R. v. Gonzales Date:, 2011 BCPC 353

Citation: R. v. Gonzales Date: 20111110 2011 BCPC 0353 File No: 204363-1 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. JOSE OSCAR GONZALES EXCERPTS FROM PROCEEDINGS REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE F. E. HOWARD BAN ON PUBLICATION 486.4(1) CCC; Restricted Access Counsel for the Crown: D. Nearing Counsel for the Defendant: E. Cooper Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C. Date of Judgment: November 10, 2011 [ 1 ] THE COURT: Following a trial, the accused was found guilty of sexually assaulting C.H. on October 4th, 2008, contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code .

The matter is now before me for sentencing. [ 2 ] Pursuant to s. 753.1 of the Criminal Code , the Crown is applying for a determination that the accused is a long-term offender. The s. 752.1 assessment report has been filed. The report dated February 16th, 2011 was prepared by Dr. Lindsay Jack. The consent of the Attorney General of British Columbia to this application was signed on October 27, 2011, and it, too, has been filed. [ 3 ] The defence is consenting to the application by the Crown.

Crown counsel and defence counsel both propose that there should be a finding that the accused is a long-term offender, that the sentence for the offence before me should be five years imprisonment less three years credit for time served, and that the accused should be subject to a five-year long-term supervision order. THE CURRENT OFFENCE [ 4 ] The offence before me was committed on October 4th, 2008. The complainant, C.H., was 14 years of age at the time of the offence.

She had a friend, T., who lived with her mother, D., and the latter's common law husband, N., in the ground-floor suite of a home on East 14th Avenue in Vancouver. The complainant had stayed at T.'s home on a number of occasions. [ 5 ] The accused, 40 years old at the time of the offence, lived upstairs in the second-floor suite with two other Hispanic men. The complainant had met the accused a few times during her earlier visits to the home, but she had never conversed with him.

[ 6 ] The complainant is a young girl with significant alcohol abuse issues. Before this event, she had been hospitalized three times after consuming too much alcohol. Notwithstanding her young age, she had experienced alcohol blackouts. She has also been in the drunk tank about six times. [ 7 ] On Friday evening, October 3rd, 2008, after a night of consuming copious amounts of alcohol at a park near the PNE in Vancouver, the complainant, T., and three other young females spent the night at T.'s home. Upon their arrival at the home, the girls all climbed into the residence through T.'s bedroom window.

They continued drinking alcohol in the bedroom. They were all very drunk. They then all slept together on T.'s bed which was a mattress on the floor of her bedroom. [ 8 ] When they awoke early Saturday morning, October 4th, 2008, they were lying on the mattress when the accused, who had been visiting with N. in the downstairs kitchen, came into the bedroom. He started talking to them. He then lay down on the bed between a couple of the girls. One girl testified, "He creeped us out." Another told him to leave and he did. [ 9 ] Thereafter, the complainant got up and quickly began drinking again.

She continued drinking alcohol throughout the entire day and through the evening of Saturday, October 4. She drank in T.'s suite and also in the accused's upstairs suite. At times, she was drinking not only in the company of her friends, but also in the company of T.'s parents, D. and N., and in the company of the accused and his two male roommates. [ 10 ] The complainant alleged that late Saturday evening, she was sexually assaulted by the accused in his bedroom while she was passed out from alcohol consumption. She denied having consensual sex with the accused at any time on the evening in question.

The accused acknowledged that he did have sexual intercourse with the complainant in his bedroom earlier in the evening. However, he asserted that the sex was consensual and that it occurred while the complainant was awake and communicative. He believed that she was 17 or 18 years of age. [ 11 ] In the end, I was satisfied that much of the testimony from the various witnesses was generally unreliable. Many of these witnesses had consumed significant amounts of alcohol during an all-day drinking party that went from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.

Their memories of what occurred over the course of the day were generally vague and often conflicting. Most fairly acknowledged that their memories of the day in question were not good. Compounding the reliability issue was the fact that most were not interviewed by the police until a year after the alleged assault on the complainant. [ 12 ] The testimony from both the accused and complainant was even more problematic. Their respective accounts were not only internally inconsistent at times, they were frequently inconsistent with the testimony from other witnesses.

