R. v. J.R.S., 2013 BCSC 2413

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. J.R.S. , 2013 BCSC 2413 Date: 20131217 Docket: 32015-2 Registry: Williams Lake Regina v. J.R.S. NOTICE: By court order made pursuant to s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code of Canada , any information that could identify the complainants shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way. Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Verhoeven Oral Reasons for Sentence Counsel for the Crown: S. Thompson Counsel for the Accused: K. Sommerfeld Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: Williams Lake, B.C.

December 16, 2013 Place and Date of Judgment: Williams Lake, B.C. December 17, 2013 [ 1 ] THE COURT: J.R.S. is before me for sentencing with respect to five offences that occurred on May 30, 2012, at Williams Lake. I. The Facts A. Circumstances of the Offences [ 2 ] First, dealing with the circumstances of the offences. The circumstances of the offences are fully set out in the reasons for conviction that I delivered here in Williams Lake on July 30, 2013. The reasons have since been transcribed and have been published with personal identifiers removed.

The reasons are indexed at 2013 BCSC 1363 . [ 3 ] The offences for which J.R.S. has pleaded guilty or been convicted are set out at para. 3 of those reasons, and I will briefly describe them now. The relevant counts from the indictment are Counts 2, 8, 9, 11, and 12.

Those are, in brief terms, the following: first, Count 2, for which there was a guilty plea, unlawful confinement of D.S., the offender’s mother; next, Count 8, for which there was a guilty plea, uttering a threat to D.B. to cause death or bodily harm; next, Count 9, for which again there was a guilty plea, kidnapping with intent to cause a person, J.L., to be confined against her will; next, Count 11, possession of a weapon, a knife, for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence, and again there was a guilty plea with respect to that count.

The guilty pleas, I should note, were all entered at the outset of the trial. Finally, Count 12, which was in issue at the trial and for which J.R.S. was convicted in the reasons I delivered. That count was one of sexual assault causing bodily harm with respect to J.L. [ 4 ] The circumstances of the offences are described in detail in the reasons, and in particular at paras. 1 to 4, 25, 36 to 43, 46 to 48, 59 to 68, 82 to 83, 90, 91, 103, and 122. [ 5 ] In

summary, J.R.S. and J.L. were in a common law relationship since 2008, or for about four and a half years prior to the offences in question occurring in late May of 2012. [ 6 ] The relationship was marked by conflict, including a degree of mutual violence and drug abuse. They had a child together, a son, born in October 2010. The child was placed in care of the Ministry of Children and Family Development in January 2011. Another pregnancy was aborted. J.L. was pregnant at the time of these offences. [ 7 ] On May 30, 2012, J.L. was residing at the Williams Lake home of J.R.S.’s mother, D.S.

J.R.S. was staying with his mother in Williams Lake for a few days. On the day in question there was a high degree of tension between J.L. and J.R.S. One source of conflict was the pregnancy. D.S. became concerned for the safety of J.L. While J.R.S. was preoccupied listening to music, D.S. took the opportunity to surreptitiously drive J.L. to a nearby community, Wildwood, where it was hoped J.L. would be safe and could perhaps find temporary accommodation. The plan, if there was one, was vague at best. [ 8 ] Upon D.S.’s return to her home in Williams Lake, she was physically attacked by an enraged J.R.S.

He assaulted her and

threatened her life. He forced her to take him in her car to find J.L. D.S. was so concerned about J.L.’s safety that she lied to J.R.S. about J.L.’s whereabouts. Instead of taking him to Wildwood, D.S. drove to downtown Williams Lake where she took the opportunity to escape and call the police. [ 9 ] J.R.S. took his mother’s car and drove to Wildwood. He brought a kitchen knife with him. He found J.L. at the home of a mutual friend in Wildwood, D.B. D.B. briefly tried to intervene to protect J.L. J.R.S. threatened D.B. with the knife and threatened his life.

