Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CR/14/30000639/0000 DATE: 20170116

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - and - PETER BROOKS

Counsel: Scott Rogers and Donna Kellway, for the Crown Charn Gill for Peter Brooks

HEARD: January 13, 2017

M. Forestell J.

Reasons for Sentencing

Background

[1] Peter Brooks was found guilty of the second degree murder of Jocelyn Dickson. Mr. Brooks is before this Court to be formally sentenced to life imprisonment and for the pronouncement of the period of time he must serve before he will be eligible to be considered for parole. The minimum period is 10 years and the maximum is 25 years.

[2] I will begin by reviewing the some of the circumstances of the offence. Mr. Brooks was a resident of the Wexford Retirement Home at the time of the offence. He resided on the long-term care wing of the residence. At the time of the murder, he was concerned about potentially being moved from the long-term care part of the residence to the assisted living part of the residence. Mr. Brooks had been involved in conflicts with three other residents prior to March 13, 2013 when he committed the murder. On that night Mr. Brooks left his room and went to the room of Lourdes Missier where he hit Ms. Missier with his cane causing her serious injuries. She was able to call for help. Mr. Brooks then went to the room of Ms. Dickson on another floor of the residence. He viciously beat Ms. Dickson with his cane while she was lying in bed, likely asleep. She later died from the injuries he inflicted. He then went to another floor where he was intercepted and prevented from entering the room of a third woman, Margaret Burke. When he was prevented from entering Ms. Burke’s room, Mr. Brooks struggled with the staff member who had stopped him. Although the staff member was younger and able-bodied, she had difficulty subduing and disarming Mr. Brooks. He would not release his grip on his cane. During the struggle he dropped a knife that he had been carrying. When a male staff member assisted in the struggle Mr. Brooks was subdued.

[3] Mr. Brooks testified at his trial and admitted striking Ms. Dickson and Ms. Missier. Mr. Brooks blamed these women for difficulties that he was encountering at the long-term care facility. He accused them of bullying him.

[4] At the time of her death Ms. Dickson was paralyzed and vulnerable.

[5] It is clear from the circumstances of the offence that Mr. Brooks planned the offence. He attacked the women at night when they were likely to be asleep. He attacked around the time that there was a shift change at the residence. He avoided staff or told those that he encountered that he was out for a walk.

Circumstances of the Offender

[6] Mr. Brooks was 72 at the time of the offence and is 76 years old now. He suffers from a neurocognitive disorder or dementia. The nature and extent of the dementia was described in detail by Drs. Gojer and Klassen in their evidence at trial. Both doctors agreed that Mr. Brooks has dementia; that his frontal lobe is affected by the dementia which results in disinhibition, poor impulse control and a deterioration in executive function. Both doctors agreed that the impairment is currently moderate and that it will get worse with time. The psychiatrist who assessed Mr. Brooks one year before the offence described his impairment at that time as mild.

[7] The doctors did not offer opinions on the likely manifestations of the disorder as it progresses. What is clear is that the disorder has contributed to making Mr. Brooks dangerous to others. He was dangerous to others in 2013 and I conclude that he remains a danger to vulnerable individuals today.

[8] Mr. Brooks has some physical illnesses including diabetes, cataracts and arthritis. He has some mobility issues. Aside from the cataracts, these illnesses were present in 2013. He nevertheless was able to commit the offence. His strength was underestimated by the health care professionals who were dealing with him at that time.

[9] Mr. Brooks has no family or community support. His wife died several years ago. He has a daughter but he has cut off contact with her.

[10] To his credit, Mr. Brooks had no criminal record before this offence. He worked throughout his adult life until he retired.

Victim Impact

[11] Victim Impact Statements were filed by Margaret Burke and her daughter. They speak to Ms. Burke’s ongoing fear as a result of Mr. Brooks’ actions.

[12] Ms. Dickson’s two daughters read their Victim Impact Statements to the court. These statements paint a picture of Jocelyn Dickson as a strong and selfless parent to her daughters. The statements speak to the important role she played in the lives of her children. She was deeply loved by her daughters. They lost her companionship and support as a result of the actions of Peter Brooks. The brutally violent circumstances of her death are a source of distress and pain to her family. It has clearly been devastating for them to have lost their mother in such a violent manner.