In the end, I was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did engage in sexual intercourse with the complainant at some point in the evening. This was established on the accused's own evidence. [ 13 ] However, I was unable to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to the sexual encounter and I was unable to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the sexual encounter occurred at a time when the complainant was too intoxicated to consent. [ 14 ] Of course, as a 14-year-old girl, the complainant was legally incapable of giving her consent.

See s. 150.1(1) of the Criminal Code . [ 15 ] Relying upon s. 150.1(4) of the Code , the accused defended his actions by asserting that he honestly believed that the complainant was 17 or 18 years old. I rejected this defence. The accused agreed that he had never asked the complainant for her age. At no point during his testimony did he assert that the complainant actually appeared to him to be 17 years old. The gist of his story was that he believed the complainant to be 17 or 18 simply because her boyfriend was 18 years old.

He assumed that they must have been "pretty much" the same age. [ 16 ] Given all the circumstances including the physical appearance of the complainant, the enormous disparity in age (the accused was some 26 years older than the complainant), and the accused's failure to make any inquiries as to her age, I was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was wilfully blind to the complainant's age.

The evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused took no reasonable steps to determine the age of the complainant and that he did not and could not have held an honest belief that the complainant was 17 or 18 years old. [ 17 ] Accordingly, I found the accused guilty of sexual assault of the complainant contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code on the basis he had sexual intercourse with her when she was under the age of 16 years and therefore legally incapable of giving consent.

THE ACCUSED [ 18 ] The information regarding the accused's background comes from Corrections reports and parole and probation reports as is summarized in the assessment report prepared by Dr. Jack. The accused is now 42 years old. He is from El Salvador. The date of his arrival in Canada varies from report to report. It would appear that he was somewhere between 9 to 14 years old. He joined his mother who was already living here and lived with her for some 10 years. [ 19 ] He is one of seven children.

Although he has at times stated that he is close to his mother and siblings, at present, he seems to have little connection with them. He does not know his biological father. [ 20 ] The accused has previously reported that he has a grade 10 education. I accept that he may well have progressed to grade 10. However, I seriously doubt that he ever achieved grade 10 marks.

The various prison and probation reports establish that he can neither read nor write. [ 21 ] During the course of his testimony at trial, I noted that the accused displayed a good command of the English language subject, however, to some serious grammatical defects that made it occasionally difficult to follow his testimony. Notwithstanding his command of English, he presented as an uneducated and very inarticulate man.

[ 22 ] The accused's employment history is sporadic at best. He has worked at a variety of construction jobs. However, he seems to have spent many long periods on social assistance. The records reflect that his housing situation has been equally unstable over the years. [ 23 ] The accused has had a number of relationships with women. In January 1993, the accused married his current wife, Martha Gonzales. Their son was born in August 1993. He is now 18 years of age. The accused and his wife separated shortly after the marriage in May 1994.

He has two children by another woman named Melissa (last name unstated). [ 24 ] At various times, the accused has reported to the authorities that he was living with his wife, Martha, and his son. This has proven to be untrue. He apparently has a key to her residence. At best, he has been allowed to occasionally sleep over on the couch when he is homeless. [ 25 ] As for the accused's attitude toward the current offence, he did offer an apology for his behaviour at the sentencing hearing. He advised the court that he knew what he did was wrong and he was sorry.

When I spoke to him about how important it was that he participate in the sexual offender treatment and maintenance programs, he nodded his head several times in agreement. CRIMINAL RECORD [ 26 ] The accused has two prior convictions for sexual assault: 1) The First Conviction Recorded on May 9th, 1996 [ 27 ] The offence date for this sexual assault was August 2nd, 1993. Following a trial, the accused was convicted of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl. The accused was 25 years old at the time.

He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment followed by two years probation. [ 28 ] The accused and three other man had arranged to meet up with three young girls. The men brought beer and coolers for the girls. They picked them up and ended up at a park near to a river. They drank together. Later in the evening, the accused picked up the complainant and carried her to the sand near the river.

Ignoring her protests, he then had forced vaginal intercourse with her. [ 29 ] While serving his sentence at the Ford Mountain Correctional Centre, the accused took some programs, including a substance abuse program and an anger management program. However, he was not enrolled in the Sex Offender Treatment Program because of his repeated denials that he had committed the offence. Apparently, it was felt that the program would not be helpful given the accused's refusal to acknowledge that he had done anything wrong. [ 30 ] As an untreated sex offender, the accused was considered to be a risk in the community.

