DELIVERED : Orally and made an Exhibit on June 18, 2024
COURT FILE NO.: 21-5247 DATE: 20240618
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN: HIS MAJESTY THE KING – and – Audley Crooks Offender
Counsel: Elizabeth Brown, for the Crown Patricia Brown, for the Offender
HEARD: April 19, 2024, by Zoom
Restriction on Publication
By court order made under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code, information that may identify the person described in this ruling as the complainant may not be published, broadcasted, or transmitted in any manner. This judgment complies with this restriction so that it can be published.
CARROCCIA J.
Decision on Sentence
[1] The offender, Audley Crooks, was convicted of the following Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (the “Code”) offences following a jury trial which was held from July 4, 2023, to July 21, 2023:
count #1: sexual assault contrary to s. 271;
count #2: sexual assault contrary to s. 271;
count #4: human trafficking contrary to s. 279.01(1);
count #5: receiving a material benefit from human trafficking contrary to
s. 279.02(1);
count #6: obtaining for consideration the sexual services of a person contrary to s. 286.1(1);
count #7: procuring a person to provide sexual services for consideration contrary to s. 286.3(1);
count #8: advertising sexual services for consideration contrary to s. 286.4.
[2] All of the offences occurred between August 15 and August 30, 2020. Mr. Crooks was also charged with uttering threats to cause bodily harm contrary to s. 264.1(1)(a) of the Code but was acquitted by the jury of that offence.
[3] At the time that counsel made submissions on sentence, they agreed that counts #6 and #7 on the indictment should be stayed pursuant to the principles in Regina v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729, and accordingly those counts will be stayed.
[4] The court has had the benefit of a Pre-Sentence Report which was prepared in this matter, caselaw briefs filed by counsel, a book of Defence Sentencing Material as well as the submissions of counsel.
[5] Imposing an appropriate sentence requires the court to balance a number of factors and apply the relevant legal principles.
[6] Sentencing has been described as one of the most difficult tasks that a trial judge must undertake. In imposing sentence, I consider the following factors.
The Circumstances of the Offences
[7] Based on the evidence heard during the trial, the instructions to the jury and the verdict of the jury, I rely on the following circumstances of the offence.
[8] The offender and the complainant (who will be referred to as the complainant or by her initials I.C. in accordance with the publication ban in place) met when she was working as a sex worker in London, Ontario around August 15, 2020. She initiated communication with Mr. Crooks through a Facebook message.
[9] They met in person, and shortly afterwards entered into an agreement or arrangement whereby she would perform sex work and he would collect the money she earned and take care of her. On a date between August 15 and 27, 2020, according to I.C., Mr. Crooks attended at her home at Anova, in London, Ontario. Anova is a residence which offers subsidized housing for victims of human trafficking and domestic violence.
[10] Mr. Crooks was angry because he thought she was withholding money she earned from him. He searched her apartment and then inserted his fingers into her vagina to search for money to make sure she was not hiding it from him. I.C. testified that she was scared and that she suffered pain as a result. This evidence relates to the first charge of sexual assault.
[11] The convictions relating to human trafficking, receiving a material benefit from human trafficking and advertising sexual services for consideration relate to the following conduct. According to the complainant, the offender posted an ad on Leo’s List to advertise the availability of sexual services to be provided by her for consideration. He gave her instructions on the pricing of her services, and she turned over all the money she earned to Mr. Crooks. Sometimes she turned over cash and at other times she sent him e-transfers. He drove her to meet clients. Mr. Crooks drove her from London to Niagara Falls, Ontario so she could work there providing sexual services. While they were in Niagara Falls, Mr. Crooks controlled and arranged all of the appointments she had with men to provide sexual services. She testified that in exchange, he promised to love her, take care of her, and buy her things.
