R. v. Waterman, 2018 NLSC 80

court crest IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR GENERAL DIVISION Citation : R. v. Waterman , 2018 NLSC 80 Date : April 16, 2018 Docket : 201603G0187 Her Majesty The Queen v. Angus Frederick Waterman Restriction on Publication: By court order made under subsection 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code , information that may identify the persons described in this judgment as the complainants or victims shall not be published in any documents, broadcasted, or transmitted in any way. Before: Justice Kendra J.

Goulding Edited Transcript of Oral Reasons for Judgment Place of Hearing: Grand Falls-Windsor, Newfoundland and Labrador Dates of Hearing: October 30, 31, November 1, 2, 9, 2017 and March 28, 2018 Date of Oral Judgment: April 06, 2018

Summary: The offender was found guilty by a jury of indecent assault and gross indecency on a male child which occurred between 1975 and 1981. The Court sentenced the offender to 12 months imprisonment to be served under a conditional sentence order pursuant to

section 742.1 of the Criminal Code followed by 12 months supervised probation and ancillary orders (DNA, SOIRA).

Appearances: Mr. Douglas E. Howell Appearing on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen Randolph J. Piercey, Q.C. Appearing on behalf of Angus Frederick Waterman Authorities Cited: CASES CONSIDERED: R. v. O’Keefe, 2018 NLCA 11; R. v. H. (R.J.), 2012 NLCA 52; R. v. Wagoner, 2014 NLTD(G) 63; R. v.D.C.M., 2010 NLTD(G) 178; R. v. Oldford, 2009 NLTD 124; R. v. E.P.B., 2003 NLSCTD 26; R. v. R. (B.), 2007 N.J. No. 111, 73W.C.B. (2d) 297 (NL Prov. Ct.); R. v. Arbuthnot, [2008] O.J. No. 346, 76 W.C.B. (2d) 454 (Ont. Sup. Ct.); R. v. S. (E.C.), (NL SC), [1997] N.J. No. 88, 148 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 347 (Nfld. S.C.T.D.); R. v.

H. (W.), 2010 NLTD 62; R. v. L. (T.J.), (NL SC), [2001] N.J. No. 328, 208 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 163 (NLTD); R. v. R.N.M., (NL SC), [2001] N.J.No. 58, 198 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 218 (NLTD); R. v. O’Neill, (NL SC), [1999] N.J. No. 66, 173 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 73(Nfld. S.C.T.D.); R. v. W. (L.F.), (NL CA), [1997] N.J. No. 234, 155 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 115 (Nfld. C.A.); R. v. Crotty,2004 NLSCTD 69; R. v. N. (H.J.), 2004 NLSCTD 170 , [2004] N.J. No. 309, 240 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 235 (NLSCTD); R. v. M.(C.), (NL SC), [1998] N.J. No. 66, 162 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 71 (Nfld. T.D.); R. v. R. (R.J.), 2005 NLTD 65.

STATUTES CONSIDERED: Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Goulding, J.: INTRODUCTION [1] The offender, Angus Waterman, was found guilty by a Jury on two counts, indecent assault on a male, J.H. contrary tosection 156 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 and gross indecency on J.H. contrary to

section 157. The offencesinvolved 5 incidents which occurred from about 1975 to 1981 when the victim was between 7 and 13 years of age. issue [2] The issue today is the determination of a fit and just sentence for this offender considering the circumstances of the offences. facts [3] Pursuant to section 724(2) of the Criminal Code, following a verdict of guilty by a jury, the Judge must accept as proven allfacts essential to the jury’s verdict and may find as proven any other relevant fact disclosed by the evidence. [4] The victim, J.H., described five incidents of a sexual nature involving the offender.

The first incident occurred when J.H.asked Angus Waterman for a ride on his motorcycle. When they were on the highway, the offender moved J.H.’s hands to his exposedpenis. J.H. tried to lift his hands but the offender put them back on his penis. During the second encounter, Angus Waterman took J.H.by motorcycle to the same location, pulled out his penis and told J.H. to hold it. [5] The third incident also involved a motorcycle ride to the same location and J.H. holding the offender’s penis. J.H. testifiedthat the fourth occurrence was at Angus Waterman’s apartment, J.H. was told to take his pants down.

