R. v. Mucpa, 2022 NUCJ 25

Nunavunmi Maligaliuqtiit NUNAVUT COURT OF JUSTICE Cour de justice du Nunavut Citation: R. v. Mucpa, 2022 NUCJ 25 Date: 20220630 Docket: 11-17-093 Registry: Iqaluit Crown: Her Majesty the Queen -and- Accused: Tommy Mucpa __________________________________________________________________ Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Paul Bychok Counsel (Crown): Counsel (Accused): G. Lyndon, M. Welch J. Bedford, S.

Siebert Location Heard: Date Heard: Iqaluit, Nunavut June 21, 2022 Matters: Parole ineligibility on a life sentence for second degree murder pursuant to Criminal Code of Canada, RSC 1985, c C-46, ss. 745.4 REASONS FOR DECISION (NOTE: This document may have been edited for publication) Table of Contents I. BACKGROUND . 3 II. THE FACTS OF THE CASE . 3 III. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS . 5 A. The Crown . 5

B. The Defence . 5 C. The appropriate period of parole ineligibility . 5 IV. THE APPLICABLE LAW .. 6 A. The fundamental purpose of sentencing . 6 B. The minimum punishment for second degree murder 6 C. The statutory three-part test for parole ineligibility . 6 D. The vulnerability of the victim .. 7 E. R v Shropshire . 7 F. R v Ryan . 8 G. R v Diebel 9 H . R v Cerra . 10 I. The prevalence of violence in Nunavut 11 J. Aggravating factors . 11 K. Mitigating factors . 12 L. R v Gladue . 12 M. Mr. Mucpa’s criminal record . 13 N. Victim impact statements . 14 V. ANALYSIS . 14 A. The statutory three-part test 14 i.

The character of the accused . 14 ii. The nature of the offence . 17 iii. The circumstances of the offence . 18 VI. DECISION . 19 VII. SENTENCE . 20 I. BACKGROUND [ 1 ] I convicted the offender, Tommy Mucpa, after trial on June 21, 2022 of the second degree murder of Doris Erkloo. [1] The minimum punishment set out in the Criminal Code is life imprisonment. This decision deals with the question of Mr. Mucpa’s parole ineligibility. [ 2 ] Mr. Mucpa was brought back to Pond Inlet to receive the Court’s decision after trial and the sentence.

I sentenced him in the community on June 21, but I reserved the right to flesh out my reasons and to refer to the appropriate case law in this written decision. II. THE FACTS OF THE CASE [ 3 ] I start with my findings of fact.

[ 4 ] On the morning of July 3, 2017 (July 3) Mr. Mucpa took Jayco Killiktee and Levi Kasarnak onto the land outside Pond Inlet to steal alcohol from the tent of one Boazie Ootoova. At the time, Mr. Ootoova was the boyfriend of Mr. Mucpa’s mother. When they arrived at the tent, Mr. Mucpa looked inside and saw that Mr. Ootoova was with his mother’s sister, Ms. Erkloo. Mr. Mucpa became angry. He did not lose control, nor did he react impulsively. He tried to leverage the situation to his advantage by telling Mr. Ootoova he would not tell his mother if Mr. Ootoova gave him some alcohol. Mr.

Ootoova threatened to shoot the three men who immediately fled. Sometime afterward, Mr. Mucpa told Mr. Killiktee that he – Mr. Mucpa – was thinking of hurting Mr. Ootoova or Ms. Erkloo. [ 5 ] Some significant time passed and Mr. Mucpa came upon Ms. Erkloo who was walking alone on the land. Mr. Mucpa walked up to her and the two had a brief conversation. He then, without provocation or warning, attacked the defenceless Ms. Erkloo from behind. Mr. Mucpa’s attack was brutal. He strangled Ms.

Erkloo using so much force that he broke her voice box leaving a 5 x 4 cm bruise in the centre of her neck over her Adam’s Apple. [2] Ms. Erkloo struggled to save herself but could not. Every time Ms. Erkloo tried to free herself Mr. Mucpa choked her more and in his words, he did so “hard.” [ 6 ] While Mr. Mucpa was attacking Ms. Erkloo, Mr. Killiktee came onto the scene and watched what was happening. Mr. Killiktee saw Ms. Erkloo face down on the ground while Mr. Mucpa was on top of her with his hands around her neck. Mr. Mucpa noticed Mr. Killiktee and said to him “I think she’s dead soon.” Mr.