Hence, he was required to serve two- thirds of his sentence before he was released. The accused was released from custody on May 10th, 1997. [ 31 ] A brief psychological assessment was prepared by Dr. Williams who met with the accused a month after his release. Dr. Williams noted that the accused displayed no signs of a psychiatric or psychological disorder. While on probation, the accused maintained his claim of innocence. As a result, Dr.

Williams recommended that the focus during the probationary period should be on close supervision of the accused rather than enforced participation in group therapy. [ 32 ] In his June 16th, 1997, report, Dr. Williams summarized his findings at page 2: Mr. Gonzales came across as a somewhat narcissistic and self-referenced man. Although I did not see him as being especially prone in general to untoward spontaneous expression of aggression, it would be my expectation that he does not tolerate the frustration or denial of his desires with aplomb.

Feelings of entitlement and elements of stereotypical machismo tend to percolate within his personality. I formed the opinion that Mr. Gonzales' sexually assaultive behaviour was associated with such personality traits. The act in question apparently was an expression of his selfishness and, as he would have seen it, his masculinity and virility. I do not think he would necessarily have intended to inflict harm on the victim.

If he had considered the girl at all it is quite probable that he would have rationalized that she would have been appreciative of his involvement with her. 2) The Second Conviction Recorded on June 30th, 2005 [ 33 ] The offence date for this sexual assault was November 16th, 2002. Following a trial, the accused was convicted of sexually assaulting a 21-year-old girl. The accused was 34 years old at the time. He was sentenced to imprisonment for two years less a day, less three months credit for time served, followed by three years probation. [ 34 ] The complainant had come home in the company of her grandmother.

She was very intoxicated. The grandmother put her to bed fully clothed. The accused lived in the next door suite. He came over to have a beer with the grandmother. An hour later, he was missing. The grandmother went to her granddaughter's bedroom and found the accused on the bed. His head was buried in the complainant's vaginal area under the covers. The grandmother pulled back the covers and observed that her granddaughter's jeans and underpants had been pulled down and the accused's face was in her vaginal area. [ 35 ] The complainant was passed out. The grandmother yanked the accused away.

He kept saying he was sorry and claimed that the complainant had given him permission to perform oral sex on her. The complainant was so intoxicated that she could not be roused until the EHS team arrived and worked on her. [ 36 ] The accused was sent back to the Ford Mountain Correctional Centre. There, he was considered again to be a well-behaved cooperative inmate with a good attitude. Once again, he was not placed into the Sex Offender Treatment Program. An entry on his records indicates that, "He was deemed not suitable for programming by Dr. Foreman."

[ 37 ] The accused was released from jail in mid-November 2005. Again, in dealing with his probation officer, the accused took the position that he did not commit any offence and he was "set up." This time, the accused was referred to the Sex Offender Maintenance Program. The probation file seems to suggest that the probation officer believed that the accused had already completed the main Sex Offender Treatment Program at FMCC, which was not correct. [ 38 ] The accused took the position that he was not interested in counselling because he did not commit any offences.

He did, however, attend some of the Sex Offender Maintenance Program classes, but was described in the early stages as being uncooperative. He had difficulty with the concepts that were discussed, perhaps in part because of his language issues and also because he had not gone through the primary sex offender treatment program that would have give him a foundation for participating in the maintenance program. [ 39 ] By December 2007, the accused's attitude and level of participation began to improve and his denial of responsibility ceased to be a prominent issue for him.

He attended classes through the spring of 2008 and up to August 2009 when his probation order expired. He continued to have problems making his meetings in the early spring, but this improved over the summer.

MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES [ 40 ] The accused was convicted of refusing to provide a breath sample in February 2007 while still on probation for the second sexual assault conviction. [ 41 ] The offence before me was committed on October 4th, 2008, just two months after the three-year probation order for the second sexual assault had expired. [ 42 ] On December 2nd, 2008, shortly after his arrest on this new offence, the accused failed to report to the Sex Offender Registry as required under the sentence imposed for the second sexual assault. A warrant was issued for his arrest on that matter.

Throughout 2009, the probation officer attempted to get the accused to report to the Sex Offender Registry as required, but did not appear to have a lot of success. [ 43 ] In early 2010, I issued a warrant for the arrest of the accused because of his failure to attend court for the decision that was to be rendered on the issue of innocence or guilt. That warrant was executed on April 8th, 2010. The accused has been in custody since that date. The Pretrial Centre records indicate that over the past year and a half, the accused has been a compliant inmate with a "good attitude". ASSESSMENT REPORT OF DR.

