R. v. Kringuk, 2012 NUCJ 20

nunavuumi iqkaqtuijikkut NUNAVUT COURT OF JUSTICE La Cour de justice du Nunavut Citation: R. v. Kringuk, 2012 NUCJ 20 Date: 20121119 Docket: 19-08-8 Registry: Iqaluit Crown: Her Majesty the Queen -and- Accused: Joyce Kringuk ________________________________________________________________________ Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Kilpatrick Counsel (Crown): M. Bryant Counsel (Accused): P. Harte Location Heard: Iqaluit, Nunavut Date Heard: November 6, 2012 Matters: Criminal Code, s. 235 ; sentencing REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (NOTE: This document may have been edited for publication)

I. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] Joyce Kringuk has entered a guilty plea to a charge of second degree murder. A life has been taken. The lives of two young children have been shattered. Joyce Kringuk is now to be sentenced for this offence. [ 2 ] During the evening of August 8, 2008, Joyce Kringuk was drinking with her common law spouse Joani Kringayark. There was some sort of quarrel. It was the usual sort of quarrel that results from liquor. It was senseless. There would be no winners in the fight that followed. [ 3 ] As the verbal argument intensified, words were wielded like weapons in an effort to cause hurt.

The listening stopped when the shouting started. The dispute then quickly escalated. It became physical. [ 4 ] Joani Kringayark suddenly shoved Joyce Kringuk. Joyce Kringuk, now hysterical, gets on the CB radio and asks for help. She then retrieves a loaded rifle. She intends to take her own life. Joyce Kringuk is unable to manipulate the trigger to shoot herself, however. Mr. Kringayark makes light of his spouse’s pain. He seems indifferent to Ms. Kringuk’s threat of suicide. [ 5 ] The argument then continues with Ms. Kringuk still holding the rifle.

At some point Joyce Kringuk raises the firearm and points it at the ceiling above Joani Kringayark’s head. There is another taunt delivered by Mr. Kringayark. Joyce Kringuk closes her eyes and lowers the rifle. The rifle is pointed at Joani Kringayark’s head. The trigger is pulled. The sharp crack of the rifle is deafening. [ 6 ] At point blank range, the effect of the gun shot is catastrophic. The cabin is transformed into a scene of carnage. Blood, bits of bone and brain matter now cover the floor, the walls, and Joyce Kringuk. [ 7 ] There is a scream of terror.

Two young children have witnessed this horrific event. Joyce Kringuk comes to her senses. She immediately regrets what she has done, but it is too late. What has been done cannot be undone. [ 8 ] Joyce Kringuk is distraught when found by the police some time later. She makes no effort to hide what she has done. Between sobs she is overheard to repeatedly say “I shot my best friend!”, “I killed my best friend!”, and “Somebody kill me – what have I done? Oh my God, somebody kill me!” [ 9 ] The decision to pull that trigger now gives rise to a lifetime of regret, self-recrimination, and sorrow.

There is no accuser so unforgiving, and so relentless, as one’s own conscience. II. THE PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ACCUSED [ 10 ] Joyce Kringuk comes before the Court with no criminal record. [ 11 ] Ms. Kringuk was raised in a dysfunctional family. Her parents abused alcohol. She suffered both physical and emotional abuse at the hands of an alcoholic father. [ 12 ] Ms. Kringuk is fifth eldest of eight siblings. She had four brothers and four sisters. Three of these siblings were adopted out. Ms. Kringuk’s father had refused to recognize them as his children.

Three siblings, one brother and two sisters, have committed suicide. Hepatitis has claimed the life of Ms. Kringuk’s oldest brother. He had been a severe alcoholic for years. Yet another brother is in gaol. He has been convicted of murder. The remaining brother now struggles with dual addictions to both alcohol and drugs. On her mother’s side, Ms. Kringuk relates that both an uncle and cousin have taken their lives in apparent suicides.

