Dr. Robin Wilson

The Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender following his conviction for assault causing bodily harm and breaches of a recognizance.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record involving violence and sexual assault, and suffered from schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder.

Three expert witnesses agreed the offender was a high risk to reoffend violently and sexually, but disagreed on whether his risk could be managed in the community.

The court found that the offender met the criteria for a dangerous offender and that his risk could not be adequately controlled in the community under a long term supervision order due to his history of non-compliance with medication and court orders.

The offender was designated a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of detention in a penitentiary.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference against his stepson, as well as his designation as a dangerous offender.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in her findings of guilt and in rejecting expert psychiatric evidence that suggested his risk could be managed in the community under a long-term offender designation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the verdicts reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge properly assessed the risk management evidence and was entitled to conclude that the community supervision plan, including the Circles of Support and Accountability program, lacked the necessary resources to safely manage the appellant's risk.

The appellant appealed his dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new hearing because the trial judge failed to consider the long-term offender provisions, as required by the subsequent Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Johnson.

Additionally, the trial judge and expert witnesses had relied on findings from prior convictions that were later set aside by the Court of Appeal.

Although the dangerous offender finding was not unreasonable based solely on the predicate offences, the failure to consider the long-term offender provisions and the reliance on overturned convictions necessitated a new hearing.