ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Court File No.: CRIMJ(P) 2072/12
Date: 20130919
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Shazin Karim, for the Crown
- and -
BRADLEY DORAN
Aarika Heath, for the Accused
Heard: September 9, 2013
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Seppi J. (Orally)
[1] After a trial by jury Bradley Doran was found guilty on June 25, 2013 of sexual assault with a weapon contrary to s. 272(1) (a) of the Criminal Code of Canada; of sexual interference contrary to s. 151(a) of the Code; and, invitation to sexual touching contrary to s. 152 of the Code. The offences were all committed on an occasion between June 2002 and September 2003.
[2] The victim on all three counts was S.N. who was 13 or 12 at the time. S.N. was a friend of Mr. Doran’s daughter, S.A. The offences occurred in Mr. Doran’s home after he picked S.N. up at school on the pretext that she would be coming there to visit with S.A. after school.
[3] Despite Mr. Doran’s assurance to S.N that S.A. would be home from the doctors any minute after the arrival at the house, S.A. never arrived. Instead, he had S.N. sit on a couch, watch him urinate, and exposed her to the pornographic images he was watching on his computer. S.N. was aware that Mr. Doran was touching his genitals while he watched and he asked her if she felt turned on. When she did not respond he went into the kitchen and returned holding a knife. He sat beside her on the couch with the knife in his hand. He kissed her twice, with his tongue on her lips on the second kiss. He asked her if she liked it and she said no. He asked her to kiss him whilst holding the blade of the knife on her collar bone and asked her to lick him in a breathy slow paced voice. She did not comply with these requests.
[4] After the kissing incident Mr. Doran led her upstairs and asked her if she wanted to test out the bed in the master bedroom. Again she said no.
[5] When they went back downstairs S.N. sat on a chair to avoid having him kiss her again. He put music on and in a stern voice asked her to take her clothes off and dance for him. He still had the knife in his hand and she felt compelled to comply. He told her “sexy women dance for men and good women do what men ask …” and made sexually charged comments about her body.
[6] When S.N. sat back on the couch Mr. Doran cupped her breasts saying she had breasts just like Cleopatra that could fit in a champagne glass. Afterwards he put a number of $20 bills in the range of $100 to $200 on the coffee table and told her to take it, that she had done something for him and now he was doing something for her. She took the money but felt guilty about it at the time.
[7] When S.N.’s mother picked her up she did not tell her what had happened. Soon after she reported the assault to a friend at school. At age 15 or 16 she told her mother but would not go to the police because she did not want to talk about it. In January 2011 when she was still having nightmares about it she reported it to the police.
[8] As is obvious from S.N.’s testimony and her Victim Impact Statement at the sentencing hearing, she continues to be traumatized by these events and the psychological impact has scarred both her and the relationship between her and her mother who suffers from the guilt she feels for not having been able to protect her vulnerable child from harm.
[9] The offender, Bradley Doran is now 48 years of age. He has not married and suffers from a disability and mobility restriction due to a workplace accident at about age 24. He is reported to be socially isolated and exhibiting symptoms of deteriorating mental health. He has cooperated with Sexual Offender Assessment and treatment.
[10] Mr. Doran was previously convicted in January 2008 for numerous sexual offences that occurred over a period of about 2 years between 2003 and 2005; including incest, sexual exploitation, making and possession of child pornography, sexual assault and sexual interference all in relation to young girl victims ranging from 12 to 17 years of age.
[11] One victim at that time was his daughter; the others were his daughter’s friends or acquaintances. He pleaded guilty to these offences and after a Gardiner hearing to resolve factual disputes he received a global sentence of 6 years imprisonment.
[12] Although Mr. Doran had been granted day parole on this earlier sentence, after he was convicted of the subject offences he has reported in the Pre-Sentence Report to have subsequently expressed an unwillingness to cooperate with the authorities. As a result his release was revoked. He remains in custody where his earlier sentence is due to expire on January 24, 2014. Also according to the Pre-Sentence Report, Mr. Doran has developed some empathy for the victim of his previous offences but he expresses no remorse or sense of responsibility for the current offences.
