Court Information
Ontario Court of Justice
Between: Her Majesty the Queen — and — Scott Dobson
Before: Justice Heather Perkins-McVey
Reasons for Judgment released on: January 30, 2013
Counsel:
- Mr. John Ramsay for the Crown
- Mr. Trevor Brown for the accused Scott Dobson
Judgment
PERKINS-MCVEY J.:
Introduction
[1] The accused Scott Dobson entered pleas of guilt to two counts of internet luring contrary to S. 172.1(2) of the Criminal Code. The Crown elected to proceed by indictment.
[2] The offence of internet luring came in force on July 23, 2002. Section 172.1 prohibits electronic communication with a person under the age of 14 when such communication is for the purpose of facilitating the commission of one of the enumerated offences. In this case, the enumerated offences are the offence of sexual assault under section 271 of the Criminal Code and the offence of Invitation to Sexual Touching contrary to s.155 of the Criminal Code. The harm sought to be avoided by the offence is that of communication which renders children at risk to the offences. The Crown does not have to establish that the offender would have actually committed one of the offences.
[3] The offence of internet luring is an offence of the modern age—born of the modern reality of the internet, where an accused can counsel and entice children to engage in the prohibited activity within the sanctity of his or her own home.
[4] To assist in the sentencing, a report was prepared under s.21 of the Mental Health Act. The accused underwent Sexual Behaviour Testing at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre. Further, defence counsel submitted numerous letters confirming Mr. Dobson's character and including letters from various members of Mr. Dobson's family and his fiancée's family including her children.
Agreed Statement of Facts
[5] An Agreed Statement of Facts was filed as Exhibit 1. The facts in essence are that between January 20, 2012 and March 14, 2012, the accused engaged in internet chats with someone he believed to be a girl under the age of 14. In fact, that person was Detective Michael Pelletier who was logged on in an undercover capacity. Immediately, on entering the chat room, the officer was contacted by the user Scott Black with email williamblack111@yahoo.com. He was later identified to be the accused Scott Dobson. The accused conducted age verification checks to which the officer responded she was a 14 year old female. The accused said that was ok, asking for a physical description and of the size of "her breasts". The accused asked if she would like a massage from "him", made inquiries about her bra and panties. He inquired if she was a virgin and made inquiries if she would rub the accused's penis.
[6] In the January 27, 2012 conversation at 9:50, the accused asked the "girl" to remove her pyjamas, after inquiring what she was wearing. Asked her to remove her panties and asked if she wanted to lick and stroke his penis. On the third offence, initiated January 31, 2012, the accused asked if the girl would like to come over to his residence, stated he would give her a massage and asked that she wear a specific type of thong underwear. He said he could come and pick her up. During this internet conversation the girl restates that she is 14 on several occasions.
[7] In the February 1, 2012 chat, he asks the "girl" to lunch, inquired what school she went to. He says he is 38. He goes on to ask if she is coming to have a shower with him, describing he would get her all wet and they would wash each other's bodies.
[8] On the fifth conversation of February 15, 2012, he says his penis is out of his pants, says he wishes the girl was in his lap and asks if the girl would play with his penis and let him lick her privates.
[9] On the sixth conversation, the accused asked the girl to come to his residence, stated he wanted to lick her thong underwear as she rubbed his penis and he instructed her to remove her underwear. In the seventh conversation, the accused asks the girl to come see him at work and to meet at his residence. He asks what street "she" resides on and her house number. He suggested when they met that he would take her shopping for panties and asked if she would put the panties on him. For the eighth conversation, the accused made arrangements to meet with her at a prearranged location at Genest and Marquette streets in Vanier, the accused gave a vehicle description and said he would give her money, 20 dollars, if she preformed fellatio on him. He requested she wear thong underwear and a low cut shirt.
[10] Although there was more than one conversation where it was suggested they would meet, in the last conversation held on March 14, final arrangements were for the meeting and a request was made that a specific colour of panties be worn. The accused did in fact attend the prearranged location. When he arrived the undercover member approached him and engaged him in conversation, then uniformed officers arrested the accused.
