COURT FILE NO.: 13-M7867
DATE: 2015/09/09
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
MARK HASLETT
Accused
Carl Lem and Julien Lalande, for the Crown
Sean May and Samir Adam, for the Accused
HEARD: August 25, 2015
Sentencing decision
C.T. Hackland J.
[1] Mark Haslett was 25 years of age on February 11, 2013 when he stabbed Rolly Laflamme in the abdomen with a knife. Mr. Laflamme died in hospital some hours later. Mr. Haslett pled not guilty to a charge of second degree murder and put forward a defence of NCR (Not Criminally Responsible). The jury returned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter.
[2] Mr. Haslett has a major psychiatric disorder from which he has suffered since his late teens – specifically schizo-affective disorder. This is schizophrenia combined with chronic depression. Mr. Haslett experiences psychotic symptoms as an aspect of his illness. He had a very difficult youth, losing both of his parents at a young age.
Circumstances of the Offence
[3] There can be no doubt his mental illness was the root cause of Mr. Haslett’s attack on Mr. Laflamme. The two men lived on the same floor of a rooming house in West End Ottawa. Mr. Haslett had somehow become detached from his community supports and his mental illness was not being treated. He was not taking his medications. He had become the prisoner of paranoid psychotic delusions. He believed that people in the rooming house, especially Mr. Laflamme, were calling him offensive names and contaminating his food. He felt that noise from Mr. Laflamme’s television was an acoustic assault on him. He carried a concealed digital voice recorder which was turned on with a view to capturing the offensive things he believed people were saying about him. He mostly confined himself to his own room, sometimes urinating in bottles, to avoid coming out and interacting with other roomers.
[4] On the morning of February 11, 2013, he encountered Mr. Laflamme and asked him to stop whistling to which Mr. Laflamme responded bluntly that he would not stop. Mr. Haslett retired to his own room for about 10 minutes and then, carrying a large knife, confronted Mr. Laflamme in the hallway and as they stepped back into Mr. Laflamme’s room, stabbed him once in the flank and ran away.
[5] With respect to the NCR issue at trial, it was admitted that Mr. Haslett appreciated the nature and quality of his act, ie that he knowingly stabbed Mr. Laflamme with a knife. The real issue was whether he knew his act was wrong in all the circumstances. As the jury did not accept the NCR defence, I must accept that they were persuaded that Mr. Haslett did know that his act was wrong. In that respect, there was evidence that shortly after the stabbing, Mr. Haslett was overheard saying to employees in a nearby liquor store that he regretted what he had done – “I deserve to go to hell for what I did.”
[6] I can also infer from the jury verdict that they were not satisfied Mr. Haslett had an intention to kill, either because of his evidence that he only planned to wound Mr. Laflamme or due to his psychiatric condition.
[7] In any event, I accept that this senseless attack on an innocent and unarmed man was the product of Mr. Haslett’s psychotic delusions – his persecutory beliefs which had no basis in reality. His motivation for the attack arose from his illness.
Pre-Trial Custody
[8] Both the Crown and defence agree that credit for pre-trial custody should be given at the rate of 1:5 to 1.0 in recognition of the difficult time Mr. Haslett has had in custody at the Regional Detention Centre. While he is on his prescribed medications, he has not been receiving other treatment and as I observed when he testified, he remains profoundly ill. Accordingly, with the 1:5 to 1:0 credit, he has a period of pre-trial custody of approximately four years as of this date.
Position of the Parties
[9] The Crown argues that an appropriate sentence for this offence is nine years imprisonment, less four years credit for pre-trial custody. It was suggested that Mr. Haslett’s psychiatric problems could be effectively addressed in one of the “Regional Treatment Centres” available in the federal penitentiary system. The Crown stresses that because the psychiatric evidence at trial confirms that Mr. Haslett is currently a danger to the community and presumably would continue to be if not effectively treated, the safety of the public is best served within the framework of the federal penitentiary and parole system.