He did so but left his underwearon. Angus Waterman sat down, exposed his penis and began masturbating but was interrupted by the arrival of his spouse who orderedJ.H. to leave. [6] The last incident was when J.H. was 13 years old. The offender offered him a ride in his vehicle. As Angus Watermanbegan to pull out his penis, J.H. punched him on the side of the face and told him he would get older and meaner and would comelooking for him. position of the crown

[ 7 ] The Crown seeks a term of imprisonment of 3 to 4 months for the offence of indecent assault and 10 to 12 months for the offence of gross indecency to be served concurrently. [ 8 ] The Crown submits that the imprisonment should not be served in the community pursuant to a conditional sentence order as such a sentence would not adequately address the principles of denunciation and general deterrence and reflect society’s condemnation for such conduct. position of the defence [ 9 ] The Defence agrees with the range of imprisonment suggested by the Crown but submits it should be at the higher end (12 months) and served in the community under a conditional sentence order.

The Defence argues that such a sentence can satisfactorily achieve the paramount considerations of denunciation and deterrence as is noted in various decisions with similar facts. the law [ 10 ] The Criminal Code states the purpose and principles of sentencing as follows: Purpose 718 The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and 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 that have one or more of the following objectives: (

a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct; (

b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (

c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (

d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (

e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (

f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community. Objectives 718.01 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a person under the age of eighteen years, it shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct. Fundamental principle 718.1 A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender

Other sentencing principles 718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: (

a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, … (ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years, shall be deemed to be an aggravating circumstance. … (

b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances; …

d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and (

e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done to victims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders. cases cited by the crown [ 11 ] In R. v. O’Keefe , 2018 NLCA 11 , the offender was convicted of six counts of indecent assault occurring between 1967 and 1981 and involving four complainants. He was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment for each offence to be served consecutively (60 months).

The offender appealed the conviction on one count and the sentence. The facts indicated that three of the complainants were sisters between the ages of 6 and 10 years. The abuse involved touching their private parts and having them touch his and rubbing against them. The children were held captive and assaulted in some incidents. The offender was a first offender at the time of the offences and was now 74 years of age and in a supportive relationship. There was no evidence of declining health.

Over his life, he had committed other sexual offences on different persons which suggested his prospects for rehabilitation were slim. The sentence was reduced to 30 months imprisonment in consideration of the totality principle. [ 12 ] In R. v. H. (R.J.) , 2012 NLCA 52 , a 33 year old Metis with a lengthy previous record who was on probation at the time of the offence, was convicted of two counts of sexual assault and four breaches of a court order. The victims were 13 and 11 years old and the offender had attempted vaginal intercourse.

Prior to the offences, he had engaged them in sexual conversations in person and on-line and had provided one victim with cigarettes. The trial judge imposed six months imprisonment. The appeal by the Crown was allowed and the sentence increased to 23 months imprisonment followed by 3 years probation. The Court of Appeal noted that the “grooming of the victims” was an aggravating factor and that the trial judge erred in giving credit for time on judicial interim release. [ 13 ] In R. v. Wagoner , 2014 NLTD(G) 63, the offender committed an indecent assault on two females between the ages of 12 and 16 years.

He was their uncle and had fondled their breasts under clothing and pulled down the zipper of their jeans. He showed no remorse and was in a position of trust. The offender was now 73 years old and a first offender. Halley, J. sentenced him to 12 months imprisonment to be served under a conditional sentence order. [ 14 ] In R. v. D. C.M. , 2010 NLTD(G) 178, the 57 year old first offender was convicted of three sexual offences on his 12 year old step-daughter. The sexual acts included digital penetration, oral sex on the victim and attempting to force her to masturbate him.

Whalen, J. (as he then was) sentenced the offender to 14 months imprisonment on each offence to be served concurrently. He noted that the breach of trust was aggravating and the imprisonment should not be served under a conditional sentence order. [ 15 ] In R. v. Oldford , 2009 NLTD 124 , a 34 year offender was convicted of sexual touching of a complainant, exposing his penis

and attempting to engage in a sexual act which was interrupted by someone returning home. The 13 year old complainant was a fosterchild while the offender was a boyfriend of a resident in the home. Seaborn, J. sentenced the offender to five months imprisonment. [16] In R. v. E.P.B., 2003 NLSCTD 26, which was also cited by defence, the offender was convicted of sexual assault against hissister-in-law who was between 12 and 14 years of age. Adams, J. imposed a sentence of nine months imprisonment to be served under aconditional sentence order.