[ 13 ] Ms. Kringuk has a lengthy history of sexual victimization. She has been raped on four occasions and fondled on another. These events are said to have occurred when she was 11, 12, 14, 22, and 25 years of age respectively. [ 14 ] Ms. Kringuk has a longstanding problem with substance abuse. She has been binge drinking since she was approximately eight years of age. [ 15 ] Between age 5 and 14 she sniffed gasoline. This form of substance abuse ended with her attendance at a treatment program in Yellowknife at age 14. [ 16 ] Since age 16, Ms.

Kringuk has been repeatedly hospitalized for depression and suicidal ideation. She was hospitalized in 1997 and diagnosed as having a bipolar disorder mixed with psychosis. Further hospitalizations followed in 1998 and 2002. Following her discharge in 2002, Ms. Kringuk continued to receive psychiatric outpatient treatment for depression in her home community. This treatment apparently continued up to May of 2008. [ 17 ] The relationship with Joani Kringayark started when Ms. Kringuk was 19 years of age. This was a turbulent relationship.

It was a relationship punctuated by intermittent periods of emotional and physical abuse. There were a number of separations and reconciliations. The stormy nature of this relationship only served to intensify Ms. Kringuk’s depression. III. THE SENTENCE [ 18 ] For the offence of second degree murder, the Court is required by law to pass a sentence of life imprisonment. It is a life sentence, and only a life sentence, that can be imposed for this type of offence.

For the rest of Joyce Kringuk’s natural life, she will be subject to the processes of the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board, whether she is in gaol or out on parole. [ 19 ] The Criminal Code provides that Ms. Kringuk must serve a minimum of 10 years in gaol before she becomes eligible for parole. This Court is given the discretion to increase this period of parole ineligibility by s.745.4 of the Criminal Code. There is, at present, no discretion given by the law to decrease this period of parole eligibility below the 10-year threshold. [ 20 ] Ms.

Kringuk has been detained in custody since the commission of this offence on August 8, 2008. This period of pre-trial detention is required to be taken into consideration by Corrections officials in calculating when Ms. Kringuk’s parole eligibility starts. [ 21 ] Both Crown and Defence jointly submit that the statutorily mandated minimum period of parole ineligibility should be imposed on the facts of this case. The Court now moves to consider the appropriateness of this recommendation. IV.

Parole Ineligibility – Analysis [ 22 ] In considering whether to increase the minimum 10-year period of parole ineligibility, the Court is directed by the Criminal Code to consider the character of the offender, the nature of the offence, and the circumstances surrounding its commission. A. The nature and circumstances of the offence (i). Mitigating factors [ 23 ] The guilty plea has spared the state the time and great expense associated with a trial. The guilty plea has spared the family of the deceased and the community the pain of having to relive the tragedy.

It has spared the friends and family of the deceased the agonizing uncertainty associated with the trial process.

[24] The Crown urges the Court to view the many admissions made by the Defendant in relation to both the preliminary hearing andproposed trial as being substantially mitigating. (ii). Aggravating factors [25] This Court in R v VanEindhoven, 2007 NUCJ 2 , 2007 NUCJ 02, [2007] NuJ No 2 (available on QL) [VanEindhoven],went to some length to outline why the breach of trust associated with spousal homicides should ordinarily give rise to a longer period ofparole ineligibility. I borrow from VanEindhoven these words: An intimate spousal relationship is one that is necessarily based upon trust, mutual respect and love.

These are the pillars upon which anurturing relationship is built and maintained. These are the values that define who we are, and what we want to be, as a people, as asociety, and as a nation. Violence damages the core social values that are the underpinnings of any domestic union. Violence destroys the trust that is integral to anurturing relationship. Violence demonstrates profound disrespect for the other partner’s physical and emotional integrity. It is a denialof everything that a relationship is intended to provide. It is a betrayal of love itself.

The emotional harm caused by such a breach of trustruns deep. The consequences to all its victims are as serious as they are long-lasting. The intimate relationship is intended to provide comfort and security to those within it. It is intended to be a safe haven, a refuge fromthe storms of life. It cannot be a prison. Pain, anguish and fear, the human consequences of violence, all wreak havoc upon a victim’ssense of self-esteem and emotional well-being. This damage can last a lifetime.

