Dr. J. Gray

The Crown appealed a sentencing decision in which the trial judge refused to impose a section 161 Criminal Code prohibition order against a respondent convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference.

The respondent had been found guilty of more than twenty acts of sexual intercourse with his step-daughter over a 2.5-year period when she was between six and eight years old.

The trial judge imposed a 6.5-year sentence but declined the prohibition order, citing concerns about personal liberty.

The appellate court found that the trial judge failed to adequately consider the respondent's continued risk to children and imposed a tailored section 161 prohibition order for 15 years from release.

L.C. was found guilty by a jury of one count of sexual assault and one count of sexual interference against his stepdaughter, S.B.M., who was between six and eight years old at the time of the offences.

The charge of sexual interference was conditionally stayed based on the Kineapple principle.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's age, abuse of trust, repeated acts of intercourse over 2.5 years, prior similar convictions, and the long-standing psychological impact on the child.

Mitigating factors included a positive pre-sentence report, steady employment, and family support.

The court sentenced L.C. to 6.5 years' incarceration for sexual assault, along with a DNA order, lifetime sex offender registration, and a communication prohibition with the victim during the custodial period.