He considered the aggravating factor of breach of trust, the lack of remorse and an unrelated criminal record. [17] In R. v. R. (B.), 2007 N.J. No. 111, 73 W.C.B. (2d) 297 (NL Prov. Ct.), a 56 year old first offender who was the godfather ofthe complainant and lived with her grandmother, touched the complainant sexually. The offender had touched her on the breast, on thestomach and the vagina inside her clothing. Gorman, Prov. J., sentenced the offender to six months followed by three years probation.

He referenced the significant breach of trust and that serving imprisonment in a community would constitute a danger to the safety ofchildren. [18] In R. v. Arbuthnot, [2008] O.J. No. 346, 76 W.C.B. (2d) 454 (Ont. Sup. Ct.), the first offender was convicted of grossindecency, sexual assault and sexual interference in relation to two complainants who were under the age of 18 years. He engaged themin a tickle game and touched both of them on the penis briefly. The offences occurred 19 years previous, when he was 26 years old. Anaggravating factor was the breach of trust.

O’Neill, J. found that the incidents were isolated with no planning and did not gravitate inseriousness. He imposed 18 months imprisonment to be served under a conditional sentence order. cases cited by defence [19] In R. v. S. (E.C.), (NL SC), [1997] N.J. No. 88, 148 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 347 (Nfld. S.C.T.D.) the offender wasconvicted of two counts of sexual interference involving a complainant who was between 12 and 13 years of age. It involved touchingher breasts on two occasions for two to three seconds. He was a first offender but showed no remorse.

Easton, J. imposed a sentence of60 days imprisonment to be served under a conditional sentence order and 1 year probation. [20] In R. v. H. (W.), 2010 NLTD 62 a jury found the accused guilty of sexual assault and sexual interference. He had placed hishand between the complainant’s legs and touched her vagina outside her underwear for three to four seconds and placed his hand on herleft breast over her clothing for three seconds and touched her left breast over the clothing for two seconds. The extent of the assault wasminor, the force was minimal but adherently aggressive.

There was a significant position of trust and the 62 year old first offenderdisplayed no remorse. Dunn, J. imposed five months imprisonment under a conditional sentence order. [21] In R. v. L. (T.J.), (NL SC), [2001] N.J. No. 328, 208 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 163 (NLTD) the offender pled guiltyto touching the complainant’s breasts outside her clothing which troubled her greatly. The offender was her father and thus there was asignificant breach of trust. Handrigan, J. accepted a joint submission of 12 months imprisonment to be served under a conditionalsentence order followed by 2 years probation. [22] In R. v.

R.N.M., (NL SC), [2001] N.J. No. 58, 198 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 218 (NLTD), the offender wasconvicted of sexual assault, sexual interference and breach of a court order. He was the babysitter. The complainant was seven and onehalf years old and the conduct involved acts of fondling of the genital area and digital penetration to the vagina. The breach of trust andprior record were noted. O’Regan, J. sentenced the offender to nine months imprisonment to be served under a conditional sentenceorder and three years probation. [23] In R. v.

E.P.B., 2003 NLSCTD 26, the offender touched the complainant’s breasts inside and outside her clothing frequentlyand touched her on the top of her vagina two to three times. There was also one occasion of digital penetration. The offences had asignificant impact on the victim who was 12 to 14 years of age. The offender was in a position of trust as he was the brother-in-law. Hecontinued to deny the offences. Adams, J. sentenced him to nine months imprisonment to be served under a conditional sentence order. [24] In R. v. O’Neill, (NL SC), [1999] N.J. No. 66, 173 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 73 (Nfld.

S.C.T.D.), a jury found theoffender guilty of one count of sexual assault on S.D. and one on A.H. The facts indicated he rubbed S.D.’s penis and masturbated himto ejaculation. He tried to touch the penis of A.H. and pulled him on the bed forcefully. He had given alcohol to both young persons. One complainant lost his foster home as a result of this matter and the impact on him was enormous. The offender showed no remorseand accepted no responsibility. He was a 55 year old first offender with serious health issues. It was noted that he was in a position oftrust.