[12] I.C. testified that on August 27, 2020, when she travelled with Mr. Crooks to Niagara Falls, initially she thought they were going for a vacation. They went shopping and went out for dinner on the first day there. On the second day of their stay, Mr. Crooks posted an ad offering the sexual services of the complainant. I.C. testified that the offender responded to enquiries from the ad, and she met with the men in their hotel room and performed various sexual services. She was quite busy working. She worked until about 5:00 a.m. She testified that at around that time, Mr. Crooks wanted to have sex with her. She was tired and did not want to have sex with him, and said no. He persisted and had forced vaginal intercourse with her. This evidence relates to the second conviction for sexual assault.
[13] After the trip to Niagara Falls, according to the evidence of I.C. Mr. Crooks brought her to Windsor and rented a motel room where he posted an ad for her sexual services. On August 30, 2020, Mr. Crooks was arrested at that motel after I.C. contacted Detective Constable Craig Dundas of the London Police Service whom she knew, and he in turn called the Windsor Police.
[14] The court was provided with a victim impact statement from the complainant. In it she describes how these events had a huge impact on her life. She indicates that the offender’s actions “hurt her soul” and damaged her emotional health. She describes how she lives with the consequences of being a victim of sex trafficking and sexual assault everyday.
The Circumstances of the Offender
[15] Mr. Crooks is currently 40 years of age. He is single and resides in London, Ontario, with his parents as a condition of his bail order. He grew up in Brampton, Ontario and was raised by a supportive family free from any physical or emotional abuse, although the offender disclosed to the probation officer preparing the Pre-Sentence Report that he did suffer sexual abuse as a young child at the hands of a female family member.
[16] He reportedly enjoyed a happy childhood with his family. He was the youngest of three children and was spoiled.
[17] The offender reports that as an adolescent he began to associate with a negative peer group and experiment with marijuana and ultimately left high school in grade 11.
[18] He became a father in 2005 at the age of 22 and lived “on and off” with the mother of his child until the relationship ended in an incident of domestic violence. He is the father of three children in total.
[19] He suffered the loss of a partner in 2011 which had a profound effect on him. He began a romantic relationship with a woman who worked as an escort in 2015 and remains friends with her today. She described him in very positive terms.
[20] Mr. Crooks described for the probation officer that he met the victim of these offences in 2020 and that she “needed [his] help” with her business and to take photos. I.C. reported to the probation officer that he was initially kind and generous to her but soon became manipulative, controlling, and abusive.
[21] Mr. Crooks returned to school as a mature student attending a college in the Toronto area but did not graduate.
[22] He has worked in various occupations, in factories, in sales, as a DJ, and as a labourer. He provided the court with documents confirming his recent employment with Canada Life. He was employed with Express Services of Canada in 2023 until he was laid off and received an IT Certification while he was off work. He also has an interest in filmmaking and was nominated in 2022 for the Best Canadian Documentary at the Hollywood North Film Awards.
[23] Mr. Crooks has acknowledged to the probation officer who prepared the Pre-Sentence Report that he has experimented with various drugs in his past but indicates that it is not a problem for him currently.
[24] He attributes the use of marijuana to his poor decision-making in the past, as well as his involvement in criminal activity and a negative lifestyle.
[25] The probation officer expressed that she felt that Mr. Crooks minimized his involvement and accountability in the offences and denied that he controlled the complainant. She noted that he engages in criminal offending behaviour particularly towards women and that at times Mr. Crooks suggested that he was the victim in these matters. Further, the probation officer concludes that he appears to lack insight into his offending behaviour.
[26] Mr. Crooks was in custody for a total of 345 days before being released on bail and is entitled to credit for the time spent in pre-sentence custody or PSC on the basis of 1.5 days for each day for a total of 518 days of PSC pursuant to s. 719(3.1) of the Code.
[27] He was released on bail on August 9, 2021, and has been bound by strict conditions of bail from that date until the present including the use of a GPS ankle monitor, and house arrest conditions, with exceptions for employment, court attendances and when in the presence of his sureties.
