2005] Q.J. No. 102 (Que.Ct.-Crim. Div.); R. v. Creighton (1993), 83 CCC (3d) 346; R. v. Proulx, [2002] 1 SCR 61 (SCC). David P. O Brien, Q.C. - Solicitor for the Crown Patricia L. Cheverie - Solicitor for the Offender

3 Jenkins J.: [1] On July 15, 2004, Spencer Green Bradshaw, a seven and a half month old baby, was in the care of Jody Lynn Lockhart within her day-care service in Summerside. Spencer was placed there by his parents, who entrusted Ms. Lockhart with his care. A total of six children three babies, two toddlers, and Ms. Lockhart s 3 ½ year old daughter were in Ms. Lockhart s care. The other children were playing in the livingroom, and Spencer was in the playpen in a bedroom. Some of the children were quite active, and crying ensued. Spencer too started to cry. Ms. Lockhart was trying to attend to all the children. On top of this activity, the phone was ringing; Ms. Lockhart thought it was her ex-boyfriend who had been calling persistently, and she was trying to ignore the phone. Ms. Lockhart succeeded in obtaining some calm; Spencer was still crying. [2] Ms. Lockhart went to Spencer, she shook him, although she does not remember how long she shook him. Then she left the bedroom, got his bottle, tried to give Spencer his bottle, but he didn t want it. Ms. Lockhart became worried that she had hurt Spencer, but she hoped she had not hurt him. [3] Tragically though, she had. Spencer suffered a significant brain injury. Immediately, his life was in danger and he experienced seizures. In the days and months following, he experienced numerous medical procedures and great suffering. A year later, Spencer has been found to have suffered significant developmental delay. His prognosis is that he will continue to have very significant long-term problems, and he may need life-long support. [4] After the shaking episode, Ms. Lockhart saw Spencer exhibit projectile vomiting and drowsiness. She did not report the occurrence to the parents or as an emergency. Instead, she waited until Spencer s mother came to pick him up at the end of the day, and then misled her, by reporting that Spencer had fallen, and by understating his symptoms. Over the course of the next day, when Spencer s life was imperiled, Ms. Lockhart remained in denial. She was resistant to a Social Services investigation about her involvement in Spencer s injury and regarding the quality of her day care. Later on, Ms. Lockhart come to realize her responsibility and the seriousness of the consequences for Spencer and his parents. She became fully cooperative and fully remorseful. [5] The offender s conduct amounts to the offence of assault contrary to s. 268(1) of the Criminal Code, which is aggravated assault. The Offender was charged with that offence. She pleaded guilty. [6] A sentencing hearing occurred, during which counsel for the Crown and the

4 Page: 2 Defence made very able and thorough submissions, and I had the benefit of an agreed statement of facts, including medical reports about Spencer s injury, treatment, diagnosis, progress, and prognosis; a very thoughtful and poignant Victim Impact Statement prepared by Jennifer Green, mother of Spencer, on behalf of the Bradshaw family victims; and information about the Offender Jody Lynn Lockhart, through a thorough pre-sentence report; and many positive references about Ms. Lockhart s character. [7] The responsibility now rests with this Court to reach and pronounce a fit sentence. A fit sentence is a sentence that is in accordance with the purpose and principles of sentencing in Canadian criminal law. Parliament has set out directions for sentencing in the Criminal Code. The fundamental principle contains two considerations: a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence; and to the degree of responsibility of the offender. Most sentence decisions are challenging for judges, because many considerations enter into the mix. The circumstances of the victim, the offence, and the offender combine to make the matter now before the Court especially difficult. The offence is grave.! In its occurrence, the offence is an egregious breach of trust. A baby of 7 ½ months was placed by parents in the trust and care of Ms. Lockhart because she was an accredited, experienced day-care provider who was known by the parents to be capable and suitable. This trust was breached by the baby Spencer having been violently shaken. As a result, Spencer suffered Shaken Baby Syndrome.! Its consequence is grave for the most direct victim baby Spencer. His initial struggle for survival, his continuous suffering during treatment and recuperation, and the diminishment, short and long-term, in his development, his being, and his enjoyment of life. It is impossible not to have a human reaction of grief and sorrow over Spencer s suffering and his prospects and limitations.! Its consequences are grave for Spencer s parents Rodney Bradshaw and Jennifer Green. Their lives are directly and permanently affected, and their relationship with their child Spencer is irrevocably changed. They will continue to cherish and love their son; however, in so much of their lives together, their enjoyment of life, as individuals and family will be substituted by the attention to Spencer s special needs and the introduction of untold challenges within their home and family life.

