C. Fromstein

The Crown brought an application to have the offender declared a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of custody following convictions for sexual assault with a weapon, robbery, and forcible confinement.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record and substantial mental health issues, including schizophrenia and substance abuse, which contributed to his offending when unmedicated.

The court found that while the predicate offences were serious personal injury offences and the offender showed a pattern of repetitive and aggressive behaviour, the Crown failed to establish that his behaviour was intractable or that he posed a tremendous future risk, given his remarkable improvement when properly medicated in a forensic psychiatric facility.

The dangerous offender application was dismissed.

Instead, the court designated the offender as a long-term offender, finding a reasonable possibility of eventual control of his risk in the community.

The offender was sentenced to a further 90 days in custody to allow for the formulation of a correctional release plan, followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The defendants, charged with aggravated sexual assault for allegedly failing to disclose their HIV-positive status before engaging in consensual sexual acts with the complainants, brought a pre-trial application under section 276 of the Criminal Code.

They sought to cross-examine the complainants on their prior sexual activity, including casual and group sex, to challenge their credibility and their assertion that they would not have consented had they known of the defendants' HIV status.

The court granted the application, finding the proposed evidence highly relevant to the issue of whether consent was vitiated by fraud, and concluded its probative value outweighed any potential prejudice to the administration of justice.

In a pre-trial motion for charges of aggravated sexual assault related to HIV non-disclosure, the court assessed the admissibility of the accused's police statement.

The court found several issues with the police conduct, including a missing minute of video recording, improper communication between officers, and failure to provide sufficient information regarding outstanding warrants before the accused waived his right to counsel.

Crucially, police breached a remand warrant by returning the accused to the police station instead of a detention centre.

The court ruled the statement inadmissible, finding the Crown failed to prove voluntariness.