Ontario Court of Justice
Her Majesty the Queen v. Ronald Parr
Reasons for Sentence
Before the Honourable Justice P. L. Bellefontaine
On March 12, 2012, at Oshawa, Ontario
Publication Ban Notice
INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 517(1) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA
Appearances
- S. Khehra – Counsel for the Crown
- R. Aitken – Counsel for Ronald Parr
Reasons for Sentence
Accordingly, I can provide my reasons for sentence in the matter of Ronald Parr who has pled guilty to three counts of luring a child via computer, contrary to Section 172.1(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. Specifically, he is charged with using the computer to facilitate the commission of a sexual assault on who he understood to be a 12-year-old girl and to expose his genitals to her and to invite her to sexually touch him. In reality, the young person he was communicating with and exposing himself to was a police officer. No arrangement to meet was ever made or carried out and the matter is proceeding on the basis that Mr. Parr never intended to meet the girl.
Thirteen computer communications took place over the space of three-and-a-half months, all but two of which have sexual content. Mr. Parr discusses meeting with the child on six of the computer communications, but no arrangements to meet are ever made.
The communications included clear statements that the girl was 12-years-old and Mr. Parr's acknowledgment that he was a bit old for her. In discussing the sexual activity he would like to do with her, he stated, "If I did that with you or any other 12-year-old, it would be statutory rape. I could go to jail for a long time."
In later chats, he turned on his web camera and masturbated his erect penis on two occasions. He later stated, "I would only touch and kiss your little breasts and nothing more. If I touched your vagina, it might start to bleed because it is still young." When the officer posing as a 12-year-old asked, "Will it hurt me?" Mr. Parr responded, "Yes. When you have intercourse for the first time your vagina is stretched which will cause you to bleed, but if I only touch you there with my finger it won't hurt. That's why I won't have intercourse with you." And he indicates later, "Trust me. I won't hurt you."
On another date, Mr. Parr again masturbates his erect penis and another says he dreams of her "...little hands stroking me and your lips on it." Referring to his penis. There is no evidence, as I have indicated, of any attempt being made by Mr. Parr to meet the 12-year-old that he thought he was chatting with. He was cooperative with the police and stated he made a big mistake and has accepted responsibility to them and to the court in this matter.
Background and Mitigating Factors
Mr. Parr is 59 years of age and has no record. Mr. Parr had a stable and supportive upbringing and the individuals spoken to by the probation officer were surprised by the offence and view it as out of character for him. Mr. Parr has a stable common-law relationship and work history. He lost his employment as a transit driver since his arrest in this matter in May of 2010 when he was placed on house arrest with a term that he not be outside of his house unless with his surety. The bail was amended one-and-a-half months later to allow Mr. Parr to work. However, by virtue of his being fired and the difficulties with respect to the house arrest terms, he has been unable to obtain employment. As a result of his inability to obtain new employment, he has substantially depleted his savings of $39,000. As well, a number of supportive letters have been filed by individuals who know Mr. Parr attesting to his good character.
A report was prepared for the defence by Dr. Philip Klassen, an experienced forensic psychiatrist. Based on his interview with Mr. Parr and phallometric testing, Dr. Klassen diagnosed Mr. Parr with pedohebephilia, a sexual preference for pubescent or pre-pubescent females. Using a number of objective risk assessment tools, he rates Mr. Parr as being at low-risk of re-offending. The assessment tools suggest that Mr. Parr is marginally above the general population in terms of future risk of re-offending. In percentage terms, the tools would suggest a range of three to nine percent likelihood of him violently or sexually re-offending over the next 10 years. Of significance in the report, Dr. Klassen notes that Mr. Parr continues to deny any sexual intent to the computer communications and states that he would never have tried to meet with the girl. The low risk of re-offending and the reluctance to admit any sexual intent may flow from Mr. Parr's long pro-social history and history of having satisfactory stable relationships, sexually and otherwise, with age appropriate women.
Crown's Position
The crown has proceeded by indictment in this matter. The offence provides for a sentence of up to 10 years in prison for each count. I note this is an increase from a maximum of five years that was previously available and was applicable for a number of the cases that have been provided. There is no minimum penalty for the offence, although the underlying offence of invitation to sexual touching now has a minimum jail sentence. Although a conditional sentence is available for this offence before me, it is no longer available for the offence of invitation to sexual touching.
The crown submits a 12-month real jail sentence accounts for the mitigating factors and is required. They also request a three-year probation order, a DNA sample, a 10-year Section 161 order, and a 10-year Sex Offender Registration Act order, along with the forfeiture of Mr. Parr's computer which was seized.
In support of their position the crown notes the clear indications the child played or portrayed by the officer was 12 years old, sexually inexperienced and obviously very vulnerable. Next, the large number of conversations that went on over several months and showed no signs of stopping. The communications show an escalating sexuality that demonstrates grooming behaviour to prepare a 12-year-old for sexual activity. Next, the behaviour leads to Mr. Parr masturbating on camera for a 12-year-old which goes beyond idle chit-chat. Further, Mr. Parr's obvious arousal at the thought of sexual contact with a 12-year-old, the diagnosis of pedohebephilia, and denial of sexual intent raises significant specific deterrence issues.