If the deliberate infliction of harm upon a spouse is a breach of trust, then the willful taking of life becomes particularly egregious incircumstances where there is an expectation of both protection and safety. There is a moral and legal duty to protect one’s spouse from harm. This is a feature common to any spousal relationship in every civilizedsociety. It is a social value that the law seeks to protect. It is a social value that is worth protecting.

To cause harm, to take life, wherethere is a duty to protect, can only be described as a profound breach of this duty, and of a trust that the law regards as sacred. [26] If the deliberate taking of the life of a spouse represents an egregious breach of trust, then it is doubly so in Ms. Kringuk’s case. [27] As a parent and mother, Ms. Kringuk had both a moral and legal duty to protect her children from harm. The willful exposure of thechildren to this horrific act of violence - the killing of their father - was a profound breach of this duty. The children’s memories will beforever scarred by this.

The children are now parentless. This breach of trust strikes at core social values associated with parenthood inboth Inuit as well as mainstream Canadian Society. Such a breach of trust is certainly deserving of a denunciatory sentence. [28] For all of the reasons advanced above, the aggravating circumstances of the offence now before the Court would merit an increasedperiod of parole ineligibility to meet the twin goals of deterrence and denunciation. (iii). The Character of the accused [29] Ms.

Kringuk’s sense of identity, her ability to trust and bond with members of the opposite sex, her sense of self-respect, have allbeen damaged by repeated acts of physical, sexual and emotional abuse, both by members of her own family and by others. Theseimpacts have been as broad as they have been severe. The emotional damage caused by this abuse has manifested itself in socialdysfunction of various kinds and degrees of severity. Depression and anxiety, anger and fear, mistrust, confusion, self-blame, and despairare the sad and enduring legacies of Joyce Kringuk’s unfortunate life experiences.

[ 30 ] Ms. Kringkuk’s history of depression and suicidal ideation is a reflection of the depth of this despair. For years Joyce Kringuk has either blamed herself, or has been blamed by others, for her unfortunate lot in life, as a daughter, as a spouse, and as a parent. [ 31 ] Joyce Kringuk’s resort to substance abuse and suicidal ideation is understandable in the context of her own victimization and marginalization within her family and community. Some citizens turn to substance abuse as a means of coping, or as a means of dulling the pain. Some may turn to suicide as a means of escape.

Joyce Kringuk has reached out to both as a solution to her many problems. [ 32 ] Anger is also the by-product of emotional, physical and sexual abuse. Sometimes the anger is turned inward and results in a history of self-harm or suicide. Sometimes the anger is turned outward and others are made to pay for the great suffering and indifference that a victim feels inside. [ 33 ] The killing of Joani Kringayark was the angry act of a desperate woman. This was the culmination of years of simmering resentment, neglect and abuse. Ms. Kringuk had intended to turn the rifle on herself in

an act of self-harm. When this was not possible the anger had nowhere else to go except outward. Ms. Kringuk’s intense anger settled on her best friend and then tormenter, Joani Kringayark. Mr. Kringayark died as a result. B. Parole ineligibility and the principle of restraint [ 34 ] A consideration of Joyce Kringuk’s prospects for rehabilitation remains as relevant to the process of determining a fit sentence for this offender as it does for any other.

While it is true that the sentence that must be passed is one fixed by law, namely life imprisonment, the determination of parole ineligibility and the amount of time behind bars still remains an important and integral part of the sentencing process by whatever name it is called. Ms. Kringuk’s potential for rehabilitation, for positive change, is relevant to whether she will continue to present as a risk in the foreseeable future. This consideration is particularly important in cases where an offender has little or no criminal history at the point of sentence.