[13] I have considered the impact of the offence on those individuals who have filed Victim Impact Statements. I have also considered the impact on the two individuals who could not do so. Lourdes Missier died before trial. I take into account that Ms. Missier was physically and emotionally harmed by Mr. Brooks. I finally take into account the impact on Jocelyn Dickson. She lost her life. She lost her remaining years with her daughters.

[14] I recognize that no sentence can ever compensate for the harm caused to the victims in this matter.

The Recommendation of the Jury

[15] I am required by section 745.4 of the Criminal Code to take into account the jury’s recommendation concerning parole eligibility. In this case, the jury made no recommendation.

Positions of the Crown and Defence

Both the Crown and the defence submitted that I should impose the minimum parole ineligibility period of 10 years. Both acknowledged the brutal nature of the killing, the vulnerability of the victims and the number of victims as aggravating factors but pointed to Mr. Brooks’ progressive neurocognitive disorder as a basis for the imposition of the minimum period of parole ineligibility.

Analysis

[16] Although this is a joint submission, in determining the period of time before which Mr. Brooks will be eligible for parole, I must consider the factors set out in section 745.4 of the Criminal Code, namely, the nature of the offence of second-degree murder, the circumstances surrounding the commission of this offence, the character of Mr. Brooks and the aggravating and mitigating factors before determining whether the proposed sentence is appropriate.

[17] All sentencing objectives are relevant to the period of parole ineligibility. They include the maintenance of public safety, the separation of Mr. Brooks from society, denunciation, general deterrence, specific deterrence and rehabilitation.

[18] In sentencing for second degree murder, rehabilitation generally has less weight than in sentencing for other offences. In this case, rehabilitation has virtually no weight. There is no prospect of rehabilitation given the nature of Mr. Brooks’ dementia. He has taken no responsibility for what he did and it is not likely that he will ever do so.

[19] Similarly specific deterrence has little, if any, weight in determining the appropriate period of parole ineligibility. Mr. Brooks will not be deterred from violence by his sentence.

[20] General deterrence should receive some consideration. However, individuals, like Mr. Brooks at the time of the offence, who are cognitively impaired are unlikely to be generally deterred.

[21] The paramount considerations in this case are the separation of Mr. Brooks from society, the protection of the public and denunciation.

[22] The circumstances of the offence are seriously aggravating. The brutality of the attacks, the vulnerability of the victims and the sustained and planned nature of the offence all call for a sentence that reflects society’s abhorrence of this type of violence. There is no question that a younger person without Mr. Brooks’ diagnosis of dementia would face an increased parole ineligibility period to denounce the offence and to protect the public.

[23] The protection of the public based on Mr. Brooks’ current condition demands that Mr. Brooks be kept in a secure custodial facility. He has not been violent in the last four years but he has been in a maximum secure setting for that time without access to vulnerable individuals. What is difficult to predict is how long secure detention of Mr. Brooks will be required in order to protect the public. If Mr. Brooks physical strength diminishes and his physical health fails he will present as less of a danger. The course of his progressive dementia may also impact on the danger that he will present in the future.

[24] In any determination of parole ineligibility there is an element of trying to predict the future. This is challenging in all cases. This case presents particular challenges.

[25] Mr. Brooks’ age and circumstances are such that even a 10-year period of parole ineligibility effectively means that he is unlikely to ever be released from prison. He lacks any community support and absent a significant change in his physical and mental health it seems unlikely that he would ever be accepted for placement in anything but a secure setting. Given the inevitability of deterioration in Mr. Brooks’ dementia and the absence of predictability of the impact of that deterioration on his behaviour, I have concluded that the Parole Board will be in the best position to balance the physical and mental condition of Mr. Brooks and public safety after the expiration of ten years of parole ineligibility.

[26] After carefully considering all of the circumstances and given the joint submission I have concluded that a ten year period of parole ineligibility should be imposed. While I am not increasing the period of parole ineligibility it is important to remember that the sentence I am imposing is one of life imprisonment, the most serious penalty known to our law. This sentence reflects the denunciation by society of the conduct of Mr. Brooks.

Conclusion

[27] For these reasons I sentence Mr. Brooks to imprisonment for life. I order that he not be eligible for parole until he has served 10 years of that sentence.

[28] I also make a prohibition order pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code for life and a DNA order pursuant to s. 487.051.

M. Forestell J.

Released: January 16, 2017