[28] The offender has a criminal record that dates back to 2006 and includes approximately 17 convictions. Some are for breaches of court orders, but he has also been convicted of offences of violence including two convictions for assault. Mr. Crooks was convicted of possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition contrary to s. 95(1) of the Code on January 26, 2015, and was sentenced to 90 days jail to be served intermittently. His most recent convictions are most relevant in that he was convicted on February 8, 2019, of receiving a material benefit from sexual services contrary to s. 286.2(1) of the Code and was sentenced to four months jail, after credit for the equivalent of 20 months PSC. On the same date, he was convicted of assault with a weapon and was sentenced to one day in jail with credit for the equivalent of 20 months PSC.
The Position of the Parties
[29] The defence asks the court to impose a global sentence of three to five years in the penitentiary after considering the mitigating circumstances in this matter. According to the defence, there are a number of mitigating circumstances that the court should take into account including the time spent in pre-sentence custody as well as the 35 months that the offender has spent on bail on strict conditions without incurring any new charges or breaches of conditions.
[30] The defence submits that since the date of his release from custody, the offender has made every effort to conduct himself in a pro-social way. He has made changes to his lifestyle and now has new priorities including taking care of his aging parents and his children.
[31] The defence submits that the offender is aware of the seriousness of his conduct, and he has engaged in self-reflection, particularly now that he is substance-free and has focused on obtaining and maintaining employment. He produced a T4 slip that reflects that he earned approximately $31,000 in income last year.
[32] He was employed at Canada Life as a claims examiner earlier this year but lost his job because of his criminal record. He is now currently working with a different employer where his criminal record is not a hinderance.
[33] Counsel for the defence submits that this conduct demonstrates that the offender has taken serious steps towards rehabilitation. All of these actions were self-motivated and not the result of a court order. The defence disagrees with the opinion of the probation officer that he minimizes his responsibility for the offences.
[34] Counsel submits that while the vulnerability of the victim is a factor to be considered, and it is recognized by the defence that the offender negatively impacted her life, the court should consider that this case presents a unique set of circumstances where the complainant was already working as a sex worker at the time that they met, and she pursued Mr. Crooks.
[35] The defence asks the court to consider awarding what is referred to as Duncan credit due to the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody endured by the offender. Further, the defence asks the court to consider assessing 9-12 months credit for the lengthy period of time that the offender spent on strict conditions of bail.
[36] The Crown takes a much different position as to the appropriate sentence in the circumstances. The Crown seeks a global sentence of 14 years in the penitentiary set out as follows:
count #1: two (2) years jail;
count #2: five (5) years jail consecutive;
count #4: seven (7) years jail consecutive;
count #5; five (5) years jail concurrent; and
count #8: two (2) years jail concurrent.
[37] The Crown also seeks ancillary orders including a DNA order, a SOIRA order for life, and an order of non-communication with the complainant pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Code.
[38] The Crown recognizes that the offender was on bail for an extended period of time and complied with the conditions of bail, but the Crown points out that his conditions, while restrictive, were not as onerous as suggested by the defence. The offender was able to work and leave his home. So, while he is entitled to some Downes credit, the Crown suggests it should not be as much as what is sought by the defence.
[39] The Crown further submits that the offender is entitled to credit for pre-sentence custody but disagrees that the conditions of his confinement were particularly harsh so as to justify a great deal of enhanced credit. While the offender was in custody during the COVID-19 pandemic and he did endure some hardships, the Crown argues that the credit for his pre-sentence custody must be put into perspective.
[40] The Crown relies on the criminal record of the offender, particularly the prior conviction for a related offence, which resulted in an effective two-year sentence to suggest that an increased sentence is necessary to address the principles of denunciation and deterrence. The Crown submits that the offender has had opportunities in the past to “turn his life around” but has nevertheless continued to accrue criminal convictions.
[41] The Crown points out that the offender minimized his involvement in these offences in the pre-sentence report which causes concern as to his potential for rehabilitation.