While brandishing the knife, he kidnapped J.L. and drove her to a nearby wooded, isolated area that they were both familiar with. [ 10 ] The most pertinent facts in that respect as to what occurred afterwards are set out in paras. 62 to 64 of the reasons I delivered earlier. It is not necessary that I repeat them here, but I incorporate them by reference. [ 11 ] In

summary, there was a physical assault on J.L. There were threats; threats to kill her. The attack was sustained and prolonged. There was forced sexual intercourse which J.L. was compelled to participate in out of fear for her life and safety. [ 12 ] The RCMP had been notified by D.S. in Williams Lake. They had also been called by D.B. or someone else nearby at the D.B. residence. The RCMP located J.R.S. and J.L. in the wooded area and J.R.S. was arrested. [ 13 ] Other important findings that I made pertinent to today’s proceedings are set out in paras. 83 and 84 of the reasons for conviction.

With respect to para. 83, I came to the conclusion on the evidence, as I indicated there, that the kidnapping of J.L. was not in order to seek information or answers to questions or for purposes of any kind of rational discussion.

I concluded that J.R.S. formed violent intentions before he left his mother’s residence, when he realized that his mother had betrayed him and J.L. had escaped from his domination and control, and he then carried out those intentions. [ 14 ] At para. 84, I concluded that there was no significant hesitation in the course of J.R.S.’s conduct from the time that his mother arrived at her home and until he became remorseful just before sexual intercourse with J.L. in the back of the car. [ 15 ] I also noted at para. 93 that J.L. was in great fear for her safety.

She was kidnapped at knifepoint, repeatedly threatened, terrorized, confined against her will, taken to a remote location, beaten, and was utterly vulnerable to her assailant. [ 16 ] With respect to the bodily harm involved, that was summarized at para. 122 of the reasons for conviction. The bodily harm was not major. It consisted of a small cut or abrasion to her face above her right eyebrow.

It consisted of a split lower lip with bleeding, four abrasions or contusions on her back, and at least one on her upper chest, accompanied by redness, a scrape on the back of her left ear, and one or two minor marks on her leg from falling to the ground as a result of a punch to the stomach. [ 17 ] There was no evidence of need for medical treatment, other than assessment immediately following the trauma. [ 18 ] As noted at para. 127 in the previous reasons, the bodily harm in temporal terms preceded the sexual assault somewhat. The sexual assault itself was not physically violent. B.

Circumstances of the Offender [ 19 ] I have the benefit of comprehensive pre-trial reports and a psychiatric report, and I will make some reference now to certain portions of the pre-sentence reports and the psychiatric report. [ 20 ] The pre-sentence reports are in two parts.

There is a pre-sentence report dated March 1, 2013, which was prepared with respect to a prior offence that I will refer to. [ 21 ] On the sentencing hearing, I was advised that the earlier report was completed in relation to a prior sexual assault against J.L. that occurred in March of 2011, perpetrated by J.R.S., also in a vehicle in the woods near Wildwood. J.R.S. was convicted of that offence following a jury trial in January 2013.

He was sentenced on June 17, 2013 to time served, consisting of one year and two weeks, plus two weeks of probation. [ 22 ] J.R.S. was also found guilty of assaulting J.L. on September 16, 2011. He was found guilty of that offence on March 29, 2012.

He was sentenced to 18 months’ probation. [ 23 ] Thus, when these offences occurred on May 30, 2012, he was on probation with respect to the assault that occurred on September 16, 2011, and was on bail for the sexual assault that occurred in March of 2011. [ 24 ] It is apparent that despite the prior charge and the prior conviction, the troubled relationship between J.R.S. and J.L. continued. [ 25 ] Turning to the first pre-sentence report, that pre-sentence report advises that J.R.S. is the middle of three children, with an older sister and a younger brother.

His parents separated when he was four or five years of age and J.R.S. and his siblings remained in their mother’s care. When J.R.S. was 10 years of age, he was placed into foster care and remained in foster care until he was 17 years of age and commenced independent living. [ 26 ] As noted, prior to his arrest, J.R.S. was living common law with J.L. [ 27 ] The pre-sentence report sets out certain information with respect to J.R.S.’s work history. He has an employment history, including work with drilling companies. He has also worked as a volunteer firefighter in Williams Lake for a number of years.

In fact, that position was with the Wildwood Volunteer Fire Department. [ 28 ] The pre-sentence report indicates that J.R.S. informed the author that at the age of 17, during his first year of independent living, he attempted to commit suicide by way of carbon monoxide poisoning and that he was in a coma for 10 days and sustained some brain damage. There is no medical evidence in that respect.

