A Greater Victoria man that a judge found had “a history of aggressive and violent conduct” has lost his court fight to have his guns returned.
Robin Morton Stanbridge’s five firearms were seized by West Shore RCMP on Nov. 9, 2018, based on public-safety concerns, according to a B.C. Supreme Court decision released last week.
An officer was at Stanbridge’s home that day to keep the peace during a home visit by a representative of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.
A week later, Stanbridge was arrested on an allegation he had assaulted his former partner. In 2020, he was acquitted of the charge, but a provincial court judge imposed a peace bond, a form of protection order, for six months.
Following the acquittal, an officer filed an application to prohibit Stanbridge from having guns for five years, using a section of the Criminal Code that allows a police officer to apply to a provincial court judge for an order prohibiting a person from possessing firearms if they believe it’s in the interest of public safety.
A multi-year trial process on the requested ban followed, with Stanbridge requesting that the Crown call seven more witnesses than originally planned, including his former partner, and attempting unsuccessfully to compel the provincial court judge who imposed the peace bond to testify.
Stanbridge purchased his five firearms — a Beretta nine millimetre rifle, a Ruger .22 rifle, a 12 gauge shotgun, and two Beretta nine millimetre handguns — within a two-year period, according to the decision.
The judge who ultimately granted the five-year firearms prohibition in January 2023 noted Stanbridge refused to participate in a mental-health assessment sought by the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and “placed little evidence before the court to address the obvious mental health concerns identified by the various witnesses who have interacted with him.”
Provincial court judge Roger Cutler found the concerns of police and social workers about Stanbridge’s mental instability were well-founded, and that his resentment and “extreme ill will” toward his former partner were of particular concern.
“Mr. Stanbridge’s mental stability issues coupled with his open hatred and contempt for individuals in his orbit is most disconcerting including in the context of threats and violence he has engaged of in the past,” Cutler said.
The decision says Stanbridge admitted one violent incident, but denied an accusation that he left a voicemail for a social worker telling her the make and model of her vehicle and saying he was watching her. Cutler found the social worker’s evidence more credible than Stanbridge’s.
Stanbridge appealed the firearms prohibition in B.C. Supreme Court, arguing his Charter right to life, liberty and security of the person was violated and that the process was unfair for several reasons, including that women involved in the process were afforded preferential treatment.
But Justice Lindsay LeBlanc dismissed his appeal last week, writing in her decision that Stanbridge had failed to establish a Charter violation, and that in reviewing the entire transcript of the proceeding, LeBlanc could find no evidence of preferential treatment.
“Given the complete lack of evidence of any preferential treatment, I find Mr. Stanbridge spent valuable court time advocating for wholly unsupported theories,” LeBlanc wrote.
She noted the Charter right to liberty does not mean “unconstrained freedom,” stressing that owning a gun in Canada is a privilege and not a right.
“The hearing judge concluded after a contested hearing that Mr. Stanbridge had indications of mental instability, was harbouring an extreme amount of hate for others, had a history of aggressive and violent conduct, and should not possess firearms,” LeBlanc said in her decision.
In a lengthy response to a request from the Times Colonist for comment on the decision, Stanbridge called the dismissal of his appeal a “ludicrous ruling” and accused Crown witnesses of giving false testimony.
He made repeated references to “feminist terrorism,” which he said is based on “an insidious and pernicious agenda squarely aimed at attacking children and their fathers.”
He called the province a “feminist government engaged in state terrorism” that favours women when children are involved.
Stanbridge also said “it is abundantly clear to me” that defeating the ruling in the B.C. Court of Appeal or Supreme Court of Canada “will be easily accomplished.”
“It’s an insufferable pity for the good people of this nation, that we must endure rulings from such emotionally fragile members of a judiciary whom are appointed by politicians as de facto powerbrokers for a feminist child abduction racket and an anti-white criminal law system,” he said.
Speaking generally, West Shore RCMP Cpl. Nancy Saggar said an application for a firearms prohibition is often made in cases involving violence, but not every assault charge will lead automatically to a request for a ban.
It’s typically employed in cases where a firearm was mentioned in the assault, or the gun owner has a propensity to utter threats involving firearms, Saggar said.
“Or we just know they have access to it, and the level of violence was so high that we’re just really concerned,” she said.
Stanbridge ran unsuccessfully for the Christian Heritage Party in the 2019 federal election and for mayor of Colwood in 2014.
