R. v. Rennie, 2013 BCSC 909

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Rennie, 2013 BCSC 909 Date: 20130212 Docket: 34250-2 Registry: Port Alberni Regina v. William George Yves Rennie Restriction on Publication: Pursuant to 486.4(1) and 486.4(2) C.C.C. Restricted Access Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Fenlon Oral Reasons for Sentence Counsel for the Crown: C. Proteau Counsel for the Accused: M. Ritzker Place and Date of Trial: Port Alberni, B.C. October 16-18, 2012 Place and Date of Judgment: Port Alberni, B.C. October 19, 2012 Place and Date of Sentence: Port Alberni, B.C.

February 12, 2013 [ 1 ] THE COURT: On October 19, 2012, I found William Rennie guilty of two counts of sexual assault, contrary to s. 271.(1), and two counts of touching a person under the age of 16 years for a sexual purpose, contrary to s. 151 of the Criminal Code . [ 2 ] At the sentencing hearing this morning, at Crown counsel's request, a stay of proceedings was entered in relation to Counts 1 and 2, based on the Kienapple principle. [ 3 ] The offences were committed against five-year-old S.H. and six-year-old B.A. I may have those names reversed. Is that correct? [ 4 ] MS.

PROTEAU: No, that's correct. [ 5 ] THE COURT: Between August 2010 and January 7, 2011. The incidents primarily involved the accused lying in bed with the victims and using his hand to rub the girls' genitals and buttocks, putting his tongue in their mouths, and, in the case of S.H., licking her back. [ 6 ] Mr. Rennie was involved in a romantic relationship with B.A. and S.H.'s mother, T.A., and was living with her and the two children off and on at the time of the offences. I did not expressly state the number of times that the touching occurred when I delivered my reasons for conviction.

The girls' evidence was vague as to frequency. I clarify now for the purposes of sentencing that the Crown proved touching on one occasion for each victim. [ 7 ] The impact of these offences on these two young children is apparent and does not require elaboration. I note only that they were obviously troubled and upset by what Mr. Rennie did to them, initially describing it as too gross to talk about. One of the girls said plaintively words to the effect of, "I don't know why he did that." [ 8 ] T.A. prepared a victim impact statement on behalf of B.A.

She described B.A. as angry, afraid to be alone at night, and wetting herself, even at school. T.A. also described the impact on her older two children, both of whom are also angry about what happened to their sisters and angry at their mother for not preventing it. Mr. H., S.H.'s father, did not provide an impact statement. [ 9 ] Sentencing was delayed in order to obtain a pre-sentence report and a psychiatric assessment. In terms of Mr. Rennie's circumstances, he is 35 years old. This is his first conviction for an offence of a sexual nature.

In 2010, he was convicted of assaulting his then common-law spouse and received one year probation. His other offences all relate to breaches of probation and undertaking following the laying of the charges before the Court. [ 10 ] Mr. Rennie has a Grade 9 education. He was raised with three half-siblings on a farm in Alberta. He reports that he was abused physically and emotionally by his own stepfather. He left school early, working first as a butcher for seven years and then as a roofer for a number of different companies. Mr. Rennie has not worked since 2009 and is on social assistance. [ 11 ] Mr.

Rennie has had seven children with four women. When Mr. Rennie was 19, his first child, Rebecca, died within a few weeks of her birth. His second child, Damien, died in a car accident a few years ago at the age of eight. He has a daughter, 13, and twins

who are nine, as well as a son, five, and a daughter, three. The youngest of his children live in Port Alberni. The older three live in Manitoba. [ 12 ] Mr. Rennie says that he has not worked since 2009, in part because he was travelling back and forth between provinces to see his children a few times a year. He is in significant arrears of child support. [ 13 ] The psychiatric report states that Mr. Rennie denies any attraction to underage females. At the time of the assessment on November 6, 2012, Mr.

Rennie also continued to deny, as he did when he took the stand at trial, that he committed the offences. [ 14 ] The probation officer who subsequently interviewed Mr. Rennie, that is subsequent to the psychiatric assessment, says in her report that Mr. Rennie acknowledged responsibility for the offences, although Mr. Rennie now says today at this hearing that the probation officer misunderstood what he was saying to her, and that he did no more than acknowledge that B.A. and S.H. had gone through difficult circumstances. [ 15 ] Mr.