JACK, FEBRUARY 16TH, 2011 [ 44 ] On counsel's advice, the accused declined to be interviewed by Dr. Jack. Her findings are accordingly described as provisional. [ 45 ] Like Dr. Williams back in 1997, Dr. Jack concluded that the accused displayed no symptoms of suffering from any mental health issues. Based on the reports that she was able to access coupled with a consideration of the offences for which the accused has been convicted, she reached the following conclusions as to the dynamics underlying the accused's propensity to commit the sexual offences in issue (pp. 25 to 26): Thus, Mr.

Gonzales has been convicted of three sexual offences that occurred between 1993 and 2008, suggesting persistence on his part, despite external consequences such as incarceration. He has had some involvement in sexual offender programming, but re-offended sexually. In my view his decisions to re-offend sexually might suggest a lack of internal controls, or might suggest he simply decides to meet his own needs in the moment regardless of the impact on the victim, and/or views his actions as appropriate. It is my opinion during each of the sexual offences Mr.

Gonzales took an available opportunity and/or manipulated the situation to create an opportunity to meet his own sexual needs at the expense of the victims' rights. In two of the three offences he made a decision (before the offences occurred) to put himself in situations where he was drinking alcohol with young girls present — both of whom were adolescents. During the 2002 offence he took advantage of the fact the victim was already intoxicated. During each offence the victim was vulnerable due to her age and/or state of intoxication. Mr.

Gonzales had some connection to each victim before the offences occurred, which made it easier for him to take advantage of or make an opportunity to offend. He did not use physical aggression, although during the 1993 offence forced sexual intercourse. It also is my opinion the dynamics of Mr. Gonzales's sexual offences suggest underlying negative beliefs about girls/women, distorted beliefs about his own entitlement in sexual relations, and perhaps (given the repeated offences) Mr. Gonzales might have an enhanced interest in and focus on sexual relations.

He might choose younger victims because this reflects a specific sexual interest on his part, and/or he might choose them because they often are more vulnerable and easier to manipulate than age peers. [ 46 ] Dr. Jack's conclusions as to the risks that the accused may pose in the community are set out at pages 31 to 32 of the report: Based on available information including the risk assessment instruments and structured professional judgement discussed in the preceding section, it is my opinion Mr. Gonzales poses a Moderate-High risk to re-offend sexually against a female acquaintance.

I think his persistence in offending across time, including committing similar offences each time to meet his own needs, is an important aspect of his risk. Mr. Gonzales has persisted in offending even after having received external consequences such as incarceration, community supervision, and involvement with maintenance sexual offender programming. It is my opinion Mr. Gonzales is at a Low risk for committing other types of violent offences, as well as non-violent offences. [ 47 ] Dr. Jack's proposals regarding "risk management" are set out at the end of her report.

Given the accused's "persistence in offending over an extended period of time", his past resistance to treatment, the nature of the identified risk factors, and the fact that the accused has yet to have the benefit of a primary Sexual Offender Treatment Program, she has recommended that the accused be required to participate in the high intensity Sex Offender Treatment Program offered by Corrections Canada before being released into the

community. If the accused reverts to "denial" as his stated position on his past sexual offences, he can be enrolled in the "deniers'program" that now exists for persons who are reluctant to acknowledge responsibility for their crimes. As he moves back into thecommunity following the completion of his sentence, Dr.

Jack has recommended that he be required to participate in ongoing SexualOffender Maintenance Programs for longer terms to ensure that he receives additional support and supervision. [48] Obviously, the accused's willingness to participate in such a treatment program will be a critical factor when it comes todeveloping a "prognosis for change." Attempts by the accused to minimize his sexual offence history will likely undermine his ability tosucceed at changing his behaviour and attitudes. On this issue at pages 35 to 36, Dr. Jack notes: File information suggests at best Mr.

Gonzales has been ambivalent about sexual offender programming. He attended a maintenanceprogram (SOMP) run by probation officers, but his performance was variable. On the one hand he completed a maintenance plan, andhis probation officer noted the effort was praiseworthy. However, a number of other entries reflect his difficulties including missing sessions, superficial discussions, and difficultyunderstanding concepts (e.g., related to cognitive distortions). One entry indicates he spent time during SOMP making derogatorycomments about the female facilitator who, presumably unbeknownst to Mr.