Dunn, J. sentenced the offender to six months reduced to five months to account for pre-sentence custody to be served under aconditional sentence order. [25] In R. v. W. (L.F.), (NL CA), [1997] N.J. No. 234, 155 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 115 (Nfld. C.A.) which I found tobe most similar to the case at bar, the trial judge sentenced the accused to 21 months imprisonment pursuant to a conditional sentenceorder for an indecent assault and gross indecency committed some 25 to 30 years previous on a female between the ages of 9 and 15years of age. The offender was between 23 and 29 years of age at the time of the offences.

The extent of the abuse was greater in R. v.W. (L.F.) than in the case before me as there were 10 to 12 incidents of masturbation and fellatio. The offender was the victim’s cousinand her neighbour. At the time, the offender had been drinking excessively and ceased totally after the incidents. He led an exemplarylife, married and had four children. However, he showed no remorse and accepted no responsibility for the offences. On appeal,Marshall, J.A. noted the victim suffered enduring trauma which substantially impaired her happiness and contentment.

The facts alsoindicated that the victim was led to believe by the offender that he had bought a gun home with him from his military stint in Cyprus. Inparagraph 7, Marshall, J.A. stated: …The consequential adverse impact of them stands in marked contrast with the manner in which the perpetrator of them has been able toget on with his own life, at least up to the time of the laying of the charges. [26] The Crown had asked that the conditional sentence order be vacated and a period of incarceration be imposed. Marshall, J.A.dismissed the appeal.

He commented at paragraphs 65 to 67: 65 It should be said that even if this court had free reign to readdress the factors bearing upon the imposition of the conditional sentence,

there would be no justification to change either the disposition made by the trial judge, nor his reasoning in reaching it. A perusal of theappealed decision plainly shows every relevant aspect was very carefully weighed. In particular, it should be stressed that the trial judgewas fully alert to the profundity and depth of the harm and pain that Mr. W.'s reprehensible conduct has wreaked upon his victim's lifeand to the relative contrast of her life with that of Mr. W. over the intervening quarter of a century.

Earlier in this decision mention wasmade of the stress that the new sentencing provisions placed upon reparation and restitution to victims and promotion of a sense ofresponsibility amongst offenders. While this must be a real consideration where feasible, the sad reality is that it is impossible to providethrough the sentencing process meaningful reparation for the havoc in her life as a result of Mr. W.'s assaults. 66 Child sexual abuse naturally evokes strong feelings of outrage which are not blunted by the passage of time. As Wood, J.A. isreported at pp 520-1 of R. v.

M. (C.A.) to have remarked when that case was before the British Columbia Court of Appeal crimes againstchildren are "such as to bring forth in all decent and right thinking people a natural desire to see the most severe form of punishmentimposed ..." upon the perpetrators. However, no term of incarceration of Mr. W., whatever its length, can ever restore to his victim whatshe has lost. If it could, there might be some reason to put him in prison for however long the reparation would require.

Since it cannot,insistence on incarceration without considering other factors in the circumstances of this case, smacks of a justice founded on vengeancethat must be considered inimical to civilized society. 67 This is not to advocate that Mr. W. should be relieved of bearing the responsibility for his actions.

It is no mean punishment for aperson of previously unblemished reputation to bear the stigma of being confined to virtual house arrest, subject to restricted conditionsof circulation within a community for a serious crime committed in his early adult years, all to the general knowledge of others in thatcommunity. Neither may it be counted inconsequential for such a person to daily bear the shame of his guilt for that crime and of his lossof esteem before his fellow residents during his restricted ventures from his home.

In a very real sense this results in the individualhaving to cope with his moral blameworthiness through a punishment that might fit every bit his crime as much as would hisincarceration in a prison, if not even more so. [My emphasis] [27] In R. v. Crotty, 2004 NLSCTD 69, the offender was convicted of two offences (sexual assault and sexual interference)involving two complainants. The offender was in his late 30’s, the complainants were less than 14 years of age and there was a degree oftrust. He used inducements to attract them to his home, he threatened suicide and offered money for their silence.

It had a devastatingimpact on the victims. He expressed remorse and pled guilty. He was a first offender and was now gainfully employed. Halley, J.sentenced him to nine months imprisonment under a conditional sentence order and three years probation. [28] In R. v. N. (H.J.), 2004 NLSCTD 170 , [2004] N.J. No. 309, 240 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 235 (NL S.C.T.D.), the offender wasconvicted of an indecent assault (simulated intercourse and masturbation) involving three incidents which took place in thecomplainant’s home. The offender was the stepfather and therefore, a significant breach of trust. He was now 57 years of age.