Defence Position
The position of the defence is that a conditional sentence of 12 to 18 months allowing for a custodial sentence to be served in his own home combined with the ancillary orders will meet the needs of denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the community.
The defence note by way of mitigation a clear lack of intention to meet and acceptance of responsibility along with the recognition of the moral wrong doing of the crime that has been expressed by Mr. Parr and is demonstrated in the chats themselves, and as well the remorse which has been expressed from the moment of his arrest throughout the proceedings. The crown does accept these as mitigating factors. The defence also note the plea of guilty. I accept the crown's submission that the plea is of reduced weight in a case like this where Mr. Parr was inescapably caught by the police in the commission of the offence which included his face being video recorded during the act of masturbating for the child. It is still however of some significance. It reinforces Mr. Parr's remorse and acceptance of responsibility which are mitigating factors. We are as well in a jurisdiction with heavily overbooked courts where the benefit to the administration of justice flowing from a plea of guilty is of significance.
Mr. Parr has been a long standing contributing member of the community. The offence is out of character for him and he has the support of family and friends. He anguishes obviously over having embarrassed them. The defence also note the lack of any underlying mental health or substance abuse issues that might be seen to raise the risk of recidivism. In particular, it is submitted the lack of any attempt to arrange a meeting over a significant period of time and a significant number of messages supports Mr. Parr's position that the potential for harm from him would not have gone beyond that flowing from the computer communications themselves. Indeed, a search of Mr. Parr's computer did not reveal any other victims or child pornography.
This is not a case as well where the aggravating factor of having a real victim who is psychologically or emotionally affected or devastated by the crime is before me for consideration given that the individual was in fact a police officer.
In addition to the facts supporting the low risk of re-offending, the defence rely on Dr. Klassen's report to show that Mr. Parr's sexual preference has overwhelmingly been controlled by him, but for this offence and that he is at extremely low risk of re-offending.
Significantly as well, Mr. Parr has been on house arrest bail for 21 months which only permits him to leave the home with his surety and for employment purposes. He has complied with the terms and has lost his $60,000 per year salary for close to two years and spent his life savings to support himself. The defence position is that Mr. Parr is eligible for a conditional sentence, that he does not represent a danger to the public that cannot be controlled by probation and the ancillary orders and the terms of a house arrest order, and that they would meet the needs of deterrence and denunciation as being well satisfied by the 21 months of house arrest already served and the financial costs of over $100,000 associated with Mr. Parr's pre-trial restrictive bail. His compliance with his bail as well it is submitted supports his ability to comply with a strict conditional sentence order.
Relevant Case Law
The defence finds support for a conditional sentence in two Court of Appeal decisions. In R. v. Folino, 2005 ONCA 258, Chief Justice McMurtry overturned a nine-month jail sentence and granted Mr. Folino an 18-month conditional sentence with strict terms. Mr. Folino had engaged in six sexually explicit chats with a fictional 13-year-old girl who was in reality an undercover officer. He initiated a meeting and attended for the explicit purpose of engaging in sexual acts. Mr. Folino was a well-employed family man with no record. Fresh evidence filed on the appeal before Justice McMurtry showed Mr. Folino to be in a fragile mental state and suicidal. In R. v. El-Jamel, 2010 ONCA 575, the Court of Appeal upheld the conditional sentence of 12 months imposed for Internet child luring following a plea of guilty. Mr. El-Jamel engaged in sexually explicit chats over a period of three days with an undercover officer posing as a 13-year-old. He masturbated on a web camera during one of the chats and he initiated a meeting with the girl and was arrested when he attended for the sexual encounter. The Court of Appeal noted the need to defer to the trial judge's sentence and held that her emphasis on rehabilitation given Mr. El-Jamel's youth and young family was appropriate. The Court of Appeal in the decision has noted that a conditional sentence will only be appropriate in the rarest of cases. As stated by Justice McMurtry in R. v. Folino after granting a conditional sentence:
"Having come to this conclusion, I wish to make it clear that I fully agree with the sentencing judge that the offence of child luring must be dealt with seriously by the courts. The social policy underlying the enactment of this offence is clear. Many Canadian families have home computers with Internet access. Children are frequent users of the Internet. Children, as vulnerable members of our society, must be safeguarded against predators who abuse the Internet to lure children into situation where they can be sexually exploited and abused. In most circumstances involving the offence of child luring, the sentencing goals of denunciation and deterrence will require a sentence of institutional incarceration. Indeed, it will only be in the rarest of cases that a conditional sentence will be appropriate in a case involving this offence. In my view, however, this is one of those rare cases."