Psychiatric Assessment
[11] Mr. Dobson was assessed by Dr. Fedoroff of the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre. A report dated October 22, 2012, was prepared. The accused identified that his main problem "is chat rooms on the internet". He said he first became aware of the problem starting five years ago. Mr Dobson denied sexual interest in 14 year old girls. He says he has never had previous internet chats with children saying he usually likes "cougars" between 30 and 40.
[12] The accused said he is remorseful. He accepts full responsibility and has no dispute with the facts set out in the crown synopsis. The accused was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs when he committed these offences.
[13] In his interview with Dr. Fedoroff, Mr. Dobson indentified that he is sexually attracted only to females. He stated he has no sexual interest in children. He reported a difficulty getting an erection over the last two years but that is getting better.
[14] Testing showed that Mr. Dobson's sex drive was well below average as was his knowledge of general sexual information compared to men on whom the test was standardized. He also had above average concerns about sexual satisfaction and his global sexual satisfaction was also above average at 88%.
[15] Mr. Dobson also underwent phallometric testing. This testing identified areas of sexual interest by measuring the penile response to audio-visual material. Mr. Dobson's results showed a positive pedophile index but not a positive heterosexual pedophile assault index nor did he have a positive rape index. However the testing did show a positive pedophile assault index. In summary, Dr. Fedoroff found the phallometric testing significant for a positive heterosexual pedophile index and a homosexual pedophile assault index. These findings contradict Mr. Dobson's denial in direct questioning to having sexual interest in children.
[16] In summary, Dr. Fedoroff diagnosed Mr. Dobson as suffering from hebephilia.
[17] Dr. Fedoroff was not able to address Mr. Dobson's risk to re-offend. Dr. Fedoroff indicated that as Mr. Dobson has no prior criminal record and that standard actuarial instruments are not appropriate to assess risk as they are based on standardized samples of men with at least one prior assault charge. Dr. Fedoroff recommended the accused enrol in counselling for persons for whom concerns are raised about their interest in children. He further recommended that if Mr. Dobson is sentenced to a reformatory sentence that both OCI and SLVTC offer treatment to sex offenders. He concludes that he expects an excellent prognosis for Mr. Dobson.
Law
[18] There are recent decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal that are of assistance in determining the appropriate sentence for an offender convicted of luring a child. The original trilogy of cases were discussed by Crown and defence counsel in the case bar, as well as the recent pronouncement of the Court in R. v. Woodward 2011 ONCA 610.
[19] The first case, R. v. Folino, decided in 2005, stands for the proposition that it will only be in the "rarest of cases that a conditional sentence will be appropriate" in a case involving luring a child.
[20] The second decision, R. v. Jarvis, decided in 2006, affirmed the proposition in R. v. Folino that a conditional sentence will be appropriate in the rarest of circumstances. Justice Rosenberg stated at paragraph 27 "Given the degree of planning implicit in the offence and the seriousness of the conduct contemplated, the objectives of general deterrence and denunciation will rarely be satisfied by a conditional sentence of imprisonment." In R. v. Jarvis, the Court indicated at paragraph 31 that the range of sentence for the offence of luring a child generally lies between twelve months and two years.
[21] The third decision, R. v. El-Jamel, decided in 2010, is of particular interest due to the dissenting opinion of Justice Watt with respect to the application of R. v. Folino. The majority upheld the decision of the trial judge to sentence the offender to a conditional sentence of 12 months plus three years probation, despite acknowledging that the circumstances of that case did not represent the rarest of cases. The majority was satisfied with the trial judge's reasoning for providing a sentence outside the usual range and found at paragraph 20 that there was "insufficient basis to interfere with the exercise of judicial discretion and, to do so, would confuse rather than assist the trial judge's task in applying Folino."
[22] In Justice Watt's dissenting opinion, set out in paragraph 36, he identifies the facts of Folino which provided factors constituting the "rarest of cases." The facts listed in R. v. Folino are as follows:
i. a negligible risk of recidivism
ii. acceptance of responsibility
iii. participation and progress in treatment for management of stress
iv. a devastating impact of proceedings on the accused and his family
v. assaults by other inmates while in custody awaiting release
vi. uncontradicted expert evidence of a very fragile mental and physical state due to the proceedings and of the detrimental effect of reincarceration on Folino and his three young children.
[23] Justice Watt disagreed with the majority in El-Jamel and took the position at paragraph 46 "the imposition of a conditional sentence reflects an error in principle, a misapplication of the decision of this court in Folino, an under emphasis on the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence, and an overemphasis on rehabilitation." Justice Watt found that by providing for a conditional sentence, despite finding the circumstances did not represent the "rarest of cases"; that the trial judge in El-Jamel made an error of law in applying the Folino test, not merely a formal one. The dissenting opinion of Justice Watt has been cited with approval in R. v. Somogyi [2010] O.J. No. 2817 and the decision of R. v. McCall [2011] B.C.J. No. 1197 at paragraph 28.
[24] The fourth and more recent case of the Ontario Court of Appeal on this issue is the decision in, R. v. Woodward, this case was decided on September 26, 2011. The decision of Justice Moldaver provides a re-examination of the principle established 5 years earlier in Jarvis that range of sentence for the offence of luring a child generally lies between twelve months and two years. The Woodward case was an appeal of a sentence of 6 ½ years for a variety of sexual offences, including luring a child. Beginning at paragraph 53 of the decision, Justice Moldaver examines the appellant's argument that the global sentence was excessive, specifically addressing Jarvis at paragraph 58:
"Even if Jarvis did purport to set a range of 12 to 24 months for the offence of luring, that range needs to be revised given the 2007 amendment in which Parliament doubled the maximum punishment from 5 years to 10 years. Moreover, if it is shown through the introduction of properly-tendered evidence that the offence of luring has become a pervasive social problem, I believe that much stiffer sentences, in the range of three to five years, might well be warranted to deter, denounce and separate from society adult predators who would commit this insidious crime. [emphasis added]"
[25] At paragraph 59, the Court in R. v. Woodward states "One need only consider the facts of this case to appreciate the dangers and disturbing features of the crime of luring and the grave consequences that may grow from it, here a face to face meeting between a 30 year old predator and a 12 year old child. The court goes on to say "But the offence of luring carries a real danger to innocent children being seduced and sexually assaulted or even worse"
[26] In the 2011, Ontario Superior Court of Justice case of R. v. Somogyi, Justice Wilson thoroughly reviews the case law of the Ontario Court of Appeal, as it stood then in determining the appropriate sentence for an offender convicted of luring a child. Justice Wilson stated that clear guidance for the courts in sentencing offenders found guilty of internet luring and possession of child pornography has been provided by a trilogy of cases from the Ontario Court of Appeal: R. v. Folino, [2005] O.J. No. 4737. (C.A.), R. v. Jarvis (2006), 211 C.C.C. (3d) 20 (Ont. C.A.), and R. v. El-Jamel 2010 ONCA 575, [2010] O.J. No. 3737 (C.A.).
[27] In R. v. Somogyi, the Court states commencing at paragraph 21, that the decisions of R. v. Folino, [2005] O.J. No. 4737. (C.A.), R. v. Jarvis (2006), 211 C.C.C. (3d) 20 (Ont. C.A.), and R. v. El-Jamel 2010 ONCA 575, [2010] O.J. No. 3737 (C.A.) confirm that when considering these offences, generally the principles of deterrence and denunciation predominate, and that conditional sentences served in the community are appropriate only in the rarest of cases when they fulfil the objectives of rehabilitation, reparation and promotion of responsibility.
[28] The following is taken from R. v. Folino at paragraph 25:
"Having come to this conclusion, I wish to first 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 situations 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 ... [emphasis added]"
[29] In R. v. Jarvis, the court confirmed at paragraphs 27 and 31 that generally conditional sentences are inappropriate for these charges, and that the general range of these sentences is dependent upon the facts but will be a period of incarceration from 12 months to two years. At paragraph 27 of the decision, the Court states:
"I will deal first with the appellant's appeal. In my view, a conditional sentence will generally be inappropriate for an offence of the nature committed by the appellant in this case. Given the degree of planning implicit in the offence and the seriousness of the conduct contemplated, the objectives of general deterrence and denunciation will rarely be satisfied by a conditional sentence of imprisonment ..."
Also at paragraph 31, the Court states:
"As to the Crown appeal, while I consider the sentence imposed by the trial judge to be a lenient one, I cannot say that the sentence is manifestly inadequate or that the trial judge erred in principle. The decisions of trial courts that were placed before us suggest that the range of sentence for this offence generally lies between twelve months and two years. Circumstances such as possession of child pornography or a record for other child sexual offences will require a sentence at the upper end of this range. Obviously, if the offender has previously committed the same offence, an even longer sentence may be required. The trial judge recognized that he was imposing a sentence below the usual range, but he had in mind a number of mitigating factors and the absence of any serious aggravating circumstances ... [Emphasis added]"
[30] I agree with the principles and presumptions that apply in sentencing in child luring outlined by Watt J.A. in his dissent in R. v. El-Jamel at paragraphs 33 to 37:
33 "The legislative objective that undergirds the offence of child luring equally informs the principles that predominate in sentencing the convicted child lurer - deterrence and denunciation: R. v. Folino, [2005] O.J. No. 4737 (C.A.), at para. 25; R. v. Jarvis (2006), 211 C.C.C. (3d) 20 (Ont. C.A.) at paras. 27 and 31; and R. v. Alicandro (2009), 2009 ONCA 133, 95 O.R. (3d) 173 (C.A.), at para. 49.
34 Specific deterrence attempts to convince the person receiving sentence not to do it again. General deterrence tries to induce others who may be tempted to commit a similar offence not to do so. Denunciation targets a wider audience, the public. The role of denunciation is to convince the public that child luring is a true crime, a serious offence, not something obsolete, technical or minor: R. v. Innes (2008), 2008 ABCA 129, 231 C.C.C. (3d) 48 (Alta. C.A.), at para. 10.
35 The predominance of the sentencing objectives of deterrence and denunciation yields a general rule that the sentence imposed on convicted child lurers will be one of institutional or actual incarceration for a term of 12 months to 2 years: Folino at para. 25; Jarvis at para. 31; Alicandro at para. 49. The general rule is not without exception: the term of imprisonment may be served conditionally rather than institutionally. But the teachings of Folino are that conditional sentences of imprisonment are only appropriate "in the rarest of cases": Folino at para. 25.
36 The decision in Folino exemplifies what the court considered one of "the rarest of cases" in which a conditional sentence of imprisonment was appropriate. A negligible risk of recidivism. Acceptance of responsibility. Participation and progress in treatment for management of stress. A devastating impact of proceedings on Folino and his family. Assaults by other inmates while in custody awaiting release. And uncontradicted evidence of a very fragile mental and physical state due to the proceedings and of the detrimental effect of reincarceration on Folino and his three young children.
37 Imposition of a conditional sentence of imprisonment rather than a term of institutional imprisonment on conviction of child luring must also be consistent with the principles that govern conditional sentences. The conditional sentence must be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing described in ss. 718 - 718.2 of the Criminal Code. Although a conditional sentence of imprisonment can provide significant denunciation and deterrence, some circumstances evoke a need for denunciation and deterrence that is so pressing that incarceration will be the only suitable way in which to express society's condemnation of an offender's conduct or to deter similar conduct in the future. In those cases, incarceration is the preferable sanction: R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61, at para. 127."
[31] The facts in all the cases cited above are not identical to the case at bar; there are differences between the aggravating and mitigating factors in each case. In general however, the courts have considered: compliance with bail terms, participation in assessment and rehabilitation programs, diagnosis and risk assessment as well as family support, the facts of each case and the background of the offender.
[32] Another case to be noted is R. v. Dehesh [2010] O.J. No. 2817. This is a 2010 decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. This case is an appeal by the crown of a conditional sentence imposed for an offence of luring a child. While ultimately holding that it would be inappropriate to overturn the imposition of a conditional sentence due to the time that had passed, the court found that the circumstances did not represent the "rarest of cases" permitting the imposition of a conditional sentence. The court rejected the analysis performed by the sentencing judge at paragraph 6 of the decision, stating:
"This conclusion runs directly contrary to the principle in Jarvis, Folino and Jepson. There was nothing exceptional about this case that would take it outside that principle. The evidence at trial disclosed graphic and explicit invitations to sexual touching and invitations to full sexual intercourse. These were advanced by the accused almost immediately upon contacting a person who held herself out repeatedly to be 13 years old, through the medium of an internet chat room. The accused followed up these invitations, again almost immediately and repeatedly, with invitations and arrangements to meet and with a photograph of a penis. Eventually a meeting was arranged and the accused attended, although he left after waiting for a period of time. These were all aggravating factors. There were also mitigating features to the case, none of which made it "rare" or "exceptional": the accused has prior criminal record; he is married and has the support of his spouse; he is likely not a pedophile; he was bored and under stress due to the loss of a job and the offence appeared to be isolated an situational, given that the police found no other related activity after searching his computer."
[33] Lastly, I turn to R. v. Dragos, (O.C.A) 2012 ONCA 538, [2012 OJ. No.3790] the sentence appeal commences at para. 68, The Court of Appeal upheld the principles as set out in R. v. Woodward. The Court of Appeal upheld the 18 month sentence and at paragraph 88 quotes with approval paragraph 76 of R. v. Woodward, which states as follows:
"In so concluding, I wish to emphasize that when trial judges are sentencing adult sexual predators who have exploited innocent children, the focus of the sentencing hearing should be on the harm caused to the child by the offender's conduct and the life-altering consequences that can and often do flow from it. While the effects of a conviction on the offender and the offender's prospects for rehabilitation will always warrant consideration, the objectives of denunciation, deterrence, and the need to separate sexual predators from society for society's well-being and the well-being of our children must take precedence."
Circumstances of the Accused
[34] The accused is currently 45 years old, he has no previous record. At the time of these offences he was a custodian in a government setting. He now works for a large Toy Corporation but has no direct contact with children. He had been with his fiancée for 3 years, she has four children who appear close to Mr. Dobson and through their letters it appears they remain supportive of him. He is currently residing with his mother as per the terms of his release.
[35] In terms of work history, Mr. Dobson appears to have been gainfully employed most of his adult life and lost his government job as results of these charges. He was let go as a result of being charged with the offences before the court.
[36] Mr. Dobson does not have any specific substance abuse issues, nor is he being treated for any other medical or psychiatric conditions.
[37] The accused has followed up with counselling at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Center to address concerns raised by the Sexual Behaviour Testing. The accused has attended roughly 15 meetings up to date. As the defence has reminded, the accused sought the referral to such treatment before he was ordered to do so.
[38] It is noted that the accused plead guilty to the offence taking full responsibility for his behaviour. It is also noted that the accused was under a form of house arrest from March 19, 2012 under the conditions were varied July 27 to allow him to be away from his residence for the purpose of employment and if he was in the presence of his surety. He has remained under a condition not to access the internet.
Position of the Parties
[39] The defence asks the Court to impose a conditional jail sentence of 15 to 18 months plus probation with strict conditions including curfew. The defence argues his prospects for rehabilitation are good; he pled guilty and accepts responsibility. The defendant argues he has also sought help and argues in mitigation, no explicit photos were transmitted over the internet. The defence urges that such a sentence would adequately address the need for general deterrence and denunciation given his pre-sentence custody, given his release on strict bail conditions and given that since these offences; the accused has not breached the conditions of his release. The defence argues that if a real jail sentence is required, that a sentence of 90 days should be imposed.
[40] The Crown asks for a jail sentence of 18 to 24 months followed by 3 years probation. The Crown argues that despite having no prior record that this offence is serious, and that there are 26 separate chats documented to have occurred between January 2012 and March 2012, wherein sexualized conversations took place. In addition, having learned the "girl" came from an impoverished background, the accused offered money for sex. He argues that the accused knows how young the girl is because he asks, and yet he still engages in these sexualized conversations and suggesting sexual activity to the girl over the internet. The Crown also raised concerns regarding the degree of Mr. Dobson's insight into the degree and extent of his sexual disorders as identified in the Sexual Behaviours Assessment. The Crown argues that this is not one of those rarest one of cases that would warrant consideration of a conditional sentence. Further the facts are aggravating in that the accused offers and arranges to meet the "girl" on more than one occasion and does in fact show up on another occasion, at the designated location where he is arrested. Further the chat logs filed in the sentencing hearing show that during the February 27 th conversation, he sought to add another young girl to the chat. I agree with the Crown that this is another aggravating factor.