[42] The Crown relies on the fact that the offender was convicted of serious offences of violence against a vulnerable person who was involved in an intimate relationship with the offender as being particularly aggravating circumstances.
[43] The degree of control that the offender exercised over the complainant, together with the sexual assault offences of which he was convicted, justify the sentence sought by the Crown which reflects the seriously aggravating circumstances present, but still falls within the appropriate range of sentence.
The Duncan Credit
[44] In addition to the pre-sentence custody credit to which the offender is entitled, that is 1.5 days credit for each day spent in pre-trial custody in accordance with s. 719(3.1) of the Code and the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Regina v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 575, the defence seeks additional credit, often referred to as Duncan credit to be deducted from any sentence to be served to reflect the particularly harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody Mr. Crooks was subjected to.
[45] In Regina v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754, the Court of Appeal concluded that in appropriate circumstances, particularly harsh pre-sentence incarceration conditions can justify mitigation beyond the 1.5 days for each day referred to in s. 719(3.1) of the Code.
[46] More recently in Regina v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344, Doherty J.A. speaking for the Court of Appeal, said at para. 52:
The “Duncan” credit is not a deduction from the otherwise appropriate sentence, but is one of the factors to be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence. Particularly punitive pretrial incarceration conditions can be a mitigating factor to be taken into account with the other mitigating and aggravating factors in arriving at the appropriate sentence from which the “Summers” credit will be deducted. Because the “Duncan” credit is one of the mitigating factors to be taken into account, it cannot justify the imposition of a sentence which is inappropriate, having regard to all of the relevant mitigating or aggravating factors.
[47] Accordingly, any Duncan credit is not to be treated as a mathematical formula to reduce an appropriate sentence but is to be factored into the determination of an appropriate sentence as a mitigating circumstance, before the sentence is reduced for time spent in pre-sentence custody.
[48] The defence produced records from the South West Detention Centre and the court heard evidence from Kevin Emery who is a Deputy Superintendent there. The evidence reflects that the offender spent 137 days out of the 345 days he spent in pre-sentence custody in a cell with three inmates although the cell is meant to house two inmates. He spent 11 of those days sleeping on the floor.
[49] The offender was also impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and spent 25 days in full lockdown, and other times on partial lockdown due to staffing levels or COVID-19 outbreaks. During lockdown periods, individuals in custody had restricted access to programs, to their counsel and to visits from family.
[50] The court also heard evidence that Mr. Crooks spent 22 days in segregation, although that term is no longer used, and it is now referred to as “conditions of confinement”. However, of that time 19 days were due to disciplinary reasons and/or acts of misconduct by the offender.
The Downes Credit
[51] The defence is also seeking credit against any sentence imposed based on Mr. Crooks’ compliance with strict bail conditions imposed on him pending his trial. This is usually referred to as Downes credit in accordance with the principles outlined in Regina v. Downes (2006), 79 O.R. (3d) 321 (C.A.).
[52] In that decision, Rosenberg J.A., speaking for the Court of Appeal, considered whether the offender was entitled to credit for the time he spent on bail under house arrest conditions. He determined that a trial judge should adopt a flexible approach in determining how much, if any, credit should be given in those circumstances.
[53] Rosenberg J.A. stated, at para. 37 of Downes, that in making the determination, the court should consider the following factors:
- Time spent on stringent pre-sentence bail conditions, especially house arrest, is a relevant mitigating factor.
- As such, the trial judge must consider the time spent on bail under house arrest in determining the length of sentence.
- The failure of the trial judge to explain why time spent on bail under house arrest has not been taken into account is an error in principle.
- The amount of credit to be given for time spent on bail under house arrest is within the discretion of the trial judge and there is no formula that the judge is required to apply.
- The amount of credit will depend upon a number of factors including, the length of time spent on bail under house arrest; the stringency of the conditions; the impact on the offender's liberty; the ability of the offender to carry on normal relationships, employment and activity.
- Where the offender asks the trial judge to take pre-sentence bail conditions into account, the offender should supply the judge with information as to the impact of the conditions. If there is a dispute as to the impact of the conditions, the onus is on the offender to establish those facts on a balance of probabilities in accordance with s. 724(3) of the Criminal Code.
[54] In Downes, Rosenberg J. found that the appropriate credit for 18 months spent on house arrest conditions of bail was five months.
[55] In this case, the offender was released on a release order with two sureties, his parents. He was bound by strict conditions of bail including that he reside with his parents and remain in his residence at all times except for medical emergencies, travelling directly to or from court, meeting with his counsel, or when in the presence of his sureties. The offender could only possess a cell phone or computer to communicate with counsel or for educational purposes.
[56] In addition, he was required to wear a GPS ankle monitor and advise Recovery Science Corporation (who supervised the ankle monitor program) of his travel plans when leaving the house to attend at work or school.
[57] During the course of these proceedings the court was required to vary his conditions of bail to permit him to remain in Essex County, so he would not be in breach, while his trial was being conducted.
[58] He was also subject to bail compliance checks. On one occasion, during the course of the trial, Mr. Crooks was staying at a motel and the police attended to check his conditions of bail to ensure his compliance.
[59] In my view, the offender is entitled to credit for the time spent on strict conditions of bail given all the circumstances. Quite clearly, based on the conditions, the offender’s liberty was restricted which impacted his daily life.
Other Relevant Legal Principles
[60] The court is aware of the need to consider the purpose and principles of sentencing set out in s. 718 of the Code including the need to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims, to deter the offender and others and to assist in rehabilitation of the offender.
[61] Section 718.04 of the Code recognizes that denunciation and deterrence are the paramount considerations when imposing a sentence on an offender who abuses a vulnerable person:
When a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a person who is vulnerable because of personal circumstances — including because the person is Aboriginal and female — the court shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of the conduct that forms the basis of the offence.
[62] Further, s. 718.1 requires that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
[63] Section 718.2 mandates a court to consider the principles set out in that section in imposing sentence, including that any sentence imposed should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, is deemed to be an aggravating circumstance.
[64] Further, the Crown relies on s. 718.201 which requires the court to consider the increased vulnerability of female persons who are victims of intimate partner violence.
[65] Counsel also provided the court with a number of cases to support their respective positions on the appropriate sentence to impose.
[66] As it relates to the charges of sexual assault, the Crown relies on Regina v. A.J.K., 2022 ONCA 487, 162 O.R. (3d) 721. In that decision, Fairburn A.C.J.O reminded trial judges that the Court of Appeal has reinforced in numerous decisions, that a range of three to five years jail, and even higher in the context of sexual assaults on non-intimate partners involving forced oral, vaginal or anal penetration is appropriate: A.J.K., at para. 68.
[67] The Court of Appeal in A.J.K., at para. 77, dismissed the previously held belief that the fact that the complainant and the offender had some form of prior relationship would justify a lower sentence and confirmed that absent some mitigating circumstance the forced penetration of another person will typically attract a sentence of at least three years.
[68] As for the range of appropriate sentences for offences of human trafficking, they vary in relation to the circumstances of the offence and the offender.
[69] In Regina v. Lopez, 2018 ONSC 4749, K.L. Campbell J. imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment after deducting credit for pre-sentence custody and Duncan credit in a case where the offender was convicted of exercising control of the movements of the complainant while exploiting her as a sex worker over a period of 17 ½ months. The offender was in his early twenties at the time of the offences and had a criminal record for offences of dishonesty and driving offences but had not spent any significant time in custody prior to the charges before the court.
[70] The defence drew the court’s attention to the decision of London-Weinstein J. in Regina v. Gardner, 2020 ONSC 5954, as a helpful summary, where the trial judge reviewed a number of sentencing cases involving offences of human trafficking.
[71] In that case, the offender was sentenced to a global sentence of seven years for offences of human trafficking and sexual assault in circumstances where the complainant, a university student who began working in the sex trade of her own volition, was subjected to physical violence and controlling behaviour including sexual assault as punishment at the hands of the offender.
[72] The offender had no prior criminal record, but showed no remorse for his conduct although he had strong prospects for rehabilitation.
[73] The Crown relies on Rex v. S.M., 2023 ONCA 417, at para. 28, leave to appeal dismissed, , where the Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of 5 ½ years imprisonment (less PSC) imposed at trial on eight counts of human trafficking offences relating to one complainant, as being “at the lower end of the range for this type of offence”.
[74] In Rex v. Myers, 2023 ONSC 1015, Nakatsuru J. agreed that the range of sentence for these types of offences is four to eight years. In that case, he imposed a sentence of five years and two months on a charge of human trafficking in circumstances where the offender exploited a vulnerable young woman for about ten months and got her addicted to drugs.
[75] The defence asks the court to consider the over-representation of black offenders in the criminal justice system and in particular the evidence given by the offender during the voir dire in this matter where he expressed his fear of the system and his feeling that he was unfairly treated and might even be subjected to violence because he is a black man.
[76] Very recently, in Rex v. Husbands, 2024 ONCA 155, at para. 61, Fairburn A.C.J.O. reminded trial judges when considering the impact of anti-Black racism on an offender and its impact on a sentence to be imposed that:
[R. v.] Morris is clear that an offender need not establish a direct causal connection between the negative effects of anti-Black racism on the offender and the offence, as “some connection” will suffice. But some connection is important because, without it, the mitigation of a sentence based upon the existence of overt or institutional racism in the community would represent nothing more than a “discount based on the offender’s colour”, and “[e]veryone agrees there can be no such discount”. [Citations omitted.]
[77] The existence and effect of anti-Black racism on an offender’s circumstances and life choices can be considered as part of the offender’s background and circumstances as long as there is evidence of “some connection” between those circumstances and the offence: Husbands, at para. 62.
[78] As for whether a sentence imposed for these offences ought to be concurrent or consecutive to any other sentence, I am guided by the principles outlined in Regina v. Johnson, 2012 ONCA 339, 285 C.C.C. (3d) 120, where the Court of Appeal considered the principle of proportionality set out in s. 718.2(c) of the Code. Where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh. Blair J.A. stated as follows, at para. 18:
In short, a combined sentence must not be unduly long or harsh in the sense that its impact simply exceeds the gravity of the offences in question or the overall culpability of the offender. The overall length of the custodial period imposed must still relate to and reflect the variety of sentencing goals, including denunciation, deterrence (specific and general), rehabilitation, the need to separate offenders from society where necessary, and the general imperative of promoting respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society. In this regard, the authorities recognize that where the ultimate effect of the combined sentences is to deprive the offender of any hope of release or rehabilitation, the functional value of these sentencing principles meets the point of diminishing returns. [Citations omitted.]
[79] Blair J.A. went on to say at para. 23 of Johnson,
The system must be seen to be fair and rational – both to the offender and the community – and its integrity must be preserved. Just as a sentence cannot be unduly harsh and excessive, neither can it be overly lenient or unresponsive to other purposes and principles that underpin the sentencing regime – denunciation, deterrence, the promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of harm done to victims and the community, and the protection of the public. [Citations omitted.]
The Principles Applied
Appropriate Range of Sentence:
[80] The court must balance the factors outlined above to impose a fit sentence which is proportionate to the gravity of the offences and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
[81] Courts have found that the appropriate range of sentence for offences of human trafficking is generally in the range of four to eight years. Denunciation and deterrence are the paramount considerations.
[82] The court has considered the following mitigating circumstances in determining the appropriate sentence in this matter. The offender has taken steps to change his lifestyle while on bail and has not incurred any additional charges. He has the support of his family.
[83] The complainant was already involved in the sex trade when she met the offender.
