R. v. P.S. Date:, 2017 BCPC 173

Citation: R. v. P.S. Date: 20170529 2017 BCPC 173 File No: 208101-2-C Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal REGINA v. P.S. REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J.I.S. SUTHERLAND BAN ON PUBLICATION UNDER S. 486.4(1) Counsel for the Crown: W. Sayson, Q.C., B. Lane Counsel for the Defendant: B. Coleman, Q.C., J. Fung Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Date of Hearing: March 28, 2017 Date of Judgment: May 29, 2017

A Corrigendum was released by the court on June 9, 2017. The corrections have been made to the text and the Corrigendum is appended to this document. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The accused, P.S., has pled guilty to 4 Criminal Code offences relating to the confining and repeated sexual abuse of a 16-year old friend of his stepson, over a 2-day period. Those offences are: Count 1 : Administering a stupefying drug with the intent to commit an aggravated sexual assault contrary to

section 246 (

b) of the Criminal Code ; Count 2 : Aggravated sexual assault contrary to section 273(2)(b); Count 4 : Unlawful confinement contrary to section 279(2)(a); and Count 6 : Threatening to cause death or bodily harm, contrary to

section 264.1(1). [ 2 ] He is now before me for sentencing. [ 3 ] Crown Counsel argues that P.S. should receive a cumulative sentence of 15 years jail less time he has already served in custody awaiting sentencing. Defence Counsel submits 10 years is appropriate less time served. [ 4 ] These are my reasons for the sentences I impose. THE OFFENCES [ 5 ] For the purpose of sentencing, the following facts underlying the offences were agreed to by counsel: • The accused, P.S., has been in a common law relationship for the past 17 years with G.D. G.D. has three sons from previous relationships.

Their names are T.N.(“T.”) and C.N.(“C.”), and K. • At the time of the offences, J. was 16 years old. She was a friend of P.S.’s stepson K. She had never met P.S. or G.D. prior to the weekend the offences were committed. • P.S. and G.D. rented a coach house in Surrey, B.C., at the time of the offences. November 7, 2014 • On the evening of November 7, 2014, P.S., G.D., C. and T., and J. spent the night at the Coach House. With the exception of C., they all inhaled crystal methamphetamine.

November 8, 2014 • On the morning of November 8, 2014, J. was offered a job by P.S. and G.D. to clean the house of another person. J. was informed that the job paid $200 and was assured that her friend K. would also be there to assist with the job. The Incidents in the Shed • J. agreed to do the job and walked with P.S. and G.D. to an abandoned property in Surrey. She was told by P.S. and G.D. that the purpose of attending the abandoned property was to collect scrap wood that P.S. would use for a carpentry job he was planning to do later that day.

She was led into a shed at the back of the property. • In the shed she was grabbed around her neck from behind by P.S. who put his hand over her mouth and told her that if she made a noise and did not do everything that she was told they would kill her. She was told she was going to be raped and killed if she did not listen, and that they would go after her brother, grandmother, and her friends. • J.’s hands and feet were tied, her neck was tied to the wall and a gag placed in her mouth. She was told that she was an anniversary gift to each other, being P.S. and G.D.

They both told her they had always wanted to rape and kill someone together. • P.S. then ripped off the tank top J. was wearing under her sweater. He then said to G.D. “maybe we should kill her, but then we don’t get to have our fun.” P.S. then pulled down J.’s leggings and underwear and began fondling her vaginal area with his hand and penis. Both P.S. and G.D. slapped her across the face while she was tied up.

After some time she was untied but held by P.S. to prevent her from running away. • Various pieces of equipment were used on J. in the shed including ropes, straps, collar, gag, and a wrench to threaten her. This equipment was brought by P.S. and G.D. from the coach house to the shed. • Eventually P.S., G.D., and J. left the property of the abandoned house and walked toward a nearby park. P.S. and J. went into the park while G.D. stayed behind. P.S. told J. he was in love with her and put her hand in the crotch area of his pants. He rubbed her on top of her clothing.

