SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
v.
ANTHONY EDWARD RINGEL
R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE C. CONLAN
on October 11, 2016 at WALKERTON, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
R. Flumerfelt Counsel for the Crown
A. Campbell Counsel for the Crown
S. Gehl Counsel for Anthony Ringel
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
W I T N E S S E S
WITNESSES IN-CH CR-EX RE-EX
(none)
E X H I B I T S
EXHIBIT NUMBER ENTERED ON PAGE
REASONS FOR SENTENCE PAGE 1
LEGEND
(ph) – Indicates preceding word has been spelled phonetically.
[sic] – Indicates preceding word has been reproduced verbatim and is not a transcription error.
Transcript Ordered. . . . . . . . . . . . .October 24, 2016
Material Received by Reporter . . . . . . .October 25, 2016
Transcript Completed . . . . . . . . . . . October 28, 2016
Ordering Party Notified . . . . . . . . . .October 28, 2016
Citation: Her Majesty the Queen v. Ringel, 2016 ONSC 6742
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2016
THE COURT: Mr. Ringel, this is your opportunity to say something before I impose a sentence. You certainly do not have to say anything. Would you like to say anything?
ANTHONY RINGEL: No thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you, sir. You may have a seat if you wish. Give me a moment to make an endorsement.
R E A S O N S F O R S E N T E N C E
CONLAN, J. (Orally):
I will be accepting the joint submission that has been put forward by two very experienced and competent lawyers. The real test for a lawyer is a difficult case, and this surely has been one. I commend Mr. Flumerfelt and Mr. Campbell and Mr. Gehl for your hard work and determination throughout the case.
The Appellate Courts in Canada have made it clear many times that joint submissions on sentence should not be disturbed unless acceptance of the joint submission would be contrary to the proper administration of justice, or put another way, unless acceptance of the joint submission would cause a loss of confidence in the criminal justice system amongst the public. Without any hesitation, I accept this joint submission. It seems eminently reasonable to me.
The Criminal Code sets out a variety of sentencing objectives or principles that the courts should take into consideration. One of those is denunciation, the need to denounce unlawful conduct. What happened to Christine at the hands of Mr. Ringel surely calls for serious condemnation and a strong sign of denunciation. Neither Christine nor anyone deserved to be attacked and killed at such a tender age.
I am satisfied that this joint submission on sentence properly reflects the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of Mr. Ringel, and I am satisfied that it meets the sentencing objective of denunciation.
There are, of course, other important principles of sentencing besides denunciation, and one of them is rehabilitation. I understand that for a victim’s family and friends, rehabilitation may sometimes be a difficult pill to swallow, but it is an important sentencing objective because at the end of the day our law recognizes that very few people are completely beyond any form of rehabilitation. And for Mr. Ringel, I would say to you, sir, that you’ve begun the road of rehabilitation today with your guilty plea, and your unequivocal acceptance of responsibility for the death of Christine. And I would say to you, sir, that it is never too late, and so I would encourage you to continue along your road to rehabilitation while incarcerated.
To the family and friends of Christine, you have waited more than two decades, more than 23 years for some form of justice. And I am sure that as you went to sleep last night, it was every bit as raw as the first night after Christine disappeared.
I am sure that it never gets much easier, even with the passage of a great deal of time; but I hope for the family and friends of Christine that what has happened here today, in some small way, will provide you some closure and some sense of peace.
For those reasons I accept the joint submission and I have endorsed the matter as follows:
Mr. Ringel entered a guilty plea today to second degree murder on a new indictment. The finding of guilt is made and a conviction is registered.
The joint submission presented on sentence is accepted. The sentence imposed is one of life imprisonment. The period of parole ineligibility is fixed at 12 years.
Under Section 746 of the Criminal Code of Canada, the time spent in custody shall commence with Mr. Ringel’s first incarceration in the year 2004.
As requested a primary, compulsory DNA order is issued, and a Section 109 Criminal Code of Canada firearms and weapons prohibition order is made for 10 years and life respectively as per the two subsections.
There is an order made sealing the exhibit filed with the court previously during the pre-trial applications revealing the names of persons involved in the intercepts, pending a redacted copy being filed by the Crown.
And finally, there is an order made that any transcript of any proceeding before me in the pre-trial applications shall be redacted to protect the names of operatives before being released to anyone.
THE COURT: Is there anything else, Counsel, that I have left out?
MR. FLUMERFELT: No, Your Honour, thank you very much. The other indictment, of course, will be withdrawn.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Gehl, anything else, sir?
MR. GEHL: The only thing I would ask Your Honour to do is to indicate in the 746 endorsement that the - it starts on August 22nd, 2004, so it’s clear.
THE COURT: August 22nd?
MR. GEHL: Yes.
THE COURT: I have clarified the date as being specifically August 22, 2004.
MR. GEHL: Thank you.
MR. FLUMERFELT: And that’s with respect to the period of incarceration?
THE COURT: That’s correct.
MR. FLUMERFELT: Since that day - obviously not the entire time?
THE COURT: That’s correct.
MR. FLUMERFELT: Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Flumerfelt, Mr. Campbell and Mr. Gehl. To the family and friends of Christine, I wish you as much health and happiness as you can obtain in the years going forward. As much as it is tragic what happened with Christine, I feel quite confident in saying that she, herself would want you to continue with productive lives for as long as you can. And Mr. Ringel, you have done the right thing today.
MR. GEHL: The Crown, there’s the first indictment,
Your Honour.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. FLUMERFELT: I’ve already marked withdrawn.
THE COURT: Marked withdrawn at the request of the Crown.
MR. GEHL: Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you.
C O U R T C L O S E D
FORM 2
CERTIFICATION OF TRANSCRIPT (SUBSECTION 5(2))
Evidence Act
I, Kathleen Inksetter, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of HMR v. ANTHONY EDWARD RINGEL in the Superior Court of Justice held at 207 Cayley Street, Walkerton, Ontario N0G 2V0 on October 11, 2016 taken from Recording Number 0311_CRTRM#1_
20161011_093557_30 in Courtroom No. 1, the original of which has been certified in Form l.
October 28, 2016 Kathleen Inksetter
Date Court Reporter