The most recent discussion of the appropriate sentence for Internet luring by the Court of Appeal is R. v. Woodward, 2011 ONCA 610. The court references R. v. Folino and R. v. El-Jamel and a number of other decisions. The court questioned whether a range of one to two years in jail was settled in previous decisions and stated that such a range would need to be revised upwards given parliaments doubling of the maximum punishment from five years to ten years. The court went on to state that if evidence was led to the pervasiveness of the problem, a range of sentence of three to five years for a first offender might well be warranted. The court criticized cases that had granted a conditional sentence as not referring to or being in accord with the principles of R. v. D.D., 2002) in which the Court of Appeal emphasized the need to protect vulnerable children from sexual predators by giving precedence to general deterrence and denunciation over other objectives of sentencing.
Court's Analysis and Decision
Having considered all of the arguments in this matter, Mr. Parr, I accept that you are at the low risk of re-offending and that you do not represent a danger to the public that cannot be controlled by the terms of a conditional sentence order. However, I do not find this case to be a rare one such that the needs of denunciation can be met by a conditional sentence. There is not here the compelling personal circumstances such as Mr. Folino's suicidal nature after his initial time in custody or Mr. El-Jamel's extreme youth and dependant family. As well, it is significant here that the computer communications was not just used to facilitate a future offence against a child. The offence of invitation to sexual touching for which a conditional sentence is no longer available has actually been committed. While Mr. Parr has not pled to that offence and is not to be sentenced for that offence, parliament's minimum jail sentence for it which negates the access to a conditional sentence informs the need for denunciation by way of real jail in this case.
With respect to the length of the sentence to be imposed in this matter, I consider the crown's position to appropriately reflect most of the aggravating and mitigating factors. A significantly higher sentence may well have been justified had a real child been involved. I do however consider a reduction below the 12 months submitted by the crown to be appropriate given the 21 months of house arrest and the ancillary financial loss imposed on Mr. Parr and the accepted fact that he had no intention to meet with the victim and commit the offence of sexual assault on her. I note that the house arrest in this matter by way of a pre-trial release to this point has been as strict as most conditional sentences would have been. I am obligated to consider it and treat it as a mitigating factor.
Sentencing Order
Mr. Parr, if you would just stand up, please, sir. I view the appropriate sentence in this matter and the sentence that will be imposed to be one of eight months to be served concurrently on all three of the charges. Following that, you will be placed on probation, the probation being for a period of three years. The probation order, Mr. Parr, will include many statutory terms and provisions which I will direct the court staff to explain to you before you leave the building here today. One of them is a term that you keep the peace and be of good behaviour. As well, you will have to report once per month or as often as required to a probation officer and reside at a place approved of by your probation officer, and you will attend and actively participate in any assessment and counselling that may be required of you by your probation officer to the satisfaction of your probation officer which should include counselling for sexual offending behaviour.
You will as well be placed on an order of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for a period of 10 years requiring you to provide with the provisions of that Act. As well, sir, for a period of 10 years you will be bound by an order under Section 161 of the Criminal Code prohibiting you from attending a public park or a public swimming area where persons under the age of 16 years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present or a daycare centre, school ground, or playground. Madam Clerk, I will just ask that you ensure that any references to a community centre in the standard form that we have is deleted. It has been held by the Court of Appeal to be an impermissible term of the order.
As well, Mr. Parr, pursuant to Section 161, you are prohibited from seeking, obtaining, or continuing any employment whether or not the employment is remunerated, or becoming a volunteer in any capacity that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of 16 years, or from using a computer system within the meaning of Subsection 342.1(2) for the purposes of communicating with a person under the age of 16 years.
There will be an order as well requiring that you provide a sample of your bodily substances to the Durham Regional Police Service for DNA typing purposes and, Mr. Parr, I will attach a number of terms and conditions to that order to make sure the sample is taken in a safe and sterile fashion and a fashion that respects your personal privacy and integrity as much as we can. And there is no opposition to the order, Mr. Aitken, that the computer that was seized be forfeited to the Durham Regional Police Service for destruction purposes?
MR. AITKEN: Content with that.
THE COURT: And we will have that done as well. Is there anything I have overlooked from the crown's perspective?
MR. KHEHRA: No. Thank you, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Thank you, and, Mr. Aitken, is there any problem with the way I have worded or structured the orders from the defence side?
MR. AITKEN: There's no issue, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Parr, I wish you all the best in the future, sir. There is obviously a large number of good things being said about you during the course of the proceedings here and I wish you well in terms of getting beyond this difficult time and hopefully getting back on track as being a productive member of the community. I am however obligated to point out to you that if you breach any of the terms of the court orders in this matter you are liable to immediate arrest and significant periods of jail in the event that you are convicted of breaching the orders so it is going to be important to be very carefully abiding by them, sir.
RONALD PARR: Yes, Your Honour.
THE COURT: Good luck to you.
Certificate of Transcript
FORM 2
Certificate of Transcript
Evidence Act, Subsection 5(2)
I, Christina Maxwell, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of Regina v. Ronald Parr, in the Ontario Court of Justice, held at Oshawa, Ontario on March 12, 2012, taken from Recording No. 2811-102-400792-20120312-091355, which has been certified in Form 1.
Transcript Ordered: March 13, 2012
Transcript Completed: June 20, 2012
Ordering Party Notified: June 20, 2012