[84] I recognize that Black men are over-represented in the criminal justice system, and that the offender has expressed his own fears about his experience with the police, and the personal impact of anti-Black racism, but when determining what, if any credit should be given, I am reminded by the Court of Appeal that there must be “some connection” between those circumstances and the offence. The court has not been provided with any evidence of a connection between anti-Black racism and the offences committed here, so I am unable to give any credit in this case.
[85] The court will give the offender Downes credit for the time spent on restrictive bail conditions, which will be detailed below. The offender is also entitled to additional credit for the time spent in pre-sentence custody due to the impact that the circumstances of his incarceration had on him including overcrowding, COVID-19 and staffing shortages resulting in full and partial lockdowns. This Duncan credit is factored into the determination of an appropriate sentence as a mitigating circumstance.
[86] Furthermore, this will be the first sentence involving a term in the penitentiary for Mr. Crooks and accordingly should be as short as possible balancing all the relevant sentencing considerations.
[87] The court has considered the aggravating circumstance that Mr. Crooks has a prior conviction for a similar offence. This is a significant aggravating factor. The circumstances of this offence involved the exploitation of a vulnerable young woman who was addicted to drugs.
[88] The offender was also convicted by the jury of two counts of sexual assault, which is also an aggravating circumstance. Although the charges took place over a relatively short time, two weeks, that is not a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. It was not the result of any act on the part of Mr. Crooks, but rather the result of the complainant alerting the police which lead to his arrest.
[89] During that time, Mr. Crooks had control of the complainant’s activities, was advertising the availability of her sexual services, setting the fees, driving her to appointments and taking the money she earned. He was manipulating her by making promises that he would take care of her. This represents significant control over the complainant.
[90] When the offender addressed the court, he spoke of his accomplishments over the last four years and offered an apology, but it appears that he has very little insight into the extent of the harm his offending behaviour had on the complainant.
[91] The court must consider the totality of circumstances and impose a global sentence that is not unduly harsh and excessive. In my view, the sentence suggested by the Crown would be unduly harsh taking into account all of the factors set out above. However, the sentence suggested by the defence does not reflect the serious aggravating circumstances present in this case.
[92] Accordingly, in light of all of these circumstances the court has determined that the appropriate sentence in relation to the charges is a global sentence of eight years (8) imprisonment before reduction for appropriate credit set out as follows:
Count #1: sexual assault: three (3) years jail;
Count #2: sexual assault: three (3) years concurrent to count #1;
Count #4: human trafficking, five (5) years consecutive to count #2;
Count #5: receiving material benefit: four (4) years concurrent;
Count #6: stayed pursuant to the Keinapple principle;
Count #7: stayed pursuant to the Keinapple principle; and
Count #8: advertising an offer of services: two (2) years concurrent.
[93] The offender is entitled to a reduction for credit for pre-sentence custody of 345 days enhanced at 1.5 days for each day spent in pre-sentence custody for a total of 518 days or 17.25 months of credit.
[94] I will also give the offender credit pursuant to the principle in Downes for the lengthy period of time spent on restrictive conditions of bail awaiting trial. In my view, he is entitled to an additional credit of approximately six months on that basis. For ease of calculation, I will round up that number so that the offender will be given a total credit of 24 months against the sentence to be served, for pre-sentence custody and Downes credit.
[95] Accordingly, after those credits, the offender will have a total sentence of six (6) years to serve.
[96] In addition, there will be an order that a sample of Mr. Crooks’s DNA be taken on counts #1 and #2 which are primary designated offences. There will be a s. 109 weapons prohibition imposed for life.
[97] As for the SOIRA order, by virtue of s. 490.013(3) the offender shall be bound to comply with the terms of that order for 20 years.
[98] And finally, while the offender is in custody, there shall be an order pursuant to s. 743.21 of the Code that he not communicate with the complainant directly or indirectly while he is serving his sentence.
Original signed by “Justice Maria V. Carroccia” Maria V. Carroccia Justice Released: 20240618