Judge: ‘Brantford – the joint submission capital of the world’

A Brantford judge scolded the local Crown’s office recently for agreeing to a community sentence for a child abuser, but said she had little choice but to accept the joint submission for house arrest.

Article content

Article content

Recommended Videos

Article content

“The court finds the proposed joint submission to be truly disturbing,” said Justice Colette Good about a deal to allow a Six Nations man to stay out of jail on a GPS-monitored house arrest.

“This comes dangerously close to (the public) concluding the proper functioning of the justice system here in Brantford – the joint submission capital of the world – is broken.”

Good continued her scathing comments by saying the Crown’s office “really dropped the ball” by agreeing to the lesser sentence and hadn’t pursued victim impact statements from the victim – who had been an eight-year-old when she was molested by her step -father – or his family.

The judge said the Crown had failed to appreciate the “life-altering harm that sexual violence causes children, something for which they should not even need a victim impact statement in order to be informed.”

Article content

And, Good added, the proposal was contrary to instructions from the Supreme Court of Canada, which has ordered judges to increase sentences for sexual offenses against children.

But, although the judge said she “personally” believed the 47-year-old-man should be serving his time in jail, she went on to explain why she was accepting the joint submission.

Judges have been instructed to accept such deals made by lawyers, even if they find them to be “demonstrably unfit” as long as they don’t appear completely unhinged.

Refusing joint submissions is only done in “rare or exceptional cases”, Good said.

Rejecting the deal would have given the man a chance to strike his guilty plea and go to trial where there would be a strong possibility of him being acquitted as the burden of proof there is “extremely high.”

Article content

“It would be one person’s word pitted against the word of a child trying to recall abuse that’s historical in nature.”

According to Good’s ruling, the man was abusing substances heavily in August 2013 when he molested his partner’s daughter and tried to digitally penetrate her.

Nine years later, the 17-year-old victim walked into a police station and reported the abuse.

The man eventually pleaded guilty to sexual assault but said he had no memory of it due to his alcohol and cocaine use.

While the judge was initially told the victim and her family weren’t interested in registering the impact of the crime with the court, she was “skeptical” and pushed the Crown lawyer to ask again, ending up with five victim impact statements.

Article content

“The gravity of the harm to (the teen) and her family, as outlined, can’t be overstated,” said Good.

The young woman kept the abuse a secret for years because she knew it would destroy her family and take away the only father figure she and her siblings had known.

Her mother was “wracked with guilt” because she had exposed her daughter to a “mother’s worst nightmare” and was saddened the girl had suffered for years in silence.

Along with the disintegration of the family unit, the man with Drew his financial support of the family, leaving them unable to pay for counseling sessions for the children.

“The court sees this as callous, and the mindset of someone who has not taken full responsibility for the harm he has caused.”

Article content

Good weighed that against the knowledge the man himself had been significantly abused as a child by a relative and, before being arrested, had started his own rehabilitation by getting sober, going to Alcoholics Anonymous and counseling.

“The concern of the Crown and defense is that a lengthy incarceration would disrupt his recovery process.”

In addition to house arrest of two years less one day with GPS monitoring, the man will be on the sex offenders registry for 20 years.

Good ordered that for five years – two years of his sentence and three years of probation – the man must pay for weekly counseling sessions for his former step-daughter, totaling $34,800.

“This is to hold you accountable to making fines by paying for the counseling so (she) can move past the trauma she has suffered at your hands.”

[email protected]

@EXPSGamble

Article content