Rennie has a long history of substance abuse, including heroin, cannabis, alcohol, oxycontin, and cocaine. Five years ago he undertook a methadone treatment program in Qualicum and says he has not used heroin since. He has never participated in substance abuse counselling, at least that appears to be the case from the reports before me. [ 16 ] A 2009 psychiatric report based on interviews with Mr. Rennie described him as someone who has difficulty managing his anger, and that has been the case since childhood. The psychiatrist described Mr.

Rennie in his childhood pushing a half-sister down the stairs at the age of 3; trying to shoot another half-sister with a pellet gun at age 14; at age 15, making knife holes in the couch when he was angry. He also set fires between the ages of 9 and 14, eventually stopping when he was confronted by his parents or his mother. He was involved in many fights at school and stated at the time that he was angry on a daily basis. [ 17 ] He has a history, according to the psychiatric report prepared in 2009, of lying and inventing stories. This became noticeably worse when he was about 20. [ 18 ] Mr.

Rennie was involved in a serious motorcycle accident at the age of 18 or 19 and sustained a closed head injury, and has had difficulty recalling details of his childhood since that time. [ 19 ] Mr. Rennie has suffered from major depressive disorder in the past. He was hospitalized for treatment in December 2009, following suicidal ideation. He was readmitted to hospital in January of 2012, following a suicide attempt by hanging after these charges were laid. [ 20 ] Dr. Kreklewetz, the psychologist who prepared the forensic assessment, found Mr.

Rennie to fall within the moderate to moderate-high risk category for sexual reoffending. The scale used, as defence counsel pointed out, was not described, so it is not clear whether moderate-high means up to high or some ranking within the moderate range. In any event, I take from the assessment that the risk of Mr. Rennie reoffending is not low, but it is a moderate one. [ 21 ] In

summary, Mr. Rennie is a man who continues to deny responsibility for the offences, a man with significant mental health issues who has been convicted at age 35 of his first sexual offence, an offence against two young girls aged five and six, and Mr. Rennie is a moderate risk to reoffend. [ 22 ] The minimum sentence for touching a child for a sexual purpose is 45 days in jail. The maximum is 10 years. Crown's position is that Mr. Rennie should be sentenced to two years in a federal penitentiary, followed by three years' probation.

Defence submits that that sentence is disproportionate, both because this is a first offence of a sexual nature, and because the nature of the touching which occurred in relation to the two victims, on one occasion each, is not of an extreme kind. [ 23 ] Crown provided eight cases, six of which were relied on for the appropriate principles to be applied in sentencing in offences of this kind.

Of the two relied on by Crown counsel to demonstrate an appropriate range of incarceration, both Crown and defence counsel agree that the facts in those cases are not particularly close to those of the case at bar before me. [ 24 ] In R. v. Makarenko , 1994 CarswellOnt 3784 , a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice, a swim coach who was otherwise an exemplary citizen and a first-time offender, was convicted of repeatedly touching one of his athlete's breasts and her vaginal area from the time she was 13 to 17. He was sentenced to 15 months and two years' probation. [ 25 ] In R. v. Tarnawski , [1999] O.J.

No. 5211 (C.J.) , an Ontario Court decision, the offence involved the accused accosting a 14-year-old babysitter, touching her breasts and vagina on one occasion. The accused was sentenced to six months in custody and one year of probation. [ 26 ] I note that both of those cases are somewhat dated and may not reflect entirely the somewhat more stringent approach currently to sentencing in cases of this kind. [ 27 ] I turn now to the principles of sentencing.

As set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code , the fundamental purpose of sentencing is 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. [ 28 ] A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [ 29 ] Here the offence is a serious one involving, as it does, two sexual assaults or two sexual touchings, more accurately, of two young girls, ages five and six, who were left in Mr. Rennie's care.

Section 718 of the Criminal Code sets out a number of objectives a sentencing judge should bear in mind when sentencing. Of particular significance on the facts of this case is s. 718.01 which directs that where, as here, the offences involve abuse of children, I must give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct.

[ 30 ] I must also consider other objectives of sentencing, and those include separating the accused from society if necessary, assisting in his rehabilitation, providing for reparation for harm done to a victim, promoting a sense of responsibility in the offender, and acknowledging the harm done to the victim. [ 31 ] A sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender. [ 32 ] The mitigating factors in this case include that Mr. Rennie has not committed any other sexual offences.

He did not threaten his victims that he would harm them or hurt them in some way if they told people what had happened. [ 33 ] The aggravating factors in this case include, first, an abuse of a position of trust or authority. Mr. Rennie was T.A.’s boyfriend. He stayed at the girls' house and took care of them while their mother was out or at work. Mr. Rennie was entrusted to protect them and he used his position instead to harm them. [ 34 ] Second, Mr.

