Court File and Parties
Court File No.: 19-00344 Date: 20200805 Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between: Her Majesty The Queen – and Clifford Campsall Defendant
Counsel: Ms. E. Thomas, for the Crown Mr. R. Handlarski, for the Defendant
Heard: December 30, 2019, and June 30, 2020
Reasons for Sentence
Fuerst RSJ
Introduction
[1] Clifford Campsall pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his girlfriend, 28 year old Shelby Goldhar.
[2] After strangling Ms. Goldhar to death, Mr. Campsall partially dismembered her body with a knife.
[3] Crown and defence counsel agree that a substantial jail sentence must be imposed, but they differ as to its length and as to the calculation of Mr. Campsall’s time in pre-sentence custody.
[4] Sentencing in this case was delayed at the request of the defence so that a psychological report could be obtained. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the sentencing proceedings were conducted by recorded conference call, with Mr. Campsall’s explicit consent and participation.
The Circumstances of the Offence
[5] Mr. Campsall and Ms. Goldhar lived together in a romantic relationship. As of December 2017, they had been together some three years.
[6] Ms. Goldhar suffered from cognitive delays. She was childlike in her maturity and behaviour. In addition to these vulnerabilities, Ms. Goldhar was a homebody who rarely left the couple’s apartment.
[7] Regrettably, the relationship between Ms. Goldhar and Mr. Campsall was at times troubled. It involved arguments that sometimes became physical. Each party acted aggressively toward the other.
[8] In August 2017, Mr. Campsall pleaded guilty to assaulting Ms. Goldhar. He received a conditional discharge and was placed on probation for 12 months.
[9] Nonetheless, the romantic relationship between the two continued.
[10] On the evening of December 19, 2017, a group of friends gathered at the Campsall-Goldhar apartment. The group included Nikita Pouzanov. Alcohol and cocaine were consumed, including by both Mr. Campsall and Ms. Goldhar.
[11] Mr. Pouzanov, Mr. Campsall and Ms. Goldhar went to Mr. Pouzanov’s basement apartment, which he shared with his girlfriend, Felicia Land. They consumed more cocaine there.
[12] Mr. Campsall sent a text message to a friend in which he said that Ms. Goldhar was behaving like “typical Shelby” when she was high, meaning that she was pestering and annoying those she was with, including him.
[13] In the early morning hours of December 20, Mr. Campsall and Ms. Goldhar had an argument that became a physical altercation.
[14] Mr. Campsall used the cord of a hair straightener as a ligature to strangle Ms. Goldhar. She died as a result.
[15] Mr. Campsall, who was still intoxicated, panicked. He located a serrated knife and used it to attempt to dismember Ms. Goldhar’s body. She suffered a subtotal amputation of the left arm.
[16] Later that morning, Mr. Campsall, Mr. Pouzanov and Ms. Land left the apartment, abandoning Ms. Goldhar’s body there. The trio went to a nearby store before getting on a bus and going their separate ways.
[17] Mr. Campsall went to a York Regional Police station and reported Ms. Goldhar’s death. He was observed to have an injury to his face that included bruising around his eye. The police arrested him soon after.
[18] The police located Ms. Goldhar’s nude and partially dismembered body in the apartment. She had a number of injuries, including bruising to her hands, lacerations and bruising to her face and back, and a ligature mark on her neck. Her left arm was almost fully amputated.
The Victim Impact Information
[19] In his Victim Impact Statement, Ms. Goldhar’s father describes feeling devastated by the loss of his daughter. Ms. Goldhar’s mother passed away only six months before Ms. Goldhar was killed. Mr. Goldhar had to bear the grief of their daughter’s death alone. He describes being rendered a completely dysfunctional person, who lacks self-esteem and is unable to care about others.
The Circumstances of Mr. Campsall
[20] Mr. Campsall is 29 years old. He is the youngest of four children.
[21] He is the father of a 7 year old boy, by a previous relationship. His parents are the legal guardians of the child.
