SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
V
P.P.1
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
DELIVERED ORALLY BY THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE. J. DONOHUE
on AUGUST 8, 2013 at GODERICH, Ontario.
APPEARANCES
T. Donnelly Counsel for the Crown
D. Reid Counsel for the defendant
(i)
Exhibits
E X H I B I T S
EXHBIT NUMBER
1Statement of agreed facts.
2Pre-sentence report.
3Victim impact statement of S.P.
4Victim Impact Statement of K.B.
5Victim impact statement of P.P.2
6Index of case brief.
7Medical reports.
8Crown case book.
Transcript ordered: 09AUG2013
Transcript completed: 16SEP2013
1
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
First of all I would like to thank counsel for their very clear and professional submissions. It is not at all easy to stay logical and abstract dealing with such emotionally explosive material, and again I wish to compliment the victims who have given their statements because I can only imagine how difficult that has been for you, and it is very helpful for the court to get those statements, very helpful.
I have already indicated what shall be made exhibits in this case and so it will not be necessary for me to speak at great length about the offences themselves. In short, count one involves sexual assault on the son S.P., a sexual assault that occurred over a six year period when the son was between 10 and 16 years of age. This was commencing in 1983 as I understand it and continuing until 1989. The second count to which the accused has pleaded guilty involves sexual depredation against his granddaughter K.B., a daughter of his son S.P. and in that case masturbation was required of the victim multiple times when she was some 12 years of age. Returning for a moment to the
2
Reasons for Sentence,
Donohue, J.
offence against the son S.P., the nature of the activity progressed to mutual oral sex and continued in that fashion over the period in question.
So as I have stated I am relying on the facts as articulated in the statements of fact, the pre-sentence report, the victim impact statements, the case briefs that are filed by both sides, the medical reports with respect to the accused’s condition and I have been greatly assisted by the submissions of counsel.
Both counsel agree that on a 1.5 to one basis the accused is entitled to the equivalent of two years credit in pre-disposition custody.
Now the mitigating factors here are that he is now 77 years of age and in poor health. He has had a work history of regular self support and support of his dependents even though he had only a moderate education. It is stated that he had a pro-social life. By that it is meant that he was a contributing member of the community. However, it is not unusual for persons who are preying upon
3
Reasons for Sentence,
Donohue, J.
those within closed doors to have a good profile outside those doors in the community. He is to be credited for ultimately pleading guilty to these two offences rather than requiring the witnesses to testify again at trial.
The aggravating factors are that this abuse is trans-generational. It begins with the son between 1983 and 1989. It resumes again against the granddaughter in 2004 so the total time frame is over 20 years; there are two victims. Also of an aggravating factor is the accused’s criminal record. It could be said that over the wide spread of time from 1955 to 1999 it is relatively moderate in nature, however, the very first offence for which he received time in custody was a sexual offence in 1955. I regret to say that the accused’s dock statement that he made on my invitation clearly indicates an inability to understand what havoc he has created in the psyches of his victims. He has in effect aggravated the infliction of psychological suffering upon them by his callous statement.
4
Reasons for Sentence,
Donohue, J.
I am taking into account the principles of s.718 of the Criminal Code. The principle consideration here is general deterrence but very specifically s. 718.2(2.1) and s. 718.3 speak of offences against a person under 18 years of age and a breach of a position of trust. In this case I regard both these series of conduct that have resulted in individual offences as gross breaches of the position of trust. One can hardly imagine anything more gross than a father or grandfather inflicting this on his son and granddaughter. I take as read the very appropriate quotations in the case of Regina v. D.D.2002 44915 (ON CA), [2002]O.J. No. 1061, those being paragraphs 34, 35 and 36 and paragraph 24 of the case of Regina v. G.B. 2012 ONSC 6572. Those principles direct my decision in this case. As I have stated the accused is entitled to credit for time in custody which is the equivalent of two years on a 1.5 to one basis.
I have had considerable time to consider what is the appropriate sentence in this matter since the pleas were entered, and I
5
Reasons for Sentence,
Donohue, J.
must say I agree with the crown’s submission. It is not overly oppressive and is quite appropriate in all the
circumstances given consideration to the factors I have already mentioned. So the sentence will be from today, two years less one day in custody plus probation on the terms that the crown has recommended in its printed sheet provided to me, plus the corollary or ancillary orders that the crown recommends; if defence requires that I read those into the record.
MR. REID: I don’t believe that is required.
HIS HONOUR: Alright, thank you. So I have endorsed the record so far as follows: allowing credit for the equivalent of two years pre-disposition custody the sentence to be served from today’s date will be concurrent on both counts, two years less one day in custody plus the probation terms and corollary orders initialled by me on the crown’s recommended disposition. Is there anything else I need consider?
MS. DONNELLY: I ask that if the other indictment has not been marked as withdrawn
6
Reasons for Sentence,
Donohue, J.
it be marked as withdrawn at this time and that the other charges be marked as withdrawn.
HIS HONOUR: Can you help me, madam clerk? Is the other indictment still before the court? That other one has already been withdrawn?
COURT REGISTRAR: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: This says withdrawn at the request of the crown. Have you got one that hasn’t been withdrawn?
COURT REGISTRAR: Those are the only other two indictments in the file so they’ve both been withdrawn.
HIS HONOUR: I’ll just confirm that. Balance of counts on this indictment withdrawn. I’ve endorsed the indictment to that effect. You can remove the accused.
A D J O U R N E D
7
Form 2
Certificate of Transcript (Subsection 5(2)) Evidence Act
I, Cathi Lightfoot certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of R. v. P.P. in the Superior Court of Justice, held at Goderich, ON taken from Recording 1411_CrtRm2_20130809_092837__10_DONOHUJO which has been certified in Form 1.
16SEP2013
(Date) C. Lightfoot
*This certification does not apply to the (Rulings, Reasons for Judgment, Reasons for Sentence, or Charge to the Jury) which was/were judicially edited.