Gonzales, could understand Spanish. Thus, based on available file information, the extent to which Mr. Gonzales is ready to engage in available programming, particularlyhigher-intensity programming, is questionable. I also think, even if he is ready to engage in programming, the extent which he will learnthe material and then choose to use the material is unknown. [49] I do note that, with respect to the current offence before me, the accused has stood up before the court, albeit a little late in theday, and apologized for his conduct.

He expressly stated that he understood what he did to this third complainant was wrong. He hasalso indicated, through a nodding of his head, that he understood how essential it was for him to participate in sexual offender treatmentprogramming. ANALYSIS RE SENTENCE RE LONG-TERM OFFENDER APPLICATION [50] Under s. 753.1(1), the court may find the offender to be a long-term offender if it is satisfied that: (

a) it would be appropriate to impose a sentence of imprisonment of two years or more for the offence for which the offender has beenconvicted; (

b) there is a substantial risk that the offender will reoffend; and (

c) there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the risk in the community. [51] Under s. 753.1(2), the court "shall be satisfied" that there is a substantial risk that the offender will reoffend if (

a) the offender has been convicted of an offence under

section ... 271 (sexual assault) ... and (

b) the offender (

i) has shown a pattern of repetitive behaviour, of which the offence for which he or she has been convicted forms a part, that shows alikelihood of the offender’s causing death or injury to other persons or inflicting severe psychological damage on other persons, or (ii) by conduct in any sexual matter including that involved in the commission of the offence for which the offender has been convicted,has shown a likelihood of causing injury, pain or other evil to other persons in the future through similar offences.

a) Should there be Sentence of Two Years or More Imprisonment? [52] In determining the appropriate sentence for the current offence for which the accused is to be sentenced, I must be guided by thesentencing principles set out in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

Section 718 defines the fundamental purpose of sentence, thatbeing to impose a just sanction that has as its objectives denunciation, specific and general deterrence, protection of society,rehabilitation, reparations for harm done, and promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender. [53]

Section 718.1 sets out the requirement that a sentence be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and the moral culpabilityof the offender. [54]

Section 178.2(

a) requires the sentencing judge to consider a number of additional factors, when relevant, including aggravatingand mitigating factors that might affect the sentence. Of particular importance in the present case is s. 718.2(a)(ii.1) which deems,"evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years," to be an aggravatingcircumstance.

Section 718.01 is even more strongly worded. This statutory provision requires me to give "primary consideration" to theobjectives of denunciation and deterrence when imposing a sentence for an offence that involves the abuse of a person under the age of18 years. [55] Finally, I note the parity principle set out in s. 718.2(b), "... a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similaroffenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances ...". In this regard, I have been provided with a number of authoritiesto assist in determining the appropriate range of sentence for the offence before me.

These include R. v. Revet, 2010 SKCA 71; R. v.Heward, 2001 BCCA 365; R. v. Peters, 2003 MBCA 12; R. v. Aleck, 2009 BCSC 1677; R. v. Lyons, 2005 ABCA 258; R. v. Zimmerman, (BC SC), [1998] B.C.J. No. 1968; and R. v. G.C.F., (ON SCDC), [2004] O.J. No. 317. [56] There is no question that the offence before me is a serious one and that the accused is fully culpable for his criminal actionsagainst the complainant. The aggravating features in this case include:

1. the disparity between the age of the accused (40 years old) and that of the complainant (14 years old); 2. the additional vulnerability of the complainant whose judgment was impaired not only due to her age, but also due to her state of intoxication; 3. the accused's lack of empathy for his young victim and his lack of insight into the harm, psychological and otherwise, that his sexually assaultive conduct caused; 4. the accused's prior record for similar sexual assaults against very young females; and 5. the ongoing risk that the accused poses to the community while he remains an untreated sex offender. [ 57 ] The mitigating factors include the accused's apology, his stated recognition that he knows that what he did to the complainant was wrong, and his indication, albeit tentative, that he understands the need for him to participate in a sex offender treatment program. [ 58 ] After considering the gravity of the offence, the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the principles of sentencing, and the sentencing authorities, I am satisfied that the five-year jail sentence proposed by the Crown and the defence is the appropriate sentence for this offence and this offender before me.