Mucpa continued strangling Ms. Erkloo. The attack was prolonged. Mr. Killiktee did not intervene to try and save Ms. Erkloo. [ 7 ] Eventually, Ms. Erkloo stopped moving. With his left shoulder on Ms. Erkloo’s neck, Mr. Mucpa searched for a rock with his free hand. He found a rock the size of two fists which he used to hit Ms. Erkloo twice on the head. In the process, he inflicted “a 7 cm bruise on the crown of [Ms. Erkloo’s] head accompanied by a 1 cm full thickness laceration at the left lateral edge.” [3] After he had struck Ms. Erkloo on the head, Mr. Mucpa noticed that Ms.

Erkloo was still alive and breathing. Mr. Mucpa then deliberately started choking Ms. Erkloo again until she stopped moving for the last time. Mr. Ootoova drove by Mr. Mucpa and Ms. Erkloo on a Honda four wheeler but he did not see them. Mr. Mucpa continued his attack. Mr. Mucpa later told Cpl. Pigeon that Ms. Erkloo would still be alive had Mr. Ootoova seen them and stopped. [4] Ms. Erkloo suffered oxygen deprived brain death directly attributable to Mr. Mucpa’s determined strangulation. [ 8 ] I was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Mucpa killed Ms.

Erkloo between 11 a.m. and around noon, probably closer to noon. Mr. Mucpa then stripped the clothing from Ms. Erkloo’s body and abandoned her naked body on the land. [ 9 ] Around 1 p.m. that same afternoon, Mr. Mucpa arrived at the RCMP detachment but it was closed. He walked to the home of Jason Agnetsiak and borrowed his cell phone which he used to call the RCMP at 1:35 p.m. Mr. Mucpa spoke to RCMP dispatch and reported that he had just killed his auntie “with my bare hands,” and that he was going to the detachment to turn himself in. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that during this call Mr.

Mucpa was lucid and demonstrated that he was fully aware of, and oriented to, his circumstances and situation. [ 10 ] Whatever the extent of Mr. Mucpa’s compromised mental health and to whatever minimal degree alcohol may have affected Mr. Mucpa on July 3, 2017, I was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he was capable of, and did in fact exercise, sufficient cognitive reasoning to understand both the quality, nature, and consequences of his actions and that his deliberate and purposeful actions in killing Ms. Erkloo were legally wrong. III. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS A.

The Crown [ 11 ] The Crown said I should impose a 15-year period of parole ineligibility. B. The Defence

[ 12 ] Defence Counsel urged the Court to impose a 12-year period of parole ineligibility. C. The appropriate period of parole ineligibility [ 13 ] In my view, the submissions by the Crown and Defence: • Do not give appropriate weight to the objectives of denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and the safety of the public; • Do not account for factors relevant to the three-part statutory test; • Do not address the epidemic in Nunavut of gendered and non-gendered violence against Inuit; • Do not account meaningfully for aggravating factors; and • Do not treat Mr.

Mucpa’s life-long mental health issues as an aggravating factor. [ 14 ] Upon hearing submissions, I provided counsel an opportunity to reflect upon my detailed concerns prior to completing the sentencing hearing. Crown and Defence maintained their respective positions. [ 15 ] For the reasons that follow, the appropriate period of parole ineligibility in this case of near first degree murder is 20-years. IV. THE APPLICABLE LAW A.