[ 29 ] The author of the report notes at page 5 of the report that J.R.S. and J.L. had been in a relationship on an on-and-off basis for the prior five years. The author notes, “However, it appears this relationship has been fraught with problems from the onset”, and that is a comment that is certainly borne out by all of the information available to me. [ 30 ] At page 6, the author notes the following: Members of the subject’s family have recommended a “full evaluation” and long term professional help, not only to assist him with his intimate and family relationships, but to help him with parenting.

He is noted as having problems with anger management, destructive behaviour and having little understanding of consequences. [D.S.] indicates the subject has the potential to do well in life if he receives appropriate assistance. [ 31 ] Subsequent to the conviction by me on July 30, 2013, an updated pre-sentence report was prepared. That report is dated the September 24, 2013, and I will refer to certain parts of it now. [ 32 ] The author refers to the prior convictions, reference to which I have already made, and in

summary the author says as follows on page 4: The subject’s first involvement with the criminal justice system resulted from allegations that he sexually assaulted [J.L.]. While on bail for this allegation, the Subject committed the offence of assault, which he was later convicted of. Approximately two months into the eighteen month Probation Order for the Assault conviction, the Subject committed the current offences. The factors identified in the March 2013 Pre-Sentence Report remain areas warranting intervention.

In addition, impulsiveness, poor problem solving and issues with sexual self-regulation, specifically utilizing sex as a coping mechanism may have also contributed to the current offences. [ 33 ] With respect to J.R.S.’s attitude and receptiveness to previous and proposed interventions, the author states, among other things, beginning on page 4, as follows: Since being remanded, the Subject has engaged in a number of Essential Skills To Success (ESS) modules.

ESS is an inventory of modules reinforcing employability and life skills development while enhancing response to behavioural change programs and supporting pro-social engagement in custody and in the community. To date, the Subject has completed the following modules: orientation, housing, money management, healthy relationships (units one, two and four), substance abuse (unit one, two and three), communication skills and learn to learn for life. Overall, the institutional records indicate he participated fully and appeared to enjoy the modules.

The Subject speaks highly of the modules and reports to be grateful that he has been able to get involved with programming, as programs are not often made available to offenders held on remand. The Subject feels he has benefited greatly from being exposed to the information and tools being taught.

He expresses willingness and a desire to continue with programming that will ensure he has the tools he requires to deal with any future relationship issues, including, domestic violence programming and sex offender programming. [ 34 ] The author notes at page 6 that: The Subject’s criminal history reflects a pattern of violent behaviour perpetrated against or while attempting to commit offences against his partner, [J.L.]. The Subject admits to the offences for which he has been convicted of and acknowledges not only the need for rehabilitation but also the denunciation of his actions.

He expresses a willingness to engage in treatment and/or programming that will address the former, including spousal abuse prevention and sex offender programming. To the Subject’s credit, he has already engaged in modules while being held on remand. [ 35 ] The author then refers to information from one of the victims here, D.B. In that respect, the author states as follows: [D.B.] advises he has submitted a victim impact statement.

He has been significantly impacted by the Subject’s actions, stating, “this whole thing has ruined my life.” [ 36 ] I have available to me a psychiatric report prepared by a psychiatrist, Dr. David Morgan, dated December 13, 2013.

That psychiatric report notes, at page 10, that a previous psychiatric report from 2012 details that J.R.S. was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder for which he was prescribed Ritalin by his family practitioner at the age of seven, and that he suffered significant difficulties in school as a result of behavioural problems, particularly fighting. [ 37 ] The report notes that J.R.S. was in foster care between the ages of 10 and 17 years of age.

The report indicates that, according to the prior psychiatric report, the previous suicide attempt was carried out by J.R.S. when he was aged approximately 20 years of age. That suicide attempt, according to the report, was made while J.R.S. was in a period of acute stress, having recently ended a relationship with a woman. [ 38 ] The psychiatric report notes that a prior probation report sets out that J.R.S.’s mother was in a relationship with a woman, and that J.R.S. was subjected to sexual abuse from the age of 10 years of age and also while in foster care. [ 39 ] From a diagnostic point of view, Dr.

Morgan indicates that J.R.S. is subject to an amphetamine abuse disorder, cocaine abuse disorder, history of childhood attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, history of Tourette’s disorder, possible history of conduct disorder, child onset, possible cognitive disorder, NOS, and also he has a borderline personality disorder. [ 40 ] In

summary, Dr. Morgan states as follows [as read in]: [J.R.S.] has long standing psychological issues relating to trust, control, rejection, abandonment and self worth. He also appears to have serious problems with impulsivity and remaining composed when under stress.

[ 41 ] The report goes on to assess risks from the point of view of sexual violence or general violence. With respect to sexual violence, Dr. Morgan indicates that in his opinion J.R.S. is at high risk of committing further sexual offences as compared with other adult male sexual offenders. In terms of overall violence, Dr. Morgan indicates that J.R.S. is at high risk of committing further violent offences in future. The most likely victim would be his wife. [ 42 ] Dr. Morgan has a number of suggestions for management of J.R.S. and seven of them are particularly noteworthy: first, Dr.

Morgan indicates that J.R.S.’s clinical needs cannot be safely managed in the community; second, J.R.S. needs to undertake the Sexual Offender Treatment Program; third, J.R.S. has deep-seated psychological issues relating to trust, self-worth, control, rejection, and abandonment, and these likely have their genesis in his early life experiences; fourth, it was a combination of factors which appears to have driven his behaviour at the time of the offence; fifth, pharmacological interventions should be considered; sixth, J.R.S.’s chronic substance abuse disorders require intervention; and seventh, if the court imposes a sentence of more than two years’ duration, J.R.S. would be able to access the Sex Offender Treatment Program within the federal prison system.

C. Impact on the Victim and/or Community [ 43 ] There was no victim impact statement provided by J.L. nor J.R.S.’s mother, D.S. No information was provided by them to the probation officer for purposes of the pre-sentence report. [ 44 ] D.B., in his victim impact statement, indicates that the events were highly traumatic and he still suffers from emotional, psychological, and financial repercussions. Due to the incident in which he was involved, he and his wife decided to move away from Williams Lake, where he has lived all of his life.

They are struggling to cope with the move and the consequences of that and the events in general. [ 45 ] Although I have no victim impact statement from D.S. or J.L., it is obvious that these experiences would be very traumatic to each of them. I have no information as to specific consequences or repercussions to them. II. Legal Parameters [ 46 ] Maximum sentences under the Criminal Code for these offences range from five years for uttering a threat to cause death or bodily harm, which is Count 8, to life imprisonment for kidnapping, Count 9.

At the relevant time for these offences there were no mandatory minimum sentences. III. Positions of the Crown and Defence A. The Crown [ 47 ] The Crown submits that the range of sentences for a first offence of sexual assault causing bodily harm is from four to six years. The Crown submits that a global sentence of five to seven years would be appropriate in this case.

The Crown states that J.R.S. has been in pre-sentence custody with respect to these offences for six months, since June 17, 2013. [ 48 ] The Crown relies on two aggravating circumstances: first, under s. 718.2(a)(ii), abuse of the offender’s spouse or common law partner; and second, the fact that these offences were committed while J.R.S. was on probation and on bail.

These points were not contested by the defence. [ 49 ] The Crown also adverts to J.R.S.’s criminal record relating to J.L., and in particular the fact that the sexual assault causing bodily harm here occurred in the same general area as the sexual assault that J.R.S. committed against J.L. in March 2011. [ 50 ] The Crown contends that the primary sentencing objectives applicable in this case are denunciation, general deterrence, and specific deterrence, and that rehabilitation of the offender plays a lesser role. B.

The Defence [ 51 ] The defence contends that the range of appropriate global sentences would be three to five years, not five to seven as the Crown argues. The defence argues for a three-year global sentence. [ 52 ] The defence says that the guilty pleas with respect to four of the five counts should be taken into account. The defence notes the dysfunctional personality of the offender which may have its roots in a very difficult and traumatic childhood.

The defence notes that the relationship between J.L. and J.R.S. was one of co-dependency, drug abuse, and mutual violence, and that J.R.S.’s convictions all relate to violence directed at J.L., although the defence of course acknowledges that the last episode now before the court involved three victims; that is two other victims, D.S. and D.B. [ 53 ] The defence says that although J.R.S. is several years older than J.L., they are both immature in their behaviour.

The defence contends that J.R.S. is remorseful and has gained a significant degree of insight into his own behaviour, his problems, and the offences, and that he has willingly participated in all available treatment programs while he has been in custody. [ 54 ] J.R.S.’s position is that he seeks custody in a federal institution, so as to be able to take advantage of the treatment programs available there. The defence stresses that J.R.S. is a good candidate for rehabilitation, and that an excessively long sentence will serve no rehabilitative purpose, nor will it serve to increase denunciation or deterrence.

[ 55 ] J.R.S. addressed the court. He reiterated in his own words some of the points made by his counsel on his behalf. He apologized in open court to J.L., who was present in court. He states that he has come to accept the judgment of the court and that he takes responsibility for his actions. He would like to become a good father to his son. IV. Case Law [ 56 ] The Crown provided a number of case authorities to which I will make reference now. First of all, the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in R. v. Morgan, 2004 BCCA 628 .

In that case, the court held that a sentence of five years for sexual assault causing bodily harm was not unfit. The court referred to another authority, R. v. Kerr (1992), 13 B.C.A.C. 165 , where a five-year sentence was imposed. [ 57 ] In para. 5 of Morgan , Mr. Justice Finch, on behalf of the court, summarizes as follows: In this case, there was a lesser degree of physical violence.

However, the appellant confined the victim in his apartment for several hours, threatened her with serious physical violence including death, threatened her family, and reinforced his threats with demonstrations of physical violence and a suggestion that he possessed weapons capable of implementing the threats. In my opinion, the fact that the appellant did not have to resort to greater physical violence in order to achieve his sexual goals, does not render him less culpable than Mr. Kerr. Both Mr.

Kerr’s victim and this complainant experienced terror, and feared for their lives. [ 58 ] The court also considered that two other offences that occurred after the subject offence were relevant to the sentencing decision. [ 59 ] I was also referred by the Crown to R. v. Wren , 2004 BCCA 167 . In that case, the court affirmed a sentence imposed in the Provincial Court which was effectively a six-year sentence for sexual assault causing bodily harm.

The Crown notes that the circumstances in that case were more violent than the circumstances of the case before me. [ 60 ] The Crown also referred to a recent decision of this court, R. v. R.N.A. , 2012 BCSC 1527 . In that case there was a sentence of three and a half years for sexual assault. There was another offence of uttering a threat to cause death or bodily harm for which a sentence of one year was imposed, to be served concurrently, as both offences arose from the same general incident. [ 61 ] I was also referred to a decision of the British Columbia Provincial Court, R. v.

Schinkel , 2008 BCPC 76 , where Provincial Court Judge Gulbranson reviewed a number of authorities and concluded at para. 31 that the range of sentences for the kind of offence before him with the characteristics that he referred to was between four and six years. That was for an offence of sexual assault involving, essentially, a stranger. V. Mitigating and aggravating factors [ 62 ] On the basis of the authorities, I agree with the Crown’s submission that the range of appropriate sentences on a global basis in this case ranges from five to seven years.

I also accept the Crown’s submissions with respect to the aggravating circumstances to which I previously referred. [ 63 ] In relation to the guilty pleas for the four offences, in my view that is not a factor for which I can give any substantial weight. A trial was not avoided. Each of J.L., D.S., and D.B. were required to attend to give evidence. The trial was not significantly shortened by the guilty pleas.

On the other hand, the guilty pleas, taken together with J.R.S.’s testimony at trial, indicated at that time a certain degree of remorse and acceptance of responsibility for the events that took place, although as I noted in the reasons for judgment delivered following the trial, in nearly all areas J.R.S. attempted to minimize and rationalize the seriousness of his criminal misconduct. VI. Principles of Sentencing [ 64 ] The relevant principles of sentencing are set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code and do not need to be repeated by me here. They are also referred to in the authorities to which I have referred.

VII. Reasons [ 65 ] As I have said, I agree with the appropriate range of sentences as submitted by the Crown that, in global terms, the range is five to seven years. The primary considerations are, as the Crown argues, denunciation and deterrence, both general and specific.

The contents of the psychiatric report supports the need for protection of the public and the very strong need for treatment for J.R.S. [ 66 ] J.R.S., to his credit, agrees that he needs treatment and has engaged in treatment and looks forward to participating in further treatment as available. [ 67 ] Rehabilitation remains, therefore, a factor in the sentencing decision for J.R.S. He appears to have been able to function normally at various points in his life.

His problems appear to relate to his deep-seated psychological problems, substance abuse, and relationship problems, including most obviously the relationship with J.L. However, as I apprehend the opinions of the psychiatrists, his risks to reoffend are not necessarily restricted only to the relationship with J.L. [ 68 ] J.R.S. states that he accepts responsibility for his actions. I accept that he has made some progress in that regard, but the progress, in my view, is not complete. I note that much of what he said to the psychiatrist, Dr. Morgan, was similar to the testimony

I heard at trial from him, much of which I rejected. I refer here to pages 6 and 7 of the report of Dr. Morgan. There, J.R.S. makes references to “snapping” or “losing it”, suggesting that he believes that his will was overcome by some internal or external forces. He again minimized the seriousness of his actions. Dr. Morgan, I note, for some reason did not have available to him my reasons for judgment on conviction. [ 69 ] The September pre-sentence report to which I made reference also states that J.R.S. struggles to fully endorse the conviction for sexual assault.

That appears to me to be an accurate statement and is perhaps an understatement. [ 70 ] In short, J.R.S. has a long way to go and a lot of work to do. I do, however, hope that J.R.S. is now sincere in saying in court that he accepts responsibility and is remorseful. Certainly his conduct in relation to participating in treatment and in actively seeking treatment is a positive and hopeful sign. [ 71 ] Coming back to the circumstances of the offences in question, the sexual assault causing bodily harm was planned and premeditated.

J.R.S.’s conduct was purposeful and prolonged, extending from his mother’s return to her home, violence perpetrated at that point through to the events at the home of D.B., and the assaults and then sexual assault upon J.L. that occurred thereafter. J.L. was beaten, threatened, and terrorized, in addition to the sexual assault. [ 72 ] J.R.S. had a prior conviction for assault against J.L. and had previously sexually assaulted her in somewhat similar circumstances. The combination of several serious offences here and all other relevant considerations leads me to conclude that a substantial sentence is required.

I accept that, as the defence contends, there is no rehabilitative purpose for a sentence of more than five years, but in view of the other relevant principles, a global sentence of six years is appropriate in this case. In not imposing seven years, I am mindful of the prospects for rehabilitation. [ 73 ] The Crown argues for concurrent sentences of one to two years for the other offences. The defence did not disagree. [ 74 ] So J.R.S., I see that you are already standing.

As I have indicated, the sentences that will be imposed are as follows: [ 75 ] First of all, with respect to Count 2, that is the offence of unlawful confinement of D.S., one year; with respect to Count 8, the count involving uttering of a threat against D.B., one year; with respect to Count 9, kidnapping with intent to cause J.L. to be confined against her will, two years; with respect to Count 11, possession of a weapon, that is a knife, for purposes dangerous to the public or for the purpose of committing an offence, two years; and with respect to Count 12, the offence of sexual assault causing bodily harm, six years.

All of the sentences are to be served concurrently. [ 76 ] The Crown contends that certain ancillary orders are appropriate. With respect to that, the defence did not disagree, so there will be an order under the SOIRA legislation. There will be an order for a DNA sample. There will be a firearms prohibition under s. 109 of the Criminal Code . [ 77 ] The last matter to be dealt with is the question of credit for time served. [SUBMISSIONS BY COUNSEL] [ 78 ] THE COURT: There is a discretion under the Criminal Code to increase credit to one and a half times time served.

I do not see the grounds here to exercise that discretion to increase the time, the effective time served, beyond the actual time served. [ 79 ] So for that reason the time served will be the actual time served, which is six months, and the time will be credited against the six-year sentence for Count 12, so the sentence actually imposed in that respect then will be five years and six months. [ 80 ] MR. SOMMERFELD: My Lord, thank you. [ 81 ] THE COURT: Nothing further? [ 82 ] MS.

THOMPSON: Just that I understand that Madam Clerk might like to have the benefit of the – with respect to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act reporting requirements. As I understand it, it’s a lifetime requirement, given his prior conviction of sexual assault. This is a second conviction, so therefore – and sex assault causing bodily harm is – and just for Madam Clerk’s benefit, it is designated under s. 490.011(1)(a)(xvii), of the Criminal Code , and this is a subsequent conviction, and pursuant to 490.013(4), therefore it is a lifetime reporting requirement. [ 83 ] THE COURT: I see, yes, all right.

So ordered. “Verhoeven J.”