It left asignificant impact on the complainant. The offender refused to admit to the circumstances of the offence.

He was sentenced to 18months imprisonment under a conditional sentence order. factors on sentencing The Extent of the Sexual Abuse [29] The evidence of J.H. described five incidents occurring within a four year period which involved the victim being forced tohold Angus Waterman’s penis on three separate occasions and Angus Waterman exposing his penis and masturbating during the fourthincident and attempting to expose himself during the last encounter. [30] Both counsel agree that while all sexual offences are significant and serious, the offender’s criminal actions were towards thelower end of the scale. [31] I note the offences occurred in three places being a secluded area after a motorcycle ride, the offender’s apartment and amoving car which placed this young victim in a vulnerable and helpless position.

J.H. testified he was “petrified” of the offender whotold him he would be taken away if he revealed what had happened. At the time, J.H. was living with his mother and grandparents as hisfather had passed away when he was an infant. The Degree of Force Used [32] Minimal force was used in the commission of the offences. However, given the disparity in ages and the obvious powerimbalance, force was not necessary for the offender to achieve his purpose. J.H. did testify that the offender picked him up and threwhim in his vehicle during the fourth incident.

Position of Trust of Authority [33] The offender was not in any position of trust or authority in relation to the victim. However, the facts indicate that the victimfirst approached the offender for a motorcycle ride because they were neighbours and the victim was acquainted with the offender’syoung sister. The victim was in that respect, easy prey. Public Abhorrence [34] In R. v. M. (C.), (NL SC), [1998] N.J. No. 66, 162 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 71 (Nfld. T.D.) Roberts, J. statedstrongly and clearly “… the public abhorrence of sexual assaults committed on children is ‘real and profound’.

The abhorrent isassociated with the detestable, the odious, the abominable and that which we loathe. It bespeaks atrocity and the inhumane.”

[ 35 ] In R. v. R. (R.J.) , 2005 NLTD 65 , Handrigan, J. stated “(child sexual abuse) is hard to detect. It is often harder to prosecute and dealing with it publicly exacts a harsh toll on the victims. It must be condemned and denounced.” Impact on the Victim [ 36 ] J.H. filed two victim impact statements. The first statement dated August 10, 2015 was prior to the preliminary inquiry and the trial. The victim described his “hatred” towards the offender and how he “came looking for him” but on his last attempt to kill Angus Waterman, he put his gun away because his children needed him.

The victim expressed he was glad he reported the abuse as now he could forgive the offender and move on with his life. [ 37 ] The second statement dated January 18, 2018 commences as follows: “I used to be very sociable now I stopped. I became mean: don’t have no interest in anything anymore. This crime that was committed against me cost me my marriage of 28 years, my kids, my life savings and my home due to the stress and anger from this.” [ 38 ] The victim described being left with a lot of anger, shame and regret for not having come forward sooner. He believes the crime cost him everything he loved.

He related how he stayed away from home as he feared running into the offender and what he may do. Presently, he suffers mentally and avoids being around people, even his children and grandchildren. He stated his wife left him due to the emotional stress of this case. It drove his family away because he could not control his anger. [ 39 ] The devastating and traumatic impact on the victim resulting from these offences is obvious from his testimony at trial and the victim impact statements.

The victim is still grappling with considerable anger even though he undertook therapy and counselling for one year. [ 40 ] J.H. filed a statement on restitution seeking damages in the amount of 2.5 million dollars for mental and emotional stress. I do not have the authority under the Criminal Code to grant J.H.’s request. The Crown has informed the victim of legal options he may pursue in this regard. The Attitude of the Offender [ 41 ] Angus Waterman gave testimony at trial emphatically denying the offences.

His spouse also testified that she did not find the victim in their apartment at any time which contradicted the complainant’s testimony. There has been no change in Angus Waterman’s position since the verdict. Age of the Victim [ 42 ] The victim believes he was about 9 years old when the sexual misconduct by the offender commenced. It ended when the victim, at 13 years of age, punched the offender and threatened that he would come after him one day.

Age and Antecedents of the Offender [ 43 ] On or about the dates of the incidents, the offender was between 19 and 25 years of age, a youthful adult offender with no prior criminal record. Angus Waterman has been married for 39 years and has two children, ages 34 and 32 and two grandchildren. Throughout his life, Angus Waterman has had no involvement with the law other than the two offences for which he is being sentenced today. He had been employed as an able body seaman for 45 years earning a good income which was terminated when he was convicted of the offences as he could no longer travel internationally.