The fundamental purpose of sentencing [ 16 ] Parliament has decreed in the Criminal Code that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society while maintaining public respect for the administration of justice. [5] B. The minimum punishment for second degree murder [ 17 ] Criminal Code

section 235 sets out the minimum punishment for second degree murder:

(1) Everyone who commits first degree murder or second degree murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life. (2) … the sentence of imprisonment for life prescribed by this

section is a minimum punishment. C. The statutory three-part test for parole ineligibility

[ 18 ] Parliament has prescribed a three-part test respecting the calculation of parole ineligibility for second degree murder in Criminal Code

section 745.4 : … at the time of the sentencing under

section 745 of an offender who is convicted of second degree murder, the judge who presided at the trial of the offender … may, having regard to the character of the offender, the nature of the offence, and the circumstances surrounding its commission … by order, substitute for ten years, a number of years of imprisonment (being more than ten but not more than twenty-five) without eligibility for parole, as the judge deems fit in the circumstances. D. The vulnerability of the victim [ 19 ] Criminal Code

section 718.04 also mandates that the sentencing court consider whether the offence was committed against 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. [ 20 ] Mr. Mucpa’s victim was his maternal aunt. E.

R v Shropshire [6] [ 21 ] The leading authority respecting parole ineligibility continues to be R v Shropshire . Writing on behalf of the Supreme Court of Canada, Iacobucci J noted that the calculation of parole ineligibility is “a very fact-sensitive process.” [7] This statement reflects the fact that the imposition of an appropriate sentence is a highly individualised process.

No two offenders and no two offences are alike. [ 22 ] In the Supreme Court’s view, Parliament intended that: As a general rule, the period of parole ineligibility shall be for ten years, but this can be ousted by a determination of the trial judge that, according to the criteria enumerated in s.744, the offender should wait a longer period before having his suitability to be released into the general public assessed. [8] [ 23 ] Unusual circumstances are not required to ground an increased period of parole ineligibility.

Furthermore, “the power to extend the period of parole ineligibility need not be sparingly used.” [9] [ 24 ] The Supreme Court set out the following criteria as relevant to the calculation process: • Proportionality; • The protection of society through specific and general deterrence; • Societal condemnation;

• The personal circumstances of the offender; • The degree of the offender’s moral culpability; • Future dangerousness; and • The particular circumstances of the crime. [ 25 ] Parity, the principle that similar offenders ought to receive similar sentences for similar crimes [10] forms a part of the analysis. F. R v Ryan [11] [ 26 ] There are a myriad of reported cases in this area containing a wide variety of circumstances. This fact highlights, again, that sentencing is a highly case-specific exercise. Still, much guidance may be found in the 2015 decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal in Ryan .

In an extensive review of the case law, Wakeling JA discerned several patterns which are relevant and helpful to my deliberations here: • Periods of 10-years to 15-years ineligibility where the offender acted impulsively; • Periods of 16-years to 20-years ineligibility where there is a familial relationship, the victim was vulnerable, and where there were elements of forethought and not impulsivity; • Periods of 21-years to 25-years where the forethought was well before the murder, in combination with another crime, or the offender used extreme violence. [12] [ 27 ] These patterns are guideposts and not hard-and-fast categories. [ 28 ] The Ryan case also confirms that the sentencing judge must also account for the presence of aggravating, mitigating, and Gladue [13] factors.

G. R v Diebel [14] [ 29 ] Another helpful precedent is the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in Diebel . The offender here suffered from bipolar illness. He suffered episodes of depression, mania, and hypomania which led to problems with impulse control, impaired judgment, and insight. He also suffered from mild cognitive distortions. He attacked and brutally killed his intimate partner after luring her to a vacant lot, although he only decided to kill her once they were together. He used a hammer as a murder weapon. He struck her 6-7 times then another 20 to 30 times when he heard noises coming from her.

He abandoned her body in some bushes in an isolated area. He appears to have stripped her body leaving her naked. [ 30 ] The trial judge imposed a 12-year period of ineligibility. The Crown appealed seeking 25-years.

Speaking for the court, Kent JA stated that “the most basic of sentencing objectives, protection of the public, becomes the dominant concern.” Justice Kent outlined the following relevant factors: • The offender’s illness was not mitigating as “left untreated … [he] represents a significant threat to the safety of others.” • He had been aware from past experience that “he could act out unpredictably and dangerously when in the grip of his disease.”

• He was a low to medium risk if he accepted treatment but was “a high risk for violent – even homicidal violence – if he refused treatment.” • The offender showed “some forethought and planning.” • The killing “involved the ambush of an unarmed, unsuspecting woman.