Rennie took advantage of two vulnerable, very young children, aged five and six. [ 35 ] Third, this type of offence has a serious impact on the victims, both now and in their future. [ 36 ] Having considered these factors and principles and the submissions of counsel, I conclude that in light of Mr. Rennie's woeful record of compliance with bail and probation orders, he has a greater chance of rehabilitation and society will be better protected in the long run if he spends more time incarcerated and less time on probation. [ 37 ] Mr. Rennie, please stand. [ 38 ] Mr.

Rennie, I sentence you to 11 months on Count 3 and 11 months on Count 4, to be served consecutively, for a total of 22 months' incarceration. I also impose a term of probation of one year. [ 39 ] You may be seated now while I describe the other terms. [ 40 ] The terms of your probation are as follows. [ 41 ] You are to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. You are to attend court as and when required by the Court.

Report to a probation officer within 48 hours of your release from prison, and thereafter as and when directed by your probation officer. [ 42 ] You are to reside in a residence approved of by your probation officer, and to not change that residence without the prior written permission of your probation officer. [ 43 ] I am just going to pause there, Madam Clerk, do you have a copy of these terms? [ 44 ] MS.

PROTEAU: I have an extra copy. [ 45 ] THE COURT: Thank you. [ 46 ] Next, you are to take such counselling as your probation officer directs, including but not limited to sex offender treatment. [ 47 ] You are to have no contact, direct or indirect, with B.A., S.H., and T.A. [ 48 ] You are not to attend at any residence, school, or place of employment of B.A., S.H., or T.A. [ 49 ] You are not to consume or possess any alcohol. [ 50 ] You are not to consume or possess any controlled substances as defined by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , S.C. 1996, c. 19, with the exception of prescription medication prescribed for you by a licensed physician or dentist. [ 51 ] You are not to enter onto the premises of any business where the primary purpose of that business is the sale of alcohol or the consumption of alcohol. [ 52 ] You are to provide access to your residence upon reasonable demand of the probation officer or any peace officer to confirm compliance with this court order.

You are not to have direct or indirect contact with any person under the age of 16 years. [ 53 ] Those are the terms that are going to apply in that year of probation. You will be provided with a copy of those terms.

I do not expect you to remember them all as I read them to you. [ 54 ] I am also going to make some ancillary orders, some other orders that are going to apply quite apart from that year of probation. [ 55 ] First, I order, as I must, a 10-year firearms prohibition under s. 109(1) of the Criminal Code . [ 56 ] Next, I make an order in Form 5.03 under s. 487.051 of the Criminal Code , authorizing the taking from Mr.

Rennie for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis any samples of one or more bodily substances that are reasonably required for that purpose, in accordance with the procedures outlined in s. 487. [ 57 ] Next, as is mandatory, I order that Mr. Rennie shall be registered on the Sex Offender Registry for life under s. 490.011 of the Criminal Code . [ 58 ] Next, under s. 743.21, you are prohibited during the period of your incarceration from indirectly or directly contacting B.A.,

S.H., or T.A. while you are in custody. [ 59 ] Under s. 161(b), you are prohibited for a period of 20 years from today's date from seeking, obtaining, or continuing any employment, whether or not the employment is remunerated, or becoming or being a volunteer, in a capacity that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of 16 years. [ 60 ] For the record, I decline to make the order sought by Crown counsel in relation to s. 161(a), which would prohibit Mr. Rennie from being near any playground or community centre.

Given that he is the father of five children, some of whom are quite young, that to me does not seem to be a workable prohibition, nor is there any suggestion that that kind of opportunity related in any way to the offences in question before the Court. [ 61 ] MS. PROTEAU: Your Ladyship, just to clarify, I think for the no-contact order there was a confusion there about names. It should be B.A. and S.H. [ 62 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 63 ] MS. PROTEAU: I think. [ 64 ] THE COURT: That is correct, and if I have juxtaposed those names, those are the correct names. [ 65 ] MS.

PROTEAU: Thank you. [ 66 ] THE COURT: Is there anything further? [ 67 ] MR. RITZKER: The victim fine surcharge, Your Ladyship, I would ask that since Mr. Rennie is going to be incarcerated and having to sort of start from scratch when he's released, that the imposition of the victim fine surcharge may be a hardship, and also given that he does have dependants that requires -- [ 68 ] THE COURT: Yes, I am going to waive the victim fine surcharge. [ 69 ] MR. RITZKER: Thank you. [ 70 ] THE COURT: Thank you. The Honourable Madam Justice L.A. Fenlon