The case of a violent Lumby armed robbery heard closing submissions from the defence of one of the accused in B.C. Supreme Court in Vernon Friday morning, Jan. 10. 

Edward Coghill, 50, and Stewart Tkachuk, 53, were convicted of eight and nine charges, respectively, following a trial in February 2024. The stem from a home invasion on Dure Meadow Road near Lumby in September 2019 which turned violent with the two occupants of the home, James Jurica and Candace Kado, both suffering gunshot injuries. 

When the accused were convicted in July, the court heard the two men broke into the home wearing face masks and carrying shotguns, and shot out some lights.

One of the accused ended up shooting Jurica in the chest, stomach and hip. A scuffle between Jurica and the intruders ensued, during which Kado struck one of the intruders with a baseball bat. The intruders then reloaded and shot again, this time into a wall, and a piece of shot struck Kado in the chin. 

The accused proceeded to beat Jurica with a metal baton after he had stopped resisting. The victims were constrained with zip ties with one intruder holding them at gunpoint while the other ransacked the house.

The intruders made off with cash, two bicycles, a television, jewelry, and finally Jurica's truck, which they used as their getaway vehicle. 

Tkachuk failed to show up for part of the trial, which continued without him while a warrant was put out for his arrest. 

On Friday the court heard from Claire Mastop, Tkachuk's lawyer, who continued with closing submissions she had started at a hearing in December. 

Mastop argued that this was a "middle of the range" home invasion case that was without the elements of "serious injury, sexual assault and death" that were present in some of the case law that Crown prosecutor Brock Bellrichard had previously put forward, and therefore warranted a lesser sentence than the high range of sentencing the Crown is seeking.

Mastop said Tkachuk should receive a sentence of 10 to 11 years jail, significantly lower than the Crown's suggestion. 

While she conceded that the principles of denunciation and deterrence were important when considering the sentencing range, Mastop said protection of the public "is not as significant a factor as someone who has an ongoing criminal lifestyle."

She based this argument on the fact that Tkachuk's relevant criminal history is "dated." She also argued that the offences were "out of character" for Tkachuk, who she made an effort to describe as a family man. 

A Crown prosecutor stepping in for Bellrichard, who is on vacation, refuted Mastop's argument that the offences were out of character, saying Tkachuk's record "speaks for itself," as it includes "three convictions for break and enter, two convictions for assault causing bodily harm, among other convictions."

Mastop had argued that Tkachuk showed some degree of decency to the victims when he allowed Kado to grab a towel and help Jurica after he had been shot. But the Crown didn't give Tkachuk credit for this, saying it was instead "bravery" on the part of Kado for acting despite the active threat posed by Tkachuk at the time. 

The Crown also pushed back on Mastop's claim that the violence didn't lead to serious injuries, saying Jurica had been shot in the chest, as a chest wound confirmed (Mastop had previously said he'd been shot in the buttocks).

"Also just the nature of this attack being a prolonged and ongoing attack I think very easily (falls) within the high end of the sentencing range, and serious injury is absolutely involved in this case," she said.

The Crown referred to case law presented at a previous hearing by Coghill's lawyer, Dominique Verdurmen, saying those cases "touched on mitigating and aggravating factors that are present in this case, but none of the cases touched on all of the aggravating factors at play here, and contained significant mitigating factors that are not at play in this case."

One such aggravating factor was the intentional discharge of a firearm, the Crown said.

Justice John Gibb-Carsley reserved his decision at the end of the submissions. The matter will return to court Jan. 20 to fix a date for Gibb-Carsley to give his reasons for sentencing.