The means employed were brutal, consisting of two savage attacks … Her body was then left in a place where it was not likely to be found.” • The offender showed “no hint of remorse.” • The killing “may fairly be described as a “near first degree murder” and the period of parole ineligibility should have reflected that.” [15] [ 31 ] The Court of Appeal granted the Crown appeal and substituted a 20-year period of parole ineligibility. The factual similarities between Diebel and Mr. Mucpa’s case are remarkable. H .

R v Cerra [16] [ 32 ] I am also assisted by the decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Cerra . In Cerra , the offender subjected his female victim to a “brutal beating” over a petty dispute over drugs. The offender started to attack his victim when two other individuals turned up. The offender stopped his attack, dealt with the arrivals, and watched them drive away whereupon he resumed his murderous attack. The offender used a rock to the head of his victim who also suffered a neck compression.

Donald J said: …this is what sinks the accused for my purposes, having had this opportunity to stop what he was about, the accused went back to the victim, completed his murderous attack upon her, and, then, as she was unconscious, and, then, [sic] on the medical evidence, in the process of dying, threw her body into the pond where she was later found, drowned. [17] [ 33 ] Donald J found the offender’s deliberation and persistence in his attack to be “extraordinary aggravating factors.” The offender’s actions were not influenced by intoxication, were not impulsive, and – unlike Mr.

Mucpa - he had but a minor criminal record. The Court of Appeal dismissed the offender’s appeal and confirmed the 20-year period of parole ineligibility imposed by the trial judge. [ 34 ] Again, the factual similarities with Mr. Mucpa’s case are striking. [ 35 ] In my view, Diebel and Cerra provide principled guidance which, in the circumstances of Mr. Mucpa’s case, account for the principles of proportionality and parity. I.

The prevalence of violence in Nunavut [ 36 ] Our court dockets across the Territory are dominated regularly by allegations of crimes of violence. [ 37 ] In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed in R v Lacasse [18] that the prevalence of a particular crime in the community is a relevant consideration at sentencing. In my view, this consideration is relevant to the analysis of the nature of Mr. Mucpa’s offence. [ 38 ] In January 2020, Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada (Pauktuutit) shone a light on the frequency of the violence in Nunavut which

is perpetrated upon Inuit women and girls. Pauktuutit described the rate of gendered violence against Inuit women and girls as a “problem of massive proportions.” [19] The rate of gendered violence in Nunavut was 13 times greater than the national average. The rate of gendered sexual violence in Nunavut was 12 times greater than the national average.

In 2016, Nunavut had the highest rate of police- reported family violence in Canada. [ 39 ] Pauktuutit has spoken again about this issue this month, reminding Nunavummiut: Meeting survivors needs, In our communities and in our homes … Inuit women and girls have the right to be safe. And the right to heal. The system of courts and policing is failing too many of us. [20] J. Aggravating factors [ 40 ] I set out the aggravating factors in my analysis of the three-part statutory test. K. Mitigating factors [ 41 ] There are four mitigating factors in this case. Mr.

Mucpa: 1. turned himself in to the police; 2. confessed his crime; 3. took the police to Ms. Erkloo’s body; and 4. is reported to have done well on parole in 2016. [ 42 ] I have found Mr. Mucpa’s confessions to be mitigating factors despite the fact that the Defence challenged their admissibility as evidence at trial – saying that Mr. Mucpa did not make his confessions voluntarily. [21] L. R v Gladue [22] [ 43 ] Parliament and the Supreme Court of Canada have mandated that the sentencing judge account for the systemic and inter- generational effects of colonialism on Inuit society. Mr.

Mucpa is a product of that reality. [ 44 ] I derive much of my information about Mr. Mucpa from the report by Dr. Robert Sheppard which was entered into evidence by the Defence. [ 45 ] Mr. Mucpa is a 30-year-old Inuk male who has, apart from his time in jail, lived his entire life in Pond Inlet. He got as far as grade nine in school. Defence Counsel advised on June 21 that Mr. Mucpa experienced emotional, physical, and sexual abuse as a child from older family members. He spent time in a number of foster homes in different communities. Several family members including his father committed suicide.