[10] The defence seeks a sentence, in addition to the four years served, of two years less a day followed by three years probation, the sentence to be served, if possible, in the St. Lawrence Treatment Centre in Brockville. This is a specialized secure treatment facility for mentally ill offenders and has the advantage of being near Ottawa where Mr. Haslett’s family supports reside. It is suggested that the probation order could be appropriately formulated to allow for the significant level of community supervision that Mr. Haslett will require. The defence stresses that the safety of the public is best guaranteed by seeing that Mr. Haslett gets the help he needs to stabilize his condition so that he can return to the community in a manner that is safe for him and for others.
[11] Mr. Lem, for the Crown, points out that given the four year credit for pre-trial custody, there would be, on the Crown’s proposal, five more years divided between an in custody portion served in a Regional Treatment Centre followed by statutory remission (parole) in the community. This is to be contrasted with five more years on the defence proposal, being two years in a provincial facility (such as the St. Lawrence Treatment Centre) and three years probation in the community.
[12] From this perspective the questions seem to be (a) where will Mr. Haslett receive the best in custody rehabilitative treatment and (b) where will he receive the best community placement and supervision for the community portion of the sentence? There is a difficult balancing of rehabilitation and public safety.
[13] The Court has a dearth of evidence to make this comparison. The defence has filed a media report highlighting the recognition, following the coroner’s inquiry into the Ashley Smith death in a federal penitentiary, that severely mentally ill offenders often lack effective treatment and are often subjected to indefinite solitary confinement in federal prisons. Public Safety Minister, Steven Blaney is quoted as saying, “Correctional institutions are not the place to address the health needs of those with serious mental-health problems. Mental-health facilities are most appropriate for these individuals”. He was speaking in reference to a new pilot program to permit seriously mentally ill female offenders to be treated at the St. Lawrence Treatment Centre in Brockville. The article concludes:
CBC News Network’s Power & Politics reported in February about concerns that male prisoners with acute mental illness were being held in prolonged isolation, in conditions described as “grossly inadequate,” at Millhaven Institution in Ontario. The offenders were moved to the former segregation unit after the Regional Treatment Centre in Kingston was closed down.
[14] However, the Crown submits that the federal parole system is a more reliable framework for the community supervision of an offender, who, like Mr. Haslett, poses a potential longer term risk of relapsing.
Sentencing Factors
[15] Counsel have provided a number of helpful cases dealing with the offence of manslaughter perpetrated by persons suffering from mental illnesses. Sentences appear to run from six to ten years, less pre-trial time served. It will be recalled that in the present case, Mr. Haslett is a first offender; the assault was motivated by psychotic delusions and consisted of a single stab wound to the victim’s torso after which Mr. Haslett immediately fled and expressed remorse to witnesses shortly after the assault. The lower end of the range would appear to be implicated here. On the other hand, Mr. Laflamme suffered a brutal death, in his own home. He was in reality an innocent bystander. Mr. Haslett continues to suffer from psychotic delusions or paranoid beliefs and remains a danger to the community.
[16] One would normally attempt to assess the moral blameworthiness of the accused in committing the offence. That does not seem to be a productive approach with a mentally ill offender. Similarly, the sentencing goal of specific deterrence will normally be of less importance than rehabilitation with individuals suffering from mental illness.
[17] Several cases cited to the Court appear to be of particular assistance. In R. v. Cantaderio, [2002] O.J. No. 5242, Ratushny J. sentenced an 18 year old first offender suffering from chronic schizophrenia and severe cognitive impairment, who had inflicted a fatal stab wound in a fight, to seven years incarceration, less 24 months credit for pre-sentence custody. This was a guilty plea. Recently in R. v. Denis, 2015 ONSC 3179, following a jury trial in which the accused was found guilty of manslaughter for running down with her vehicle a man with whom she had a prior personal relationship, R. Smith J. sentenced the offender, who was significantly mentally ill, to eight years in prison, less a credit of seven years and four months for time served.