Joyce Kringuk is such a case. [ 35 ] This Court in VanEindhoven determined that the availability of parole was uniquely important to Nunavummiut caught up in the federal correctional system. The Court’s comments in VanEindhoven are repeated here: Once made, a determination of parole ineligibility is final, subject only to appeal. Even if the offender makes remarkable strides in addressing the issues bringing him or her into conflict with the law, there is no legal means to reconsider the period of parole ineligibility once it is set by the sentencing court.

The parole ineligibility order, once made, also prevents any form of early release, including day release for programming purposes. Such an order, for example, would preclude any early release to attend a residential treatment center for substance abuse. The impact that a period of parole ineligibility has on an inmate’s access to programming is a particularly important consideration to Nunavummiut who receive a sentence of custody in a federal institution. Treatment options are extremely limited in Nunavut.

Community-based sentences often fail as a result of offenders being unable to address the issues bringing them into conflict with the law. The sad reality is that without treatment and other forms of community outreach, many of the offenders, despite the best of intentions, do fail. A growing criminal history then drives them into longer and longer periods of custody and ultimately into the federal system. Through the National Parole Board and the federal Correctional Services, there is access to more resources.

If motivated, the offender has an opportunity to access programs and treatment resources that are simply not available in Nunavut. Despite a significant territory- wide problem with drug and alcohol abuse, there is no residential treatment program for substance abuse available within the Nunavut territory. Parole was intended by Parliament to be an integral part of the offender’s reintegration into the community. This objective is explicitly recognized by the declaration of purpose set out in s.3 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

By addressing treatment needs through a form of structured release, parole can directly contribute to the long-term protection of the public. While from time to time, there have been some spectacular failures of Canada’s parole system, the public rarely hears or sees the many cases where early release achieves what it is mandated to do.

For many Inuit coming from the isolated communities of Nunavut, parole within Nunavut itself remains a forlorn hope. In the absence of any structured residential setting appropriate for early release, Inuit face no realistic prospect of returning to their home community for the purpose of a structured reintegration into their community. Much of the specialized programming necessary to address rehabilitative needs remains available only in the south. If Inuit offenders are to benefit from the services available in the south, parole becomes an essential means of accessing these rehabilitative options….

The difficulties associated with accessing treatment resources in Nunavut demands that the power to delay parole ineligibility in this jurisdiction be used with restraint. It should only be used where there is a clear and demonstrable need to address issues of deterrence and denunciation that cannot be achieved through the minimum mandatory period of parole ineligibility prescribed by the Criminal Code . Its use in Nunavut should not be divorced from any consideration of the long-term needs of the individual offender, and of the community of which he or she is a part.

Every effort should be made to maximize Inuit offenders’ access to treatment programs through parole before they are returned to their home communities. [ 36 ] The need to access appropriate treatment resources and services is particularly acute in Joyce Kringuk’s case. She has many special needs. Ms. Kringuk appears motivated to address her issues. She has actively involved herself in AA and other forms of remedial counselling during her four year stay at the women’s correctional facility awaiting her trial date.

The sad reality in Nunavut is that there are more remedial services available to women in custody than there are available to Nunavummiut in the communities. V. CONCLUSION A. Parole ineligibility [ 37 ] While the circumstances of the offence suggest that an increased period of parole ineligibility should be imposed, the unique personal circumstances of Ms. Kringuk suggest that much is to be gained by maximizing Ms. Kringuk’s access to remedial resources. [ 38 ] The Court has been presented with a joint submission.

The joint submission proposes that despite the aggravating circumstances of the offence, only the minimum period of parole ineligibility of 10 years need be imposed in the circumstances of this case. Both Crown and Defence suggest that the psychiatric history and tragic life circumstances of Ms. Kringuk warrant the application of the principle of restraint. This is a principle that is particularly important when addressing the special circumstances of disadvantaged and marginalized aboriginal citizens who are swept up into the criminal justice system. [ 39 ] The joint submission has resulted in a guilty plea.