He suffered the effects of homelessness and poverty. These “cascading factors”, Defence Counsel continued, inform, and diminish Mr. Mucpa’s level of moral culpability.

[ 46 ] Mr. Mucpa has a documented history of mental illness. In 2006, he was diagnosed as having a psychotic disorder, and physicians have speculated that he may suffer from schizophrenia. Physicians have prescribed and administered anti-psychotic medications for over ten years, and he has been admitted to hospital twice for his mental illness, once in 2009 and again in 2012. It is also possible that he suffers from fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and a neurodevelopmental disorder. [ 47 ] Mr.

Mucpa has a long history of substance abuse dating back to when he was nine-years-old, including alcohol, crystal meth, ecstasy, marijuana, non-prescription medications like Tylenol, and solvent sniffing. He has been diagnosed as cognitively impaired. [ 48 ] Significantly, Mr. Mucpa also has a long history of poor anger control dating all the way back to his childhood. The Defence expert, Dr. Robert Sheppard, reported that: There is considerable evidence, then, that Mr.

Mucpa’s lability of mood, his difficulties with behavioural regulation, and his poor impulse control, have in the past temporarily, but regularly, made him a risk to the safety of both himself and others. [23] [ 49 ] It is also significant that he has reportedly attempted suicide 7 times. As reported by Dr. Sheppard: Mr. Mucpa “admitted that triggers to his various suicide attempts have mostly involved experiences of rejection from women in his life.” [24] [ 50 ] Mr. Mucpa has been on and off antipsychotic medication for the past 10 years or so, and he told Dr.

Sheppard that: “when he doesn’t get his injection he starts to see and hear things and gets into fights.” [25] Yet, in spite of this, there is no evidence that Mr. Mucpa made any efforts to continue with his medication after his return to Pond Inlet in 2017 after serving a penitentiary sentence. Dr. Sheppard did not find that Mr. Mucpa was suffering from any psychosis on July 3. M. Mr. Mucpa’s criminal record [ 51 ] Mr.

Mucpa has a criminal record dating back to 2010. 2010-03-03 Theft under Bail breach Break and enter 18 months probation Suspended sentence 2010-12-08 Theft over Probation breach 60 days jail 30 days jail concurrent 2012-08-03 Break and enter x2 105 days jail 2013-02-07 Break and enter Bail breach x2 4 months jail 30 days consecutive 2014-10-08 Sexual assault 4 years jail 2020-01-23 Assault with a weapon 120 days jail [ 52 ] Defence Counsel said that Mr. Mucpa committed his early criminal convictions to feed his substance abuse. N.

Victim impact statements [ 53 ] The Crown did not file any victim impact statements while noting, however, that Ms. Erkloo’s family is “overwhelmed with grief.”

V. ANALYSIS A. The statutory three-part test [ 54 ] I deal with each category in turn. i. The character of the accused [ 55 ] Mr. Mucpa suffers from life-long anger management issues. a. For example, Mr. Mucpa was suspended from school for a year for aggressive behaviour; b. Mr. Mucpa told Dr. Sheppard that “when he is off his regular medication he has difficulty controlling his anger and gets into more fights” [26] ; c. Dr. Sheppard concluded: “There is considerable evidence, then, that Mr.

Mucpa’s lability of mood, his difficulties with behavioural regulation, and his poor impulse control, have in the past temporarily, but regularly, made him a risk to the safety of both himself and others.” [27] [ 56 ] Mr. Mucpa has experienced life-long issues in his relationships with women; [28] a. Dr. Sheppard reported: “…conflicted relationships with significant females in his life appears to have been a consistent source of stress for Mr. Mucpa;” [29] [ 57 ] Mr. Mucpa suffers from life-long mental health issues which in his case are aggravating and not mitigating factors. a.

For example, in the four months leading up to his killing Ms. Erkloo, Mr. Mucpa knew he had to take medication to keep himself stable, but he failed to do so. As Mr. Mucpa told Cst. Austring on July 3: “There’s mental health. He knows everything. I’m with uh mental health. They think I’m a schizophrenic. I used to take pills, um, injection when they came here. I stopped them. So that’s why I’m going crazy cause of depression. I usually take them every month.” [30] b. Consequently, Mr. Mucpa bears a high degree of moral culpability; c. Noting his borderline intelligence and executive dysfunction, Dr.

