R. v. Godron, 2017 BCSC 628

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Godron, 2017 BCSC 628 Date: 20170329 Docket: 165303-2 Registry: Victoria Regina v. Hugh Newton Godron Restriction on Publication: Pursuant to 486.4(2) C.C.C.Restricted Access Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Josephson Oral Reasons for Sentence Counsel for the Crown: C. JenningsCounsel for the Accused: T. BulmerPlace and Date of Hearing: Victoria, B.C. March 22, 2017Place and Date of Judgment: Victoria, B.C. March 29, 2017 [1] THE COURT: Forty-three-year-old Mr. Godron is before me for sentencing on a conviction of sexual assault after trial byjudge alone.

My reasons can be relatively brief, as both Crown and defence accept that the appropriate range for this type of offence is aguideline range of from two to six years, as determined by our Court of Appeal in R. v. G.M. -- [2] THE ACCUSED: Objection, Your Honour. I didn't -- I didn't agree to that sentence, actually, so he's not -- he's not comfortablewith that. I -- I said -- [3] THE COURT: Okay, sir, it is time for you to remain quiet.

It is my turn to talk now. [4] THE ACCUSED: Yes. [5] THE COURT: You understand? [6] THE ACCUSED: I do, just that the -- [7] THE COURT: No, it is my turn to talk and if you do not follow that, I am going to have the sheriff deal with it. [8] As determined by our Court of Appeal in R. v. G.M., 2015 BCCA 165 , [2015] B.C.J. No. 762. The Crown submitsthat a sentence of three years is appropriate for this offender in these circumstances, less 1.5 months' credit for time served. The defenceurges a sentence of two years less a day.

For the reasons that follow, I accept the submissions of the Crown. [9] The circumstances surrounding the offence were fully set out in the reasons for conviction and need not be repeated at length.Both Mr. Godron and the victim are cognitively disadvantaged people living on the margins of society. Both have had substance abuseproblems. [10] The victim had successfully addressed that problem by the time of trial. Mr. Godron has not. [11] Mr. Godron was living in a tiny shed at the rear of his sister's residence. The victim is a young aboriginal woman withsignificant mental health issues. Both were drinking in Mr.

Godron's shed when Mr. Godron sexually assaulted her with digital andpenile penetration, causing pain and bleeding. [12] The pre-sentence report is of limited assistance, as Mr. Godron was not fully cooperative with the person preparing the report.He continues to deny the offence to this day. At page 6, under the heading, "Attitude and receptiveness to previous and proposedinterventions", the author of the report states as follows: With respect to the proposed interventions, Mr. Godron states he is only willing to meet with a counsellor on his own terms. Mr.

Godronstates that he would like to feel comfortable with a counsellor, and if he does not feel comfortable, then he should have the option of notengaging. Mr. Godron states that he is willing to attend for substance counselling or sex offender programming, but only on his terms,and that he is given the choice to say no without any legal consequences.

[ 13 ] The report details a criminal history of some 65 convictions spanning most of his life. A psychiatric report is of more assistance, as the author had access to further information. Mr. Godron declined to discuss this offence. Of his criminal history, while he said he was not proud of that record, he claimed the convictions were the result of "racial profiling, prejudice, or racism." He also claimed that convictions for offences of violence were the result of him acting in self-defence. [ 14 ] Mr. Godron was unwilling to discuss any relationships he had or his sexual history.

He is homeless and unemployed. [ 15 ] He did reveal he had been banned from several community resource facilities due to his aggressive behaviour. He acknowledges the past use of many illicit drugs. [ 16 ] Mr. Godron successfully completed a one-week stint in a detox unit in January of 2016, but was discharged from the stabilization unit three days later for argumentative and aggressive behaviour. A tentative diagnosis of psychosis was advanced, but that cannot be confirmed, as it may be the result of substance abuse which requires a period of sobriety to properly assess. [ 17 ] Mr.

Godron was diagnosed as meeting the criteria for antisocial personality disorder. The report assesses his risk of sexually reoffending as being in the moderate range, while placing him in the high range for the risk of non-sexual violent reoffending. [ 18 ] While this case is tragic on all levels, as the Crown submits, the time has come to protect the community. Regrettably, there appears to be almost a complete absence of mitigating factors in this case, a very rare occurrence.

The one exception is the one week of sobriety in a detox unit that I mentioned. [ 19 ] The offence had a significant negative impact on the victim, as set out in the victim impact statement. [ 20 ] The aggravating factors are as follows: 1) the victim with her obvious cognitive deficiencies was extremely vulnerable; 2) force was used to restrain the victim so Mr. Godron could achieve his purpose, though no violence employed until the sexual assault itself; 3) Mr.

Godron has absolutely no insight into his offending behaviour, let alone its impact on others; 4) for most of his life, he has been mired in illicit substance abuse; 5) there appears to be almost no hope of rehabilitation in the absence of a titanic shift in his lifestyle and beliefs. [ 21 ] I sentence Mr. Godron to imprisonment for a period of 34 and one-half months, after taking into consideration pretrial incarceration. [ 22 ] Anything further? [ 23 ] MS. JENNINGS: I had asked for ancillary orders, My Lord. The SOIRA order, the DNA order, and the s. 109 order. [ 24 ] THE COURT: Any submissions on that, Mr.

Bulmer? [ 25 ] MR. BULMER: No, sir, but I just remind you about the victim fine surcharge. [ 26 ] THE COURT: All right. First of all, take your ancillary orders, please, and -- [ 27 ] MS. JENNINGS: Thank you. I had provided Your Lordship with a draft order. I don't know if Your Lordship had an opportunity to -- [ 28 ] THE COURT: It must be -- is it in the file, Madam Registrar? I have a SOIRA order. [ 29 ] MS. JENNINGS: Yes, and has Your Lordship had an opportunity to sign it? [ 30 ] THE COURT: I better check my chambers in case it is there. [ 31 ] With the victim surcharge, what do you suggest, Mr.

Bulmer? [ 32 ] MR. BULMER: One day concurrent in default. [ 33 ] THE COURT: Thank you. One day concurrent for that. [ 34 ] MS. JENNINGS: Thank you, My Lord. “Josephson J.”