[13] The position of the Crown is that the appropriate sentence in these circumstances would be a custodial term of 3 years. The Crown requests a DNA order, an inclusion in the sex offender registry for 20 years and a s. 109 weapons prohibition.
[14] The defence position is that the appropriate sentence would be 2 years less a day served conditionally in the community. Counsel submits Mr. Doran does not pose a danger to the community as shown by his adherence to strict bail conditions, and submits a non-custodial sentence is more conducive to the rehabilitative objective of the sentence.
[15] Although the Crown concedes a conditional sentence is available in this case, having regard to the legislative framework at the time the offences were committed, she submits Mr. Doran’s culpability and the severe impact of his crimes on the young victim necessitate a custodial sentence to meet the important objectives of deterrence and denunciation. She also points to the fact that Mr. Doran specifically declared an intention not to cooperate with the authorities, which resulted in his day parole being revoked.
[16] The defence also submits the conviction for sexual interference should be stayed pursuant to the Kineapple principle on the charges of sexual assault with a weapon and sexual interference. The Crown opposes a stay. She submits the incidents are distinct and separated by the differences of approaches and locations in the house used by Mr. Doran in the commission of the three offences charged.
[17] The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to ensure respect for the law and to promote a just, peaceful and safe society. The sentencing objectives listed in s. 718 of the Criminal Code are to denounce unlawful conduct, to deter the offender and others, to separate offenders from society where necessary, to rehabilitate offenders, to provide reparation for harm done to victims and the community, and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm.
[18] A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The Court in imposing a sentence must take into account both aggravating and mitigating factors. The sentence imposed needs to be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences, committed in similar circumstances.
[19] Having regard to these principles I find the objectives of deterrence and denunciation to be of primary importance in the circumstances of this case. As stated in R. v. Woodward, 2011 ONCA 610, [2011] O.J. No. 4216 (C.A.) a case from the Ontario Court of Appeal, at para. 76:
… 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.
[20] The age of the child victim in this case is a significant aggravating factor. In para. 75 of Woodward the Court of Appeal has declared that “adult predators who seduce and violate young children must face the prospect of a significant penitentiary term.”
[21] As the father of S.N.’s friend, Mr. Doran was in a position of trust for her, albeit at the lower end of the trust spectrum, the abuse of which is also an aggravating factor. She trusted him enough to accompany him home, only because he was S.A.’s father and she believed he was taking her to visit with her friend. Other aggravating circumstances supportive of a need for a custodial sentence include S.N.’s vulnerability at an age when her awareness of sexuality had not yet matured, Mr. Doran’s use of a weapon to force his young victim into submission, and his denigration of S.N.’s dignity by giving her cash after the event.
[22] There are no exceptional circumstances favouring the imposition of conditional rather than custodial sentence in this case, the offences of which still cause great psychological harm to a young woman as a consequence of the predatory conduct of Mr. Doran when she was a child.
[23] Mr. Doran’s compliance with his bail conditions, which the defence submits were strict, do not reduce the sentence that would otherwise be imposed. His compliance is a mitigating factor on the sentence but it is diminished by the circumstances of the revocation of his day parole. Mr. Doran’s supportive parents, who have been present in court throughout the proceedings, and his past willingness to participate in sex offender assessments and treatments following his earlier convictions do offer some measure of mitigation.
[24] I also find that the facts underlying the sexual assault with a weapon charge on count one, and sexual interference charge on count two are essentially the same. There is a legal nexus in the common element of the sexual nature of these offences, which occurred as one continuous event. On the authority of the Kineapple principle the conviction on count two for sexual interference is therefore stayed.
[25] Thus, Mr. Doran, for all these reasons, you are sentenced to 3 years incarceration on count one for sexual assault with a weapon, and 2 years on count three for invitation to sexual touching, to be served concurrently in custody. A DNA order, a SOIRA order and a s. 109 weapons prohibition order shall also issue.
Seppi J.
Released: September 19, 2013
COURT FILE NO.: CRIMJ(P) 2072/12
DATE: 20130919
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- and –
BRADLEY DORAN
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
Seppi J.
Released: September 19, 2013