The driving principles behind this determination are denunciation, general deterrence, specific deterrence of this accused, and protection of the public. [ 59 ] Credit will have to be given for the time that he has served in pre-trial detention. The parties are in agreement that the accused has spent approximately 19 months in custody since his arrest on the outstanding warrant in April 2010. They are also in agreement that the credit to be given for this time is 36 months or three years.

The sentence left to be served is two years imprisonment which meets the first arm of the long-term offender test under s. 753.1(1)(

a) of the Code .

b) Is there a Substantial Risk that the Accused will Reoffend? [ 60 ] In my view, even without reference to s. 753.1(2) of the Code , the facts of the case before me, the accused's criminal record for similar sexual assaults, and the lack of sexual offender treatment programming to date, when considered in their totality, establish a substantial risk that this accused may reoffend once back in the community. These factors all substantiate the conclusion of Dr. Jack that the accused presents as a moderate to high risk to reoffend. [ 61 ] I will nonetheless consider the provisions of s. 753.1(2) as they apply to the case before me. Subsection (

a) has been met. The accused has been convicted of sexual assault contrary to s. 271 of the Code . [ 62 ] I am also satisfied that both of ss. (

b) and (

c) have been met. A pattern of repetitive activity by the accused that is likely to inflict severe psychological damage on another person is established by the fact that this is the accused's third conviction for sexual assault. Through the same history of assaultive conduct, as it relates to sexual interactions with younger females, one can only conclude that there is a likelihood that the accused will cause injury, pain, or other evil to other persons in the future through similar offences. [ 63 ] Dr.

Jack's commonsense characterization of the accused's history of sexual violence, with which I am in complete agreement, is supportive of these conclusions. At pp 28-29: Mr. Gonzales ... had a relatively early onset of his sexual offending (dating from his mid-twenties), and has engaged in repeated acts such that he has three convictions for sexual offences. He has not exhibited diverse sexual offences nor has he escalated in terms of sexual violence. Each of the three sexual offence convictions is similar to one another in terms of victim type and victim vulnerability. Mr.

Gonzales did not engage in physical aggression during the sexual offences. However, it is my view he was psychologically coercive in that he chose victims who were vulnerable (i.e., due to age and/or state of intoxication), and took advantage of situations to meet his own sexual needs. In the result, by virtue of the application of s. 753.1(2), the substantial risk of reoffending has been established.

c) Is there a Reasonable Possibility of Eventual Control of the Risk in the Community? [ 64 ] In the present case, I am satisfied on the evidence before me that there is a reasonable possibility of controlling the accused's behaviour and the risk that he presents to the community through the mechanism of a long-term supervision order.

He seems to have reached a point in his life where he is prepared to admit his wrongdoing and where he is able to recognize that sex offender counselling is appropriate. [ 65 ] There is a reasonable possibility that with his cooperation, the high intensity Sex Offender Treatment Program in the penitentiary followed by a Sex Offender Maintenance Program in the community will assist him in changing his attitudes and his behaviour and provide him with the tools to manage his own risk factors.

The long-term nature of the order will enable us to supervise and monitor his behaviour closely for an extended period of time. CONCLUSION [ 66 ] I am satisfied that all of the prerequisites of s. 753.1(1) of the Code have been met. Accordingly, I find the accused to be a long- term offender. I sentence him to two years imprisonment in a federal penitentiary. The record will reflect the time served of 19 months and time credited of 36 months.

The effective sentence is therefore five years imprisonment. [ 67 ] Pursuant to s. 753.1(3)(b), I order that the accused be subject to a long-term supervision order for a period of five years. [ 68 ] The accused is exempted from paying the victim surcharge. There is no ability to pay. [ 69 ] There will be a SOIRA order that requires the accused to report to the Sexual Offender Registry as directed. The term of that

order is for life. [ 70 ] Pursuant to s. 109(3) of the Criminal Code , I prohibit the accused from possessing any firearm, crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition, and explosive substance for life. [ 71 ] Finally, there will be an order that the accused provide a DNA sample for entry into the DNA databank. [ 72 ] I will tell you, sir, that this lifetime sex offender registration order is for life. You have the right to apply to a court to terminate the order and a right to appeal the decision of that court. If you contravene this order, you may be subject to a fine, imprisonment, or both. [REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED]