SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. FREDERICK MADISON KING
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE C.J. CONLAN
On Wednesday, September 14, 2016, at Owen Sound, Ontario
BAN ON PUBLICATION
Subject to any further Order by a court of competent jurisdiction, an Order has been made in this proceeding directing that the identity of the complainant(s) and any information that could disclose such identity, including the names of other Crown witnesses, shall not be published in any document or broadcast in any way.
APPEARANCES:
Mr. M. Martin Counsel for the Provincial Crown
Mr. P. Mergler Counsel for Frederick King
HMQ v. King, 2016 ONSC 6404
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14th, 2016:
CONLAN, J. – Orally:
THE COURT: Beginning with the bottom line, I have been presented with a joint submission on sentence.
In the decision of Regina v. Dorsey [1999] 3759 (ON C.A.), para 11, the highest court in this Province said the following:
“It is well established that a trial judge is not bound by a joint submission. The trial judge must, of course, give serious consideration and respect to a joint submission. The submission should be departed from only where the trial judge considers the joint submission to be contrary to the public interest, and a submission which, if accepted, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”
In my opinion, the joint submission that has been put forward by two hard working, very experienced and competent counsel, is well within the range in all of the circumstances.
I do not find that acceptance of the joint submission would in any way be contrary to the public interest, nor do I find that acceptance of the joint submission would in any way bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
For those reasons I will be accepting the joint submission.
I do, however, wish to say a few further things before reading my endorsement on the indictment.
The Criminal Code of Canada provides somewhat of a guideline as to how sentencing hearings ought to be conducted in Canada, and the primary considerations that a court should have when deciding what is the appropriate sentence to impose on an offender.
In the preamble of Section 718 of the Criminal Code, parliament has indicated that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the sentencing objectives.
The Criminal Code continues to outline some of those sentencing objectives, and they include items such as denunciation, general deterrence, specific deterrence, and rehabilitation.
More than a quarter century ago in a case called Regina v. Kirkness, 1990 57 (SCC), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 74, Justice Cory for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada, had this to say about the facts as they presented in that case.
“The facts of this case are depressing and sordid in the extreme. Their simple recitation incites feelings of anger and utter revulsion”.
Now the facts in the Kirkness case bear no similarity to the facts in this case, but the principle and the commentary offered by Justice Cory, I think does apply to the facts of this case.
There are few things I would say that are more revolting than the idea of a grown man in a position of trust and authority being violent, denigrating and humiliating with women and children under his care.
The facts of the case involving Mr. King are, in and of themselves, the primary aggravating factor on sentence.
Aggravating factors of course are only one side of the coin, and there are important mitigating factors in this case – namely, Mr. King entered guilty pleas to these charges, and he comes before the Court as a first offender. The jurisprudence is clear in Canada that courts ought to be careful about sentencing first offenders, and where a first offender has to be sent to jail, that jail sentence must be as measured as possible to account for the lack of any prior criminal record.
The case law is also clear that guilty pleas, no matter when they are entered, are always considered to be signs of remorse, acknowledgements of responsibility and thus, an important mitigating factor on sentence.
Mr. King entered guilty pleas to these charges, and he must be given credit for sparing the victims what would have undoubtedly been a lengthy, highly emotional, very difficult and unpredictable trial experience that would have been costly to the victims themselves emotionally, and to the overall system of justice.
So I have taken into account not only the sordid facts and the gross violation of Mr. King’s position of trust, but also, I have taken into account the mitigating factors of the guilty pleas and the absence of any prior criminal record.
In terms of the impact on the victims, I am sure that whatever physical scars were once present, are not the only significant effect that Mr. King’s criminal conduct has had.
Physical scars tend to heal, at least in part, over time, but the emotional humiliation at the hands of Mr. King, I suspect, will likely never heal for the victims. And I quote one line from the victim impact statement completed by Mr. J.C..
“Our life together has been limited through no fault of either of us because of the pain she – C.C. – continues to live with”.
I am sure that something similar could be said for all of the victims.
As I indicated previously, I commend counsel for their hard work in resolving a very difficult case. I think that the joint submission that has been put forward is eminently reasonable in all of the circumstances.
I accept it without any reservation.
There are convictions entered on all matters pleaded to, and the sentence of the Court is as follows:
Eighteen months in custody on all convictions - concurrent.
The custodial sentence is to be followed by two years of probation on terms. I will return to the terms in a moment.
There are Section 110 Criminal Code firearms and weapons prohibition Orders for 10 years on all convictions.
On count number 11, there is a secondary DNA Order issued.
In terms of the conditions of probation, all of the statutory terms apply, and in addition, the following optional conditions will form part of the probation Order.
Mr. King, you shall have no contact or communication directly or indirectly with C.C., J.C., J.K., A.K., K.L., and J.O.K. You shall not attend within 50 metres of any place of residence, place of employment, or place of education known to you to be that of any of those named individuals.
You will attend counselling or treatment as directed by your probation officer, and not leave that program without the prior written permission of your probation officer. In order to monitor your compliance with probation, you shall sign any releases of information demanded of you by the probation officer, and in addition, if there are assessments or reports or updates from the counselling or treatment program or programs, you shall release those forthwith to your probation officer.
You shall not be in possession of any firearm or weapon as defined in the Criminal Code.
Counsel, I think that takes care of everything.
MR. MARTIN: Yes, Your Honour, it does. Thank you.
MR. MERGLER: Thank you. I’m not sure if there are still counts to be withdrawn.
MR. MARTIN: I think there are.
THE COURT: If there are, I will make an endorsement that any remaining counts on the indictment are withdrawn at the request of the Crown.
MATTER IS CONCLUDED
Form 1
CERTIFICATE OF RECORDING
Evidence Act (subsection 5(1))
I, Linda J. Thompson, certify that Recording 1011-crtrm#201-20160914-093907-10-CONLANC.dcr is the recording of the evidence and proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice held at 611 9th Avenue East, Owen Sound, Ontario on Wednesday, 14th September, 2016, and that I was in charge of the sound recording device during those proceedings.
Form 2
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT
Evidence Act (subsection 5(2))
I, Linda J. Thompson, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording; Her Majesty the Queen v. Frederick Madison King, in the Superior Court of Justice, held 611 9th Avenue East, Owen Sound, Ontario taken from Recording which has been certified in Form 1.