Analysis
[41] The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing sanctions which are fair and just.
[42] Sentencing is an individualized process and in each case the court seeks to impose a sentence which is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. There is no one size fits all in any sentencing, and the specific facts and the individual circumstances of each offender must always be considered.
[43] For the offence of internet luring involving children at the age of 14, the case law as previously outlined, dictates that the principles of general deterrence and denunciation must be the paramount sentencing objectives. While rehabilitation remains a factor, the act of engaging in online chats with children to set up dates and facilitate the offences of Sexual Assault and an invitation to sexual touching must be denounced and deterred.
[44] In determining the appropriate sentence I take into account a number of mitigating factors:
i. the accused has pled guilty at an early opportunity, the accused takes full responsibility for his actions. He appears to be remorseful and ashamed. He was co-operative with the police.
ii. the accused is 45 years old, with no prior record
iii. he has been released on strict bail with house arrest for four months and there have been no breaches since his release of a bail conditions.
iv. the accused has 6 days of PSC
v. the accused has a supportive family
vi. the accused sought counselling at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Center, before being required to do so. However the accused does not necessarily accept the diagnosis given and needs to develop insight into his behaviours.
[45] There are also aggravating factors:
i. the nature of the offence, these are themselves serious, there are 26 separate chats involving sexual context.
ii. there are elements of planning, these are predatory offences and the girl is offered money for sex, after having learned she comes from impoverished circumstances.
iii. these internet chats occur on a number of occasions—each time he is aware how young the girl is (or purports to be) yet engages in these sexualized conversations
iv. He invites her to his residence and arranges meetings which on one occasion he attends. This is a particularly aggravating factor.
v. Further, in another conversation, he offers to attend the girl's residence and to hook up so she can see "it" in person.
vi. the accused suffers from a variety of types of sexual disorders for which he has limited insight. This may limit his prospects for future rehabilitation.
[46] I do take into account that Mr. Dobson has pled guilty, was co-operative with the authorities and sought treatment. However he has limited insight into the extent and nature of his disorder. Any sentence imposed must not only specifically deter him from committing further offences. Also in the circumstances of this offence as dictated by the prevailing case law, the sentence must also reflect the need for general deterrence and denunciation.
[47] In my view, given the aggravating factors, the imposition a conditional sentence would be inconsistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing. As indicated in R. v. Folino, and subsequent case law, a conditional sentence is to be imposed only in the rarest of cases. This is not one of those cases. There is nothing exceptional in Mr. Dobson's background or the facts of this case that would put this case in the category of the rarest cases. I accept he has a supportive family, and pled guilty, sought treatment, but this is not enough to be "the rarest of cases" The aggravating facts, particularly his arranging to meet on two or more occasions and actually attending at the meeting with the 14 year old for a sexual purpose and further, given that these offences occurred over the internet where it is so difficult to monitor an accused's actions, I cannot be satisfied that service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community.
[48] In my view, in light of the case law and the circumstances of this case, an appropriate sentence for these offences under S.172.1 is one of 18 months. In consideration of the house arrest Mr. Dobson has been under from March 2012 to July 2012 approximately four months 10 days, and given he has been under strict conditions of release since March 2012, I will give Mr. Dobson credit for three months. Given he was under strict house arrest, in addition, I will also note six day PSC, which I have also considered and will note in all 96 days of PSC is noted. Hence Mr. Dobson will serve a further jail sentence of 15 months followed by a period of 2 years probation. On the following terms and conditions, which I will set out. In addition, I will also make a recommendation that the sentence be served at OCI or St. Lawrence, so that the treatment may be commenced while you are serving the custodial term. I also make a SOIRA order for 20 years as required, I impose weapons prohibition under s.110 for 5 years and I grant the Crown's request for a DNA sample. I also impose an order under s.161 (1) (2) (3), as agreed by Counsel for 10 years.
Released: January 30, 2013
Signed: "Justice Perkins-McVey"