Sheppard reported that Mr. Mucpa is impaired: “… in higher level cognitive functions such as planning, organizing, regulation of mood and behaviour, impulse control, and foreseeing the consequences of his actions.” [31] I heard from counsel that Mr. Mucpa operates at the level of a 10 or 11 year-old. d. Crown Counsel referred to an October 2015 decision of the Parole Board – granting Mr. Mucpa parole - which stated that Mr. Mucpa was at high risk of sexual offence recidivism, and that he remained an untreated sex offender. He noted that Mr.

Mucpa was rated as a moderate to high risk to reoffend according to the Static 99R tests. He was also rated to be a high needs offender pursuant to the Stable 07 test. Mr. Mucpa completed the Tupiq Program. [32] e. Defence Counsel also referred extensively to Mr. Mucpa’s Correctional Service of Canada file, yet I did not hear that Mr. Mucpa’s situation has improved in any way. I was told that he completed some programming but that other courses through no fault of his own

were not available to him. With one exception, counsel did not tell me which courses he completed, and which courses he did not take or complete; f. Significantly, there is no medical evidence that there is any realistic hope for betterment of any of Mr. Mucpa’s “co-morbid clinical issues;” [33] g. These comorbidities include schizophrenia, likely neurodevelopmental disorder, and possible fetal alcohol spectrum disorder; h. Mr. Mucpa’s family continues to reside in Pond Inlet and he has two children there aged 13 years and 12 years-old. He has another older daughter from a different relationship in Igloolik.

He will eventually feel great pressure and temptation to return home. Counsel concede that Mr. Mucpa lacks meaningful rehabilitative support in both these two communities; i. As a result, in terms of future dangerousness, I must conclude that despite his experience on parole in Ottawa, Mr. Mucpa is a continuing and significant danger to the community, and he is at high risk to reoffend. [ 58 ] Mr. Mucpa has a serious criminal record which shows an escalation in gendered violence. [34] a. Indeed, the circumstances of his 2014 conviction for sexual assault mirror in some material respects what he did to Ms. Erkloo.

He followed and attacked a solitary 52-year old woman who was walking alone at night before sexually assaulting her – an assault which included vaginal penetration. He was also charged with the sexual assault of a four year old girl, but those charges were stayed by the Crown; [35] b. In 2019, even within the highly structured jail environment, Mr. Mucpa attacked a jail guard with a screw he had taken and concealed from a construction site. He was convicted and received a 120 day sentence. The Crown did not enter into evidence Mr.

Mucpa’s disciplinary, medical, or other custodial records from his time in the penitentiary or the five years he spent in pre-trial custody in this case. [ 59 ] Mr. Mucpa has demonstrated a pattern of manipulation when dealing with the criminal justice system: a. including telling Dr.

Sheppard untruthfully that he had blacked out and could not remember everything that happened in this case; and b. in an earlier case, he told different versions of what happened to the police, the probation officer who prepared his Pre-sentence Report, and the intake evaluation authorities at Joyceville Penitentiary. [36] [ 60 ] Mr. Mucpa failed to demonstrate any remorse when he spoke with Dr. Sheppard. ii.

The nature of the offence [ 61 ] Gendered violence against Inuit women and girls is an epidemic in Nunavut, and the sentence I impose must emphasise denunciation, deterrence, and the safety of the public. [ 62 ] Mr. Mucpa acted deliberately and purposefully to kill Ms. Erkloo and there are elements of forethought and planning. This is a near first-degree murder case. [ 63 ] Mr. Mucpa perpetrated a crime of intra-family violence. iii. The circumstances of the offence