Jurisprudence suggests that a joint submission made under these circumstances is entitled to considerable weight. Unless the application of such a submission brings the administration into disrepute, it should be followed by a sentencing court. [ 40 ] In the special circumstances of this case, the Court will adopt the joint submission proposed by counsel. This case does not set a sentencing precedent however.

The Court emphasizes that the end result is the product of a joint submission. [ 41 ] There is an emphatic need in Nunavut to denounce spousal homicides through the sentencing process. [ 42 ] This is so given the prevalence of domestic violence in this territory. Spousal violence is morally wrong. It is legally wrong. It will not be tolerated by this Court. [ 43 ] In a domestic context, where a life is taken as a result of murder, there must be a firm and measured consequence for the egregious breach of trust underlying this violence.

Absent special circumstances, denunciation and deterrence demands a longer period of parole ineligibility. B. Address to the family and friends of the deceased

[ 44 ] The empty chair at every family meeting, every family picture, will always remind Joani’s loved ones of just who is missing and why. Much emotion is generated by this. Feelings of sadness, emptiness and despair, feelings of anger and even guilt, will haunt this family for years to come. This pain is very real. [ 45 ] Joani’s death was an unnecessary tragedy. As a family, as a community, we are all diminished when a life is taken from us prematurely. This Court can do nothing to restore the life that has been taken.

The Court understands that from the perspective of grieving loved ones, nothing that this Court can say or do can possibly compensate Joani Kringayark’s friends and family for what they have lost. Their anger and their sadness is understandable. [ 46 ] The Court urges family members to share their pain with others; to speak openly and honestly about their feelings. By sharing this burden with others, the load will be easier to carry.

With the court proceeding over, the Court hopes that time will ease this family’s pain and that all may eventually find some peace. [ 47 ] This Court urges the Department of Social Services to ensure that the two child victims of this offence are monitored for post- traumatic stress disorder. These children will likely need to access specialized programs and services to address the trauma that they have experienced. C. Address to the accused [ 48 ] Ms. Kringuk, nothing said or done by the deceased justifies or excuses what you did to Mr. Kringayark.

In the process of killing your common-law spouse, you have also harmed your children. They will carry the memory of this nightmare for the rest of their lives. They too now live out a life sentence. _[49] The person you killed, you once loved. Long after your memory of these court proceedings fades, your conscience will punish you. It will be there when you sleep. It will be there when you wake. It will always be there to remind you what you did. [50] Anger has ruled your life. You have had much to be angry about. This anger has caused you to consider harming yourself.

It has now caused you to harm others whom you love. [51] If you are to heal, you must learn to forgive. You must learn to forgive others. You must also learn to forgive yourself. For you, this will be difficult to achieve. You have much to overcome. [52] If you wish to honour the memory of Joani Kringayark, you must from this day forward commit yourself to a healing journey and honour this commitment for the rest of your natural life. D. Ancillary Orders related to sentence [53] There will be a DNA order. It is mandatory for this offence. [54] There will be a firearms prohibition order.

This order will be for life. There will also be a lifetime prohibition upon Ms. Kringuk possessing any restricted firearm or cross-bow. Any firearms, ammunition or explosives, restricted firearms or cross-bows, must be immediately surrendered to the RCMP together with any firearms licenses and Firearms Acquisition Certificate. Any such items are ordered forfeited to the Attorney General. [55] There will be an order under s.743.21 of the Criminal Code . Ms. Kringuk may have such contact with, or access to, the two child victims of this offense as may be determined by the Department of Child and Family Services.

[56] Pursuant to

section 491 of the Criminal Code , there will be an order declaring the two firearms seized by the RCMP in conjunction with this case, together with any ammunition, be forfeited to Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada for disposition by the Attorney General. [57] The victim fine surcharge is waived for reasons of hardship. [58] The Court directs Court Services to have these reasons for sentence immediately translated into Inuktitut for distribution, upon request, to family members of the deceased and accused who are resident in the hamlet of Repulse Bay. Dated at the City of Iqaluit this 19th day of November, 2012 ___________________ Justice R. Kilpatrick Nunavut Court of Justice