COURT FILE NO.: CR-16-325 (Napanee)
DATE: 20190215
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
JOHN WHITE
Defendant
Monica Heine, for the Crown
Christopher D. Hicks and Vincent Rishea, for the defendant
HEARD at Napanee: 15 February 2019
MEW J. (ORALLY):
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
[1] John White, a jury has found you guilty of the second degree murder of Gail White. In a few seconds you took a concealed, loaded handgun that you had secreted between the small of your back and the waistband of your jeans. You pointed it at Gail White who was sitting in her armchair with her legs crossed, phone on her lap; completely defenceless. You stepped forward so that you were perhaps as little as a few inches away from her head and pulled the trigger - shooting her with chilling accuracy with a single bullet in the centre of her forehead. She would have died instantly. The fragmented bullet dispersed in numerous places in her brain.
[2] What happened was no accident. You had the state of mind required to support the jury’s finding that you murdered Gail White. While it was necessary for the jury to find either that you intended to kill her or that you intended to cause her harm but you knew you would likely kill her, the evidence, in my view, clearly supports a finding that when you pulled the trigger of that gun you intended to kill Gail White.
[3] In an instant, your action has changed forever the lives of many people. Your father sat there helpless as you killed the woman he described in his evidence at trial as the pride and joy of his life. Right in front of his eyes. Killed her in cold blood. The happiness that he had found after the heartbreak of your mother Carol’s death was snuffed out in that moment. You had no other option but to hang your head in shame earlier this morning as your father's victim impact statement was read out.
[4] That day you also robbed Ashley and Eric of their mother; Brent, Linda and Glen of their sister; and Thelma of her daughter. Thelma’s victim impact statement wasn't read out in court this morning, but I have read it and it eloquently and movingly expresses the pain of a parent who has lost her child. It doesn’t matter, when a parent loses a child, whether that child is an infant or whether that child is a fully grown adult.
[5] You've also changed the lives of your siblings, your children and your former partner, Jessica. Jessica of course, who witnessed this crime. Many of them have been here day in, day out at this trial. A credit certainly to them, but hardly to you.
[6] The damage you have done is incalculable. You have imposed on the people who you have hurt a life sentence, with no prospect whatsoever of parole.
[7] Section 754 of the Criminal Code requires me to sentence you to life imprisonment, but in the case of someone convicted of second degree murder, it is provided that such sentence should be for life imprisonment without any eligibility of parole until at least ten years of the sentence have been served or such greater number of years, not being more than 25 years, as the court may determine.
[8] In exercising my discretion, I am required to take into account four potential factors: Firstly, your character; secondly, the nature of the offence; thirdly, the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence; and fourthly, any recommendation of the jury.
[9] In examining these factors, I am also required to consider the general principles of sentencing which are set out in Section 718 of the Criminal Code, which provides as follows:
The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and 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 following objectives:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community.
[10] I am also mindful of the fundamental principle of sentencing set out in Section 718.1 of the Code which states that a “sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.” I am required also by Section 718.2 of the Code to look at any further aggravating or mitigating factors as well as other considerations which are set out in that section, which include the requirement that a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances.
[11] In this regard, I have carefully considered the cases that have been provided to me by counsel to assist me in determining what an appropriate period of parole ineligibility should be. As all of those decisions observe, no two cases are the same, but considerable reliance was placed on the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. McKnight, 1999 CanLII 3717 (ON CA), [1999] 44 O.R. (3d) 263. In that case, the period of ineligibility for parole was determined to be fourteen years, reducing the trial judge’s position on sentencing. Mr. McKnight, a former doctor and lawyer, had murdered his wife in their bedroom with a bread knife during an attack which lasted ten to fifteen minutes. There was also evidence of long-standing and deep-rooted mental illness in the form of acute depression and psychotic episodes, and, as Justice Laskin in that case noted, there was evidence of deep and genuine remorse and the potential for rehabilitation of the offender, who was 53 years old when he was sentenced.
[12] The jury in this case has made recommendations for parole ineligibility. Seven of them recommended that you not be eligible for parole for 25 years; one of them for 20 years; another for 15 years; and three made no recommendation. The jurors do not, of course, have the benefit of knowing what all of the criteria applicable to a sentencing decision are. Their recommendation represents essentially a gut feeling based upon having witnessed the entire trial and having developed a sense of the magnitude of the crime that you committed and the circumstances in which it was committed. It is right and appropriate that I take into account their recommendation, even though the recommendation of 25 years ineligibility would, in the circumstances of this case, be a disproportionate sentence in law.
[13] I do take into account that you have no criminal record of any significance to this case and you have, as your counsel has indicated, previously been a contributing member of society. And, I think the prospect of you re-offending is modest at best. These are all factors which weigh in your favour.
[14] On the other hand, there is no doubt, as reflected by the recommendation of the jury, that your actions are deserving of the community's denunciation. And despite the comments which you made at the end of your sentencing hearing, there is very little evidence so far of any genuine remorse having been expressed by you. That may change, but that is my read of it at this time.
[15] John White, please stand.
[16] John White, for the second degree murder of Gail White I sentence you to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole until you have served at least sixteen years of that sentence. Pursuant to Section 743.21 of the Criminal Code there will also be an order that you not communicate directly or indirectly with Donald White or any member of his immediate family, or with Ashley Rushlow, Brent McCuaig, Linda Mitobe, Glen McCuaig, Thelma McCuaig, and Judy White. There will be a DNA order pursuant to Section 487.051 of the Criminal Code and there will be a lifetime weapons prohibition order.
[17] THE COURT: Madam Crown, is there anything I’ve left out?
[18] MS. HEINE: I apologise. The wording of the non-comm order that was requested is that each of those names also include “and any member of their immediate family.”
[19] THE COURT: All right. So any member of the immediate families of those individuals.
[20] MS. HEINE: Thank you, Sir.
Mew J.
Handed down (orally): 15 February 2019
COURT FILE NO.: CR-16-325 (Napanee)
DATE: 20190215
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
JOHN WHITE
Defendant
REASONS FOR sentence
Mew J.
Handed down (orally): 15 February 2019