5 Page: 3! Its consequence for Spencer s parents within the criminal law has been serious and unfortunate. They were made suspects. At the same time they were fighting for Spencer s life and distraught for Spencer s future, they were subjected to having to show they did not abuse or assault their own baby. [8] The other fundamental factor stated in the Criminal Code for consideration is the degree of responsibility of the offender. [9] The criminal law contemplates that maximum sentences are reserved to the worst offender in the worst circumstances. The offender in the present case does not represent either of those criterion. [10] Jody Lynn Lockhart is responsible for Spencer s plight. She acknowledges that. She is now genuinely, fully, and unconditionally remorseful. Within the Court s recognition of her responsibility, it is understood too that her level of culpability, in a criminal context, is relatively low. Jody Lynn Lockhart said from the start, and I believe her, that she did not want to harm Spencer, and that she hoped she had not harmed him. From the agreed upon facts and the pre-sentence report, I discern that when Ms. Lockhart shook Spencer, she was in a state of frustration and anxiousness within her day care she was trying to control six children, ages 7 ½ months to 4 ½ years and with the phone ringing and reminding her of her personal domestic problems. The baby Spencer was crying; and she shook him. I infer that Jody Lynn had no intention or wish to harm Spencer. She had a momentary lapse. She was not shown to be motivated by anger or mean-spirit, or intention to commit violence or to cause harm. I do not accept the characterization submitted by the Crown that the PSR shows the offender as a person who places her own needs first. That is not my conclusion about her demonstrated character. Ms. Lockhart s actions here were a single incident. She tried afterwards to comfort Spencer. Tragically, the single incident resulted in severe consequences. Ms. Lockhart then made a second serious error, by misleading Spencer s mother, and covering up her own involvement. [11] To be clear, the Court does not relieve Jody Lynn Lockhart of responsibility of her actions. That said, the offender s motivation and the circumstances are relevant. The challenge in this sentencing is to balance the two fundamental tenets an offence of serious gravity, perpetrated by relatively low culpability and arrive at a fit sentence. A fit sentence considers the principles of sentencing in the context of the lives affected and the harm done. The Court needs to consider Spencer, his parents, and the offender, whose child will be directly affected by her sentence, and to also consider the community.

6 Page: 4 [12] Following on from consideration of the fundamental principles, consideration is to be given to the other sentencing principles. This involves taking into account and giving appropriate weight to relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. Counsel agree on the identification of most of these factors, but they diverge on the weight. Aggravating factors:! The offender was in a position of trust, and she abused that position of trust. She was performing a paid service of day care for the children placed in her care by parents, including Spencer. Indeed, Spencer s parents chose Jody Lockhart over other daycare services, because she was known to them since school days. This is a significant aggravating factor regarding this particular offence; and it is specifically stipulated in the Criminal Code as an aggravating factor. In this case, Spencer s parents fully entrusted the care and well-being of Spencer in Ms. Lockhart. In this exclusive setting, she violently shook Spencer, thereby committing an assault on a dependent and defenceless baby.! Once the shaking incident occurred, Spencer lapsed into a state of drowsiness, and experienced episodes of projectile vomiting. The Offender did not respond appropriately. As a trained/accredited day care operator, she can be taken to have known that Spencer was seriously compromised. Yet she did not call 911, or Spencer s parents; and worse still, she reported false information to the parents that actually misled them, prevented effective medical response, and compromised Spencer s chances of survival. Further, this cover-up attempt involved the police authorities and Spencer s parents in an unnecessary and psychologically gruelling investigation. The offender s conduct in the hours and the day following the primary incident is an aggravating factor.! The serious nature and degree of injury to Spencer is an aggravating factor. Shaken baby syndrome occurs when a child s head, which is proportionately large compared to an adult s and is poorly supported by the developing muscles, is whipped back and forth in rapid motion during a violent, forceful shaking of the child. There may or may not be an impact injury as with the shaking episode. Tragically for Spencer and his family, the shaking incident now before this Court caused serious injury. Spencer experienced frontal subdural bleeds within his head; he experienced seizures which almost prevented him from being removed by helicopter to the

7 Page: 5 IWK Hospital in Halifax for medically necessary emergency treatment. Spencer suffered retinal haemorrhages which were diagnostic of Shaken Baby Syndrome. A CT Scan showed intercranial bleeding, caused by an acute head injury. He experienced interhemispheric, subdural haematoma, which is blood between two hemispheres of the brain, and similar conditions in the side lobes and the back lobe of the brain; a week later a CT Scan showed multiple areas of cell death and haemorrhage diffusely spread through the cortex of the brain representing irreversible brain injury. Spencer was found to have suffered form a major trauma. The medical report advises that Spencer had clinical evidence of a significant global head injury. As well, the medical evidence advises the amount of force needed to produce subdural haemorrhaging is significant and would easily be recognizable to an onlooker as likely injurious to the child. The Offender forcefully shook Spencer, and as a result, he suffered a serious head injury, regarding which the degree of recovery was at first considered hard to predict. Over the next year, Spencer and his parents suffered a lot. Spencer received medical treatment, including a surgical procedure a ventriculo peritoneal shunt inserted six months later, and he then experienced some neurodevelopmental gains. He suffered irritability, sleep deprivation, vision problems, and significant developmental delay. A year following the event, the IWK medical assessment shows Spencer to continue to experience significant developmental delay in basic functions mobility, eating, social interaction, and speaking communication. Spencer has had a significant loss of brain tissue. He was performing at the level of a baby half his age, and although he will make gains, his prognosis shows life-time serious consequences. According to the pediatrician:... he will continue to have very significant long-term problems, and I suspect he will need life-long supervision. Mitigating factors: [13] Weighed against those very significant aggravating factors are compelling mitigating factors:! Jody Lynn Lockhart, 31 years old, is a person who has no criminal record. This is her only experience with the criminal law. This is a significant mitigating factor. The Criminal Code sentencing provisions direct that an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances, and as well that all available sanctions other than imprisonment should be considered for all offenders. This offence appears to have been

8 Page: 6 grounded in relatively low culpability and to be out mostly of character for the offender.! Ms. Lockhart became remorseful for her action soon after the day of the incident and then continuously throughout to the sentencing hearing. Within the sentencing hearing, she made a full and unqualified statement of her remorse, which I received as being informed and sincere. Consistent with her remorse and her acceptance of responsibility, after she got beyond her initial denial and unfortunate cover-up actions, Ms. Lockhart pleaded guilty to the offence charged. This is a mitigating factor on a number of counts (1) it acknowledges guilt, (2) expresses remorse and responsibility, and (3) it avoids the angst of trial for Spencer s family and for the community.! The offender knows that what has been done cannot be undone. Consistent with her genuine expressions of acceptance of responsibility, she has already provided some financial restitution to the extent of $4,000 of her own volition, as contribution toward the financial expenses incurred and being incurred by Spencer s parents since the offence occurred. This is not a lot of money in relation to the loss, but it does relate to the stated direct expenses, and it is probably significant in relation to Ms. Lockhart s modest means. The purpose and principles of sentencing involve showing respect for the law, and to that end the principles include providing reparations to victims for harm done and promoting a sense of responsibility and acknowledgement in offenders.! Some circumstances of the offence are mitigating. The offence was a single incident, as opposed to being part of a pattern of conduct; and it was neither planned nor motivated by meanness of spirit.! A fifth mitigating factor, though not least, is the largely positive presentation that is made before the Court about Jody Lynn Lockhart, the person. Sentences are to be designed to reflect not only the offence committed, but the offender as a person. Jody Lynn Lockhart was age 30 when this crime was committed, and she is now age 31. She comes from a strong family with positive values within which she experienced a good upbringing. Her family continues to offer her unconditional support. She is educated. She graduated from high school in 1992, and then from a two year Early Childhood Education program in She has had something of a mixed experience in her employment; while she worked in various jobs in day care, and as a nanny. From June 2003 until the date of the offence, she operated her own non-licenced day care facility in which she usually cared for six children, some part days and others all day. Ms. Lockhart has experienced some challenges from emotional

9 Page: 7 stress and has made some efforts to address the concerns. She self-referred for counselling in 1997, and subsequently realized she was pregnant. In 2000, she and her male friend experienced relationship problems, and she again engaged in counselling. In her counsellor s assessment, she presented as immature, having poor self-esteem, being unable to compromise, having problems dealing with anger, and seeming to tend to miss social cues. Following the offence, she acknowledges that she presently has some anger management problems, but she sees this as relating only to adults. Jody Lynn Lockhart is a mother, a single parent of a daughter born December 12, The pre-sentence report advises she has a great deal of love for her daughter, now almost five, and her parenting was not observed as inappropriate. [14] Our sentencing principles embrace restorative justice. As such, a sentence needs to be sensitive to the opportunity for the offender to become rehabilitated and a positive contributor to her family, the community and our society. I know that this sentencing decision will have a life-long effect not only on the victims, but also on Jody Lynn Lockhart, her daughter, and her family. [15] The sentencing principles direct a sentencing judge to make a fit sentence. That includes pursuing uniformity by taking into account the range of sentences for similar offenders who have committed similar offences in similar circumstances. [16] Section 268 assault is a broad category of offence, which involves all aggravated assaults. The common theme is that all such offences are intentional acts, committed without consent of the victim, by which the victim is wounded, maimed, disfigured, or his life is endangered. The maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment, which is the second most serious offence in the Criminal Code; there is no minimum sentence. Even within the aggravated assault cases involving children, and even more particularly, cases regarding baby shaking, the case law precedents diverge. The cases tend to be fact-driven, considering the offence, the offender, and the related circumstances. [17] From the many case authorities that counsel brought to my attention, there is shown to be a wide range of sentence, from a high of six years imprisonment down to a low of a few months in jail, or a community based conditional sentence of something less than two years. [18] The appellate jurisprudence suggests a range of sentence for a typical case of aggravated assault involving shaken baby syndrome of three to five years served in a penitentiary, with the caveat that the range must extend to accommodate the rare or

10 Page: 8 exceptional case where the appropriate sentence is a jail term of less than two years, or a sentence served in the community: R. v. Habib (2000), 147 C.C.C. (3d) 444, (Ont.C.A.); or that two to four years is an appropriate sentence: R. v. Ewen, [2000] S.J. No. 155 (Sask.C.A.). [19] Beyond that generally stated range, in R. v. McCrindle, [1997] O.J. No (Ont. Ct. Jus., Gen. Div.) where a serious injury to a child ensued, and the offender s actions in the incident and of lying afterwards viewed as constituting a gross abuse of trust and extremely reprehensible, the sentence imposed was six years. In R. v. Matteau, [2005] J.Q. No (Que. Ct.-Crim.Div.) (translated) the operator of a family day-care who committed aggravated assault on a young child was sentenced to five years imprisonment. Matteau is based on a helpful synopsis of case law precedents. In R. v. S.E.C., 2003 B.C.C.A.. No. 421 which involved a serious offence by an offender who was found to have a propensity for violence, the sentence imposed was four years imprisonment. [20] There are many cases where the sentence imposed is in the range of two to three years, and some of those cases are sentences rendered by courts in this province. In R. v. Weiler (1991), 92 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 87 (PESCTD), an offender with a criminal record who exhibited a violent temper and committed an aggravated assault on a five-week old baby, where the assault was less serious than in the present case, was sentenced to two years less a day. [21] There are cases which have resulted in lesser sentences than that too. In R. v. Evans, [1996] A.J. No. 233, (Alta. Prov.Ct.), following a baby shaking incident where the prognosis for the child remained uncertain at the time of trial, the father was sentenced to six months imprisonment with two years probation. In R. v. Pike, [2000] O.J. No 5715, (Ont.S.C.J.), an offender with no previous criminal record was sentenced to a six-month conditional sentence, following an incident which the offender properly reported to the family and regarding which no permanent damage to the child resulted. In R. v. Carle, [2001] B.C.J. No (BCCA), an offender who shook a baby for a few seconds in frustration over the baby crying, and then pleaded guilty and took significant steps to address his problems, had his sentence reduced on appeal from 12 months to four months. The Court of Appeal considered the offender eligible for a conditional sentence, but for his time having been already served. The charge in Carle was criminal negligence causing bodily harm. Carle, juxtaposed with S.E.C., also a decision from the British Columbia Court of Appeal, shows how differences in the offence, the offender, and the consequences, affects the disposition on sentence. In Ewan, mentioned previously regarding range of sentence, where the mother s boyfriend shook a four month old baby and serious injury ensued, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of two years less a day, and stated

11 Page: 9 that a conditional sentence would not have been appropriate in the circumstances of that case. On the other hand, in Habib, where the offender had acted responsibly when it first appeared the child victim needed medical treatment, and the child recovered well from her injuries, the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the case rare and exceptional and confirmed a conditional sentence. [22] This case law is all instructive. However, within a fairly broad range, each case remains to be decided on its own facts and circumstances, and each case, the particulars and gravity of the offence are discrete; and the offender is an individual with particular characteristics. [23] Section 718 of the Criminal Code directs that the fundamental principle of sentencing is to contribute 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; (b) to deter the offender and others 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 acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community. [24] The case law contains various directions on the weight to be given to those objectives. The themes are sometimes competing and sometimes complementary. Generally, the primary objectives in sentencing a first offender are individual deterrence and rehabilitation: R. v. Pike, at para 14. On the other hand, where the victim of an assault is a child or a baby, specific and general deterrence are stated to be unquestionably important considerations : R. v. S.E.C., at para 16. In R. v. Gallant, [2002] P.E.I.J. No. 44, at para 15, Thompson PCJ stated that the courts have repeatedly indicated that young children are clearly in a category of individuals in our society who are in need of specific protection from criminal wrongdoing. Denunciation is also emphasized in child assault cases: R. v. T.S., [2005] Q.J. No. 102 (Que.Ct. - Crim. Div.). It has been pointed out in the case law too that in present-day Canadian society, reliable day care is important, to the point of being essential. A day care person is in a position of trust and receives remuneration for undertaking that high degree of trust. An abuse of that trust undermines public confidence in this basic societal component: R. v. Habib, at para 22. [25] In the present case, all these principles come into consideration, in the manner stated. [26] As the Supreme Court of Canada has advised, there is not necessarily a

12 Page: 10 symmetry between the act of an offender and the result: R. v. Creighton (1993), 83 CCC (3d) 346. In the present case, a single shaking incident during a moment of frustration resulted in life-threatening and life-long consequences. The result affects the crime charged and the sentence. [27] The Crown submits a period of imprisonment is necessary in this case, and suggests a sentence in the range of three years. The defence submits the circumstances merit a sentence of less than two years, which could be served as a conditional sentence in the community. [28] In my assessment, the considerations taken together and properly weighed suggest a period of imprisonment in a federal institution is the necessary and appropriate sentence. This sentence need not be much longer than two years. On the other hand, a sentence of much less than two years, and particularly a conditional sentence, would not be an adequate or fit sentence. [29] In this case, a baby, Spencer, was assaulted by his day care provider, in whose trust his being was placed at the time, and the consequences were tragic. In the offender s own circumstances it needs to be communicated to her, directly and effectively, that such conduct is to be deterred. A short penitentiary term will provide her with opportunity to appreciate fully the severity of her action, and thereby promote within her a full sense of responsibility for her actions, and to have access to counsellors toward rehabilitation of her underlying concerns. Hand in hand with the objective, this sentence provides a reasonable statement of society s denunciation of such criminal conduct, of society s commitment to protect our children from such harm, and accordingly conveys a message of general deterrence to other adults in positions of trust similar to the offender. [30] Considering the range of sentence cases, allowance is made for the absence of malicious intent to cause harm, for the offender s guilty plea, her absence of a criminal record, and for her genuine remorse. [31] Although I was not inclined toward a sentence of less than two years, I did consider whether a conditional sentence would be an appropriate sentence. Taking into account the provisions of s of the Criminal Code, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada in the R. v. Proulx, [2002] 1 SCR 61 compendium of cases, and appellate and trial court case law (some of which I have already mentioned), I am not satisfied that serving the sentence in the community would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing. A conditional sentence is available for all offences, including offences involving violence such as aggravated assault, and is available within the subset of cases involving baby shaking. It is recognized that a conditional sentence is punitive, and with imposition of appropriate

13 Page: 11 conditions can be made rigorous, and that a conditional sentence can express denunciation, and in some cases sufficiently promote specific and general deterrence. As well, it is understood that imprisonment is only to be employed where necessary. Upon application of the considerations advised by s and ss , it is my assessment that a conditional sentence would not accomplish the objectives that need to be accomplished in this case. As mentioned in para. 29 above, there are circumstances present that call for a period of imprisonment. The total vulnerability of the baby Spencer and other babies; the breach of trust by a day care operator working for remuneration and working alone; the tragic consequences for the victims of this particular crime; the damage to the community psyche that places reliance on safe and dependable day care; the offender s actions in the hours and the day following the event; the involvement by the offender in the day care vocation despite her own psychological concerns about herself; these and other factors and circumstances mentioned override the relatively low culpability for the actual offence and the mentioned mitigating factors in these reasons. In my assessment, the sentencing objectives in the Criminal Code could not be adequately served in this case by a conditional sentence. [32] This Court anticipates that the services provided by a federal women s prison and the related parole system will be beneficial to Ms. Lockhart in terms of her appreciation of her role and responsibility. [33] Jody Lynn Lockhart, for the offence of aggravated assault upon Spencer Green Bradshaw, contrary to s. 268(1) of the Criminal Code, this Court sentences you to a period of imprisonment of two years, to be served in a federal institution. [34] Pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code, this Court orders that you be prohibited from possessing any firearm, cross bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance, for a period of ten (10) years following her release from custody in this matter. [35] Pursuant to s. 487 of the Criminal Code, you are required to provide a DNA analysis. October 7, 2005 Justice David H. Jenkins