[18] In R. v. Gilling, [1998]O.J. NO 5863, Charbonneau J., following a jury conviction for manslaughter in a stabbing by a 25 year old offender who had a chronic schizophrenic illness and a criminal record for violence, sentenced the offender to six and a half years imprisonment. In R. v. Hagendorf, [2000] O.J. No. 6072, Durno J. sentenced a 70 year old first offender for attempting to kill her husband and for the manslaughter of her neighbour, to five and one half years imprisonment. At the time of the offence, the accused was in a severe depression and had amnesia with respect to the incident. Justice Durno was satisfied that the offences would not have occurred but for the offenders mental illness. Justice Durno made these observations at para. 54:
Reported cases support the position that a person who commits an offence while suffering from a major mental illness which is at least a contributing factor in the commission of the offence receives a shorter term than those who commit the same offence unaffected by mental illness. In R. v. Beatteay (1985), 1985 28 (SCC), 19 C.C.C. (3d) 193 (S.C.C.) the Court of Appeal dealt with an accused who was a psychotic at the time of the offences. Mr. Justice Brook wrote:
The case poses special problems for us which really distinguish it from most cases. This is a case where it is not really accurate to say that the sentence should be a deterrent because others like him lose touch with reality and as such the deterrence of this sentence is of course meaningless to them. Further, the sentence should not punish people who commit offences because of mental illness.
[19] I also agree with the following observation made by Durno J. in Hagerdorf:
Having reached that conclusion regarding the impact of mental illness on sentence it is important to note that mental illness, while a significant factor, should not eclipse the gravity of offence. As Mr. Justice Martin noted in R. v. Antone:
The sentence of two years less one day imposed did not reflect the gravity of the crimes committed and society’s abhorrence of such conduct. The sentences to be imposed today must include a denunciatory element – a symbolic, collective statement that the offender’s conduct should be punished for encroaching on our society’s basic code of values.
[20] In R. v. Gray, [1995] O.J. No. 236, Watt J. as he then was, was called upon to sentence a 29 year old paranoid schizophrenic, with no record of violence, who had pled guilty to manslaughter for kicking his domestic partner in the head causing her death. The court observed:
It is beyond controversy that the sentencing principle which must predominate in determining a fit sentence for this offender in respect of the offence of which he stands convicted is general deterrence.
The sentence imposed must express, to the extent it can, society’s denunciation of the accused’s conduct in unlawfully taking the life of a fellow human being. The sentence imposed must reflect the core societal value of the sanctity of human life.
Watt J. sentenced this offender to a penitentiary term of six years. He observed that “it is of vital importance that the sentence be long enough to structure the rehabilitative efforts, but not so long as to stifle or extinguish them”, (para. 48).
[21] Rolly Laflamme’s was a valuable human life. He was treasured by his family as the victim impact statements so clearly attest. He did not deserve to die.
[22] In my view what is required in Mr. Haslett’s case is a sentence which reflects the goals of general deterrence and protection of the public by helping Mr. Haslett stabilize and manage his mental illness, with adequate community supports so that another tragedy does not occur. I accept the Crown’s submission that these basic goals are best achieved in this case with a penitentiary sentence including the parole regime.
[23] Mr. Haslett would you please stand. I sentence you to eight years imprisonment. You will be credited with the four years you have already served, leaving an additional four years to serve. I strongly recommend to the penitentiary service that Mr. Haslett receive appropriate and effective psychiatric treatment in one of the Regional Treatment Centres. Mr. Haslett’s safety and the safety of the public depend on this. My reasons for this sentencing decision and the psychiatric reports of Dr. Michael Chan and Dr. Scott Woodside should accompany the warrant of committal.
[24] In addition, I make a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition, under sec. 109 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C, 1985, c. C-46.
Mr. Justice Charles T. Hackland
Released orally: September 9, 2015
COURT FILE NO.: 13-M7867
DATE: 2015/09/09
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
MARK HASLETT
Accused
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Hackland J.
Released orally: September 9, 2015