[22] Mr. Campsall’s mother and his sister report that he was diagnosed with cataracts as a young child, and deemed legally blind. He had surgery, but then had to wear eye patches to strengthen his eyes. Additionally, testing administered when he was 6 years old placed his overall intellectual functioning in the Borderline range. He fell behind in elementary school, and was constantly bullied by schoolmates. Attending school became a frustrating experience for him, and he had behavioral problems. He was suspended on multiple occasions, and transferred schools many times.
[23] His intellectual functioning was again assessed when he was 15 years old. Testing placed him in the Extremely Low range. He did not advance beyond grade 9. He reports that he can read and write at only a basic level.
[24] Mr. Campsall began to use alcohol and drugs in early adolescence. He progressed from cannabis, to ecstasy and cocaine by the time he was 18 years old. He became a crack cocaine addict.
[25] He reports that in 2008, he was involved in a serious motor vehicle collision in which he lost consciousness for several minutes. However, he did not seek medical attention.
[26] Mr. Campsall’s employment history is limited. He was receiving ODSP at the time of his arrest.
[27] A psychologist, Dr. Stephanie Penney, evaluated Mr. Campsall’s cognitive functioning in February of this year. Mr. Campsall completed a variety of psychological tests. The results placed his overall cognitive abilities within the Extremely Low range, with deficits across both verbal and non-verbal domains. Dr. Penney describes this as consistent with a broad-based intellectual disability.
[28] Mr. Campsall also suffers from glaucoma.
[29] Mr. Campsall’s sister describes trying to intervene to get him professional help for his drug addiction and mental health issues, and to get him away from friends who were negative influences during the period he lived with Ms. Goldhar. Unfortunately, these efforts were unsuccessful.
[30] Mr. Campsall’s parents and siblings continue to be supportive of him. They believe that he should have mental health and addictions counselling while serving his sentence.
[31] Mr. Campsall expressed to me that he accepts responsibility for Ms. Goldhar’s death and is truly sorry. He apologized to her family. He wants to get professional help for his mental health issues, and to stay off drugs and alcohol.
[32] Mr. Campsall has been in custody at the Central East Correctional Centre since his arrest on December 20, 2017. An institutional report indicates that he was triple-bunked for 131 days. Additionally, on 188 occasions his unit at the jail was locked down for 6 hours or more, and on 52 occasions for less than 6 hours. Many, although not all, of the lockdowns were because of staff shortages. Normally, inmates spend several hours per day in a common dayroom, and have yard time. There is no dayroom or yard time when a unit is locked down for 8 hours or more, and there may be limited access to visits, phones and showers. If the lockdown is for a lesser period, there may still be access to dayroom, yard, visits, phones, and showers.
[33] Mr. Campsall provided an affidavit in which he described the negative impact on him of the lockdowns, including loss of privacy when he was confined to his cell with his cellmate, and having to go without showers, sometimes for consecutive days. He believes that he has a compromised immune system and is at greater risk of contracting COVID-19 while in jail. He feels isolated because of the lack of family visits during the pandemic.
The Positions of the Parties
[34] On behalf of the Crown, Ms. Thomas seeks a sentence of 10 years in jail less credit for pre-sentencing custody calculated at one and a half to one and an additional credit of no more than 12 months for lockdowns and the COVID-19 pandemic. She also seeks a DNA order, a s. 109 weapons prohibition order for life, and a s. 743.21 non-communication order in respect of Ms. Goldhar’s father.
[35] Ms. Thomas acknowledges that Mr. Campsall pleaded guilty, and that there are other mitigating factors. He is a youthful offender as he was in his later twenties at the time of the offence. He has cognitive deficits and related behavioural issues that were not appropriately treated when he was younger. They have presented and will continue to present challenges for him.
[36] Ms. Thomas submits, however, that there are significant aggravating factors, and that deterrence and denunciation must be the primary sentencing principles in this case. This was an act of violence committed by Mr. Campsall against his domestic partner, which is a statutory aggravating factor. Ms. Goldhar had particular vulnerabilities. Mr. Campsall was on probation when he killed Ms. Goldhar, having been found guilty of assaulting her on an earlier occasion. He caused her death by ligature strangulation. He then partially dismembered her body, and left her naked in the apartment.
[37] On behalf of Mr. Campsall, Mr. Handlarski seeks a sentence of 8 years in jail, less credit for pre-sentencing custody calculated at one and a half to one, plus additional credit exceeding 2 years for lockdowns and the COVID-19 pandemic. He made no submissions about the ancillary orders sought by the Crown.
[38] Mr. Handlarski acknowledges that denunciation and deterrence are very important sentencing considerations because Ms. Goldhar was Mr. Campsall’s domestic partner. However, he submits that there are unique circumstances in this case, above and beyond the mitigating effect of Mr. Campsall’s guilty plea.
[39] Mr. Handlarski contends that Mr. Campsall should be treated as a youthful first offender. He has an intellectual disability that should be viewed in the same way as a mental disorder, lessening the need to focus on general deterrence in identifying the appropriate sentence for him. Further, Mr. Campsall’s intellectual disability has enhanced the negative impact of his incarceration with its frequent lockdowns, as he described in his affidavit. Substantial custodial credit should be given because of this. Additional credit should be extended because he has been incarcerated during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Principles of Sentencing
[40] The objectives of sentencing are set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code. They are: the denunciation of unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or the community, deterrence both general and specific, the separation of the offender from society where necessary, rehabilitation, reparation for harm done to victims or the community, and promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims or the community.
[41] Section 718.1 provides that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Section 718.2 provides that a sentence should be increased or decreased to account for any aggravating and mitigating circumstances. It sets out various aggravating factors. It also requires that a sentence be similar to those imposed on similar offenders in similar circumstances.
[42] In every case, the determination of a fit sentence is a fact-specific exercise. As the Supreme Court of Canada put it in R. v. Ferguson, 2008 SCC 6, at paragraph 15, “The appropriateness of a sentence is a function of the purpose and principles of sentencing set out in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code as applied to the facts that led to the conviction.” The facts of the offence, the circumstances of the accused, and his or her moral blameworthiness are all considerations.
Sentencing in Manslaughter Cases
[43] Manslaughter is a serious offence because it involves the taking of a life. It ordinarily attracts a lengthy sentence: see, R. v. Head, [1985] O.J. No. 153 (C.A.). Indeed, under s. 236 of the Criminal Code, the maximum sentence for manslaughter is life imprisonment.
[44] However, a diversity of circumstances will found a conviction for manslaughter, and so the caselaw reflects a wide variation in the range of sentence. At one end of the manslaughter spectrum, the circumstances may approximate an unintentional and almost accidental killing, while there will be those approaching murder at the opposite extremity: see, R. v. Carrière (2002), 164 C.C.C. (3d) 569 (Ont. C.A.), at paragraph 10.
[45] The Court of Appeal for Ontario held in R. v. Simcoe, [2002] O.J. No. 884 that identifying the appropriate sentence in a particular case of manslaughter requires the sentencing judge to consider the context in which the manslaughter occurred, meaning the case-specific circumstances of the offence and the offender.
Analysis
[46] I turn now to the specific aggravating and mitigating factors in this case.
[47] There are a plethora of aggravating factors. They include:
(a) This was a domestic homicide, perpetrated by Mr. Campsall against the woman who was his common law partner and with whom he lived for several years. Section 718.2 (a)(ii) of the Criminal Code, as it read at the time of the offence, identified abuse of a common law partner as an aggravating factor that increases a sentence. That provision reflects society’s condemnation of abuse, most particularly physical abuse, that occurs in the context of an intimate relationship. All too often the physical abuse is perpetrated by a male against his female partner, as is the case here. (b) Ms. Goldhar was a young woman with particular vulnerabilities arising from developmental delays. (c) Mr. Campsall used violence against Ms. Goldhar previously, for which he was prosecuted, found guilty, given a conditional discharge, and placed on probation. (d) That probation was still in effect when he killed Ms. Goldhar. Mr. Campsall was not even halfway through it when he re-offended in the most egregious of ways. (e) Mr. Campsall killed Ms. Goldhar by ligature strangulation, which is a particularly cruel form of death. (f) In a grotesque form of indignity to the woman who had been his intimate partner, Mr. Campsall then partially dismembered Ms. Goldhar’s body. (g) He callously abandoned Ms. Goldhar’s nude body when he left the apartment accompanied by his friends. (h) The impact of Ms. Goldhar’s death on her father, who already was grieving the death of his wife, has been and continues to be immense. (i) Mr. Campsall’s longstanding drug and alcohol problem was central to his offence. He was well aware he had a problem, but failed to do what only he could do, which was to seek and follow through with treatment.
[48] There are mitigating factors, which include:
(a) Mr. Campsall pleaded guilty, which is a sign of his remorse and willingness to accept responsibility for his wrongdoing. He also expressed remorse during the sentencing hearing. (b) Mr. Campsall was relatively young at the time of the offence. He was not a first offender given the finding of guilt for assaulting Ms. Goldhar, but his previous involvement with the criminal justice system was limited. (c) Ultimately, he reported Ms. Goldhar’s death to the police. (d) Mr. Campsall suffers from a broad-based intellectual disability that was not properly addressed when he was in elementary school, and combined with a childhood visual deficit, adversely affected his social development along with his academic progress. I accept that this led to behavioural problems and likely explains his involvement with drugs and alcohol, association with negative peers, and failure to hold steady employment. It has some mitigating effect. In the circumstances of this case, including the nature of the offence and Dr. Penney’s report, I am unable to accept Mr. Handlarski’s submission that the disability is comparable to a mental disorder that diminishes the weight to be assigned to general deterrence. (e) Mr. Campsall has the support of his immediate family, which will be important for his reintegration into the community on his release from jail. (f) Mr. Campsall acknowledged to me that he must get treatment for his substance abuse.
[49] I recognize that the principles of denunciation and deterrence are not always paramount in manslaughter cases, nor is the goal of rehabilitation always subordinate to those objectives: see, R. v. Jiwa, 2012 ONCA 532. But where, as in this case, the homicide is of the offender’s common law spouse, the circumstances reflect cruelty and callousness, and the taking of life is criminalized as a manslaughter because of the offender’s intoxication, the objectives of denunciation and deterrence both general and specific have primacy. Mr. Campsall’s rehabilitation cannot be ignored, but it must assume a subordinate role.
[50] The appropriate sentence is one of 9 years in the penitentiary.
[51] I next consider the attribution of pre-sentence custody.
[52] Mr. Campsall has been in custody for 960 actual days. At one and a half to one, this totals 1440 days, or 48 months.
[53] I agree that he should be credited with some additional time because of lockdowns and triple bunking. I accept that these circumstances made his incarceration more difficult due to his cognitive challenges. I note that many of the lockdowns were because of staff shortages. Notwithstanding repeated judicial pronouncements that frequent lockdowns are inhumane and unacceptable, lockdowns due to staff shortages appear to have become “standard operating procedure” at the Central East Correctional Centre. This is concerning. It is a problem that needs to be addressed by those who have responsibility for our custodial facilities.
[54] I allocate a total of 12 months credit for the combination of 188 full lockdown days, 52 partial lockdown days, and 131 days of triple bunking.
[55] I am unable to accept Mr. Campsall’s suggestion that he is at increased risk of contracting COVID-19. There is no confirmatory medical evidence before me. I do accept that being incarcerated at a remand facility during the COVID-19 pandemic has been a source of added stress for him. I allocate an additional 2 months credit because of this.
[56] The total pre-sentencing custody credit is 62 months.
Conclusion
[57] Mr. Campsall, I sentence you to 9 years in jail, less credit of 62 months for pre-sentence custody. That leaves a sentence to be served of 46 months, or 3 years and 10 months.
[58] I make a DNA order, a s. 109 weapons prohibition order for life, and a s. 743.21 non-communication order in respect of Howard Goldhar.
Fuerst RSJ
Released: August 5, 2020
NOTE: As noted in court on the record, these written reasons are to be considered the official version and take precedence over the oral reasons read into the record. In the event of discrepancies between the oral and written versions, it is the written reasons that are to be relied upon.