[ 64 ] Mr. Mucpa had recently finished serving a federal penitentiary sentence for an offence where he had attacked and sexually assaulted a 52-year old woman. [ 65 ] Anyone may apply for a court order restricting the freedoms of another person if there are reasonable grounds to fear that the person may commit a serious personal injury offence as defined in the Criminal Code . [37] The Crown justifiably had that reasonable fear in 2017 that Mr. Mucpa would reoffend. When Mr. Mucpa returned to Pond Inlet after he completed his 4-year sentence for sexual assault, the police arrested him. The police told Mr. Mucpa he was going to be the subject of a Criminal Code

section 810.2 application, and released him on bail conditions. Mr. Mucpa was subject to those conditions when he attacked and killed Ms. Erkloo. [ 66 ] Mr. Mucpa attacked an innocent, unarmed, and vulnerable Inuk woman from behind, and he deliberately continued attacking her until he believed he had killed her. [ 67 ] Mr. Mucpa’s attack was brutal, senseless, prolonged, and unprovoked. [ 68 ] Mr. Mucpa’s attack showed elements of forethought and planning. [ 69 ] Mr. Mucpa applied significant force while breaking Ms. Erkloo’s voice box and strangling her until her brain died from oxygen deprivation. [ 70 ] Mr.

Mucpa continued strangling Ms. Erkloo while saying to Mr. Killiktee “I think she’s dead soon.” [ 71 ] Mr. Mucpa escalated his assault by looking for and using a weapon against Ms. Erkloo causing bruising and a significant laceration to the crown of her head. [ 72 ] Mr. Mucpa could have abandoned his attack when Mr. Ootoova drove by, but he persisted. [ 73 ] Mr. Mucpa strangled Ms. Erkloo again when he realised she was still alive and breathing. [ 74 ] Mr. Mucpa continued the attack even when he became aware that an innocent bystander was present. [ 75 ] Mr. Mucpa committed an indignity against Ms.

Erkloo’s dead body by stripping it naked and abandoning it on the land exposed to the deprivations of birds, animals, and the elements. VI. DECISION [ 76 ] The period of parole ineligibility in Mr. Mucpa’s case must emphasise meaningfully our community’s abhorrence and condemnation of gendered violence against Inuit women and girls, general and specific deterrence, and protection of the public. [ 77 ] Mr. Mucpa’s case of gendered homicide bears all the hallmarks which require the imposition of a 20-year period of parole ineligibility: • Mr.

Mucpa’s attack showed forethought and planning; it was not impulsive nor did Mr. Mucpa lose control; • Mr. Mucpa attacked Ms. Erkloo purposefully and continued his brutal assault recognizing that “she’s dead soon;” • Mr. Mucpa kept Ms. Erkloo pinned to the ground by her neck while he searched for a large rock which he used to inflict grievous bodily injury to Ms. Erkloo; • Mr. Mucpa then resumed strangling Ms. Erkloo when he realized that she was still alive and breathing;

• Mr. Mucpa was not deterred by the presence of an innocent third party nor did he cease his attack when Mr. Ootoova drove right by; • Mr. Mucpa committed an indignity upon Ms. Erkloo’s body stripping it naked and abandoning it on the land; • Mr. Mucpa’s case is a case of near first degree murder; • Mr. Mucpa killed his maternal aunt in a case of intra-family violence. He explained his motive to his mother – he killed Ms. Erkloo because she had cheated on her with her boyfriend; • Mr. Mucpa knew he was the subject of an upcoming

section 810.2 application and that he was on release conditions; neither of these facts deterred him; • Although he knew that he would suffer instability by not continuing his medication when he returned home after parole, Mr. Mucpa took no steps to seek medical help upon his return to the community in 2017; • Mr. Mucpa demonstrated an alarming escalation in violence towards women; • Mr. Mucpa had acted out violently as recently as two years ago inside the structured jail environment; • Mr. Mucpa attempted to manipulate the Defence expert, Dr.

Sheppard, as he had done in a prior case; • There is no medical evidence that Mr. Mucpa is capable of healing in either the near or long term; and • Mr. Mucpa remains at high risk to reoffend. VII. SENTENCE [ 78 ] Having already sentenced Mr. Mucpa to life imprisonment, I order that he be ineligible to seek parole for 20-years. Dated at the City of Iqaluit this 30th day of June, 2022 ___________________ Justice P. Bychok Nunavut Court of Justice