He is presently seeking employment locally and outside his trade and his prospects are fairly good. Angus Waterman has the full support of his spouse and his family. Need for Deterrence [ 44 ] It is recognized that given the nature of the offences, there is a need for general deterrence to protect the most vulnerable and helpless in our society from sexual predators. Specific deterrence is not a primary consideration in the circumstances of this offender. Conditional Sentence (Section 742.1 of the Criminal Code ) [ 45 ] The option to impose a conditional sentence is set out in

section 742.1 of the Criminal Code . There is no minimum term of imprisonment for indecent assault and gross indecency which are historic sexual offences that no longer exist in our current Criminal Code . [ 46 ] If the offence had been committed recently and the charge was sexual assault and the complainant was under 16 years of age, a minimum term of imprisonment is required and a conditional sentence order is not an option. The Crown asserts this is a clear indication of how Parliament views sexual offences against children.

I agree but that in and by itself, is not sufficient to impose a more severe punishment on an offender for dated offences when another form of punishment is available and is fit and just considering all the circumstances of the offence, the offender and the victim and which properly addresses the principles of sentencing. [ 47 ] A conditional sentence order is available in this case if the remaining prerequisites are met which are 1) the conditional sentence would not endanger the community and 2) the conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purposes and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code . [ 48 ] There is no information or evidence before me to suggest that Angus Waterman would pose a danger to the community if he served his period of imprisonment in the community.

The Crown does not suggest this is a factor. I am further satisfied that serving the sentence in the community, instead of in a penal institution would, in the circumstances of this case, adequately address and be consistent with the fundamental purposes and principles of sentencing. [ 49 ] As both counsel stated, the sexual abuse while always serious and significant is at the lower end of the scale. It did not involve

any position of trust or authority unlike many of the cases cited. It related to one complainant. It is less egregious than many other cases cited by counsel for which lesser terms of imprisonment were imposed under a conditional sentence order. [ 50 ] Denunciation and general deterrence are achieved considering that as a result of this disclosure some 40 years later, Angus Waterman has had to face the stigma in his community. He has lost lucrative employment which he held for 45 years.

He now has a criminal record which will have an adverse impact on his freedom to travel outside the country and to be employed in certain positions. There will be strict limits on his freedom for 12 months as he will be on house arrest followed by supervised probation for one year. Therefore, considering all the factors in sentencing including the impact on the victim and case law provided by counsel, I am sentencing Angus Waterman to 12 months imprisonment to be served under a conditional sentence order with the following statutory conditions: 1. Keep the peace and be of good behaviour. 2.

Appear before the Court when required to do so. 3. Report to the supervisor within five working days and thereafter as required. 4. Remain within the jurisdiction of the Court (which is Newfoundland & Labrador) unless written permission to go outside that jurisdiction is obtained from the supervisor. 5. To notify the supervisor in advance of any change in name or address, employment or occupation. [ 51 ] Further, the following optional conditions shall apply: 1. That he not associate with or communicate with directly or indirectly J.H. or any member of J.H.’s immediate family. 2.

That he remain at his residence or property adjacent to his residence except for: (

i) attendance at church; (ii) attendance for medical or dental treatment for himself; (iii) attendance at his place of employment for employment purposes only; (iv) attending to duties such as shopping and banking for four hours per week as set by the supervisor. (

v) one hour of exercise daily as set by the supervisor; vi) and such other absences approved by the supervisor. 3. He is to attend any treatment and counselling programs for sexual offenders deemed appropriate by the supervisor. [ 52 ] Following the 12 months imprisonment under the conditional sentence order, he is placed on probation for one year with the following conditions: 1. To keep the peace and be of good behaviour. 2. To report to his probation officer immediately following the termination of the conditional sentence and thereafter as required. 3.

Not to associate with or communicate directly or indirectly with the complainant, J.H. or any members of his immediate family. [ 53 ] There are two mandatory orders, a DNA order where bodily substances will be taken from Angus Waterman for analysis and the second order requiring compliance with the Sexual Offender Information Registration Act which shall be for 20 years. [ 54 ] The usual Victim Fine Surcharges of $200 per offence for a total of $400 (payable within 30) days are imposed. Thank you counsel. _____________________________ Kendra J. Goulding Justice