G.D. returned on her own to the coach house. • Eventually P.S. and J. returned to the coach house. Already present were G.D., T., and C. A couple of hours later, T. and C. left. T. returned immediately and asked P.S. if he could take J. with him. P.S. said no and told T. to leave. He then closed the door and

locked it. The Coach House Incidents • After T. left, P.S. told J. she was “definitely not getting out.” J. was sick and sitting next to a bucket. P.S. told her “the fact that you are sick right now is your only saving grace.” • When J. was feeling better she was taken into the bedroom. G.D. prepared six syringes of methamphetamine. She held J.’s arm. J. said that she had never done needles before. P.S. then injected her arm with methamphetamine. He injected her arm a second time after they smoked a cigarette. • J. was told to take her clothes off. G.D. hit her on the back and buttocks with a belt.

P.S. then held her neck down and anally and vaginally penetrated her with his penis. She was directed to insert dildos into her vagina. When she was unsuccessful she was slapped by both P.S. and G.D. and told to put her fingers in her vagina. • J. was forced to perform oral sex on P.S. He urinated in her mouth and forced her to swallow it. She was forced to perform oral sex on G.D. who punched her in the head. J. was struck on her vagina, back, and buttock with rubber tubing and a metal stick. • P.S. poured olive oil on J.’s head and body. She was then taken to the bedroom where she was tied up.

P.S. struck her with a plastic tube and G.D. struck her in the back with a belt. P.S. penetrated her anally while G.D. stood in front of J. with a wrench in her hand. • J. was untied and retied in several different positions, binding her legs and wrists. When in these various positions throughout the evening P.S. continued to vaginally and anally penetrate her with his penis. Additionally, J. had several objects inserted into her vagina and anus including a table leg and flat iron for straightening hair. P.S. used safety pins to poke J.’s breasts. He then used a larger safety pin to attempt to pierce her vagina.

Throughout the night and early morning J. was repeatedly threatened, hit with various objects, and had a collar placed on her neck. • J. was given reprieves where she was not bound. However, she was not permitted to put her clothes on. She was directed to attach her shirt to the wall above the head of the bed in P.S.’s and G.D.’s bedroom as a trophy. • The sexual assaults continued throughout the night of November 8 and into the early morning hours of November 9, 2014. November 9, 2014 • On the morning of November 9, 2014, J. was told that she was going to live in the bush with P.S. and G.D. and be a sex slave.

G.D. told her that if she did not cooperate she would be killed. P.S., G.D., J., K., and P.S.’s mother and her partner drove together to the Chilliwack area to drop P.S. and G.D. “in the bush.” High water levels made it difficult to get to the campsite where P.S. and G.D. wanted to stay. • P.S.’s mother questioned him about why J. and K. needed to go with them. P.S. and G.D. decided to let J. and K. return to Surrey with P.S.’s mother and her partner. J. was returned to her home on the evening of November 9.

She disclosed what had happened to her grandmother the next morning. • J. was taken to Surrey Memorial Hospital where a forensic nurse examination was conducted. 47 injuries were specifically noted, excluding injuries noted in the genital examination. The genital examination noted puncture marks, swelling, discolouration, and tears. Parts of the genital examination, including an anal examination, could not be conducted because J. was unable to tolerate the pain. • P.S. was eventually arrested and interviewed by the police. He provided inculpatory statements.

VICTIM IMPACT [ 6 ] In her Victim Impact Statement, J. said she experiences daily anxiety inducing flashbacks when alone regardless of where she is. Her anxiety is profound enough to make her physically sick. At night she suffers nightmares that include images of the abuse. She feels she has lost capacity and resilience to deal with stressful situations. She becomes easily frustrated and upset, and breaks down easily.

She has trouble trusting new people she meets and having normal, healthy romantic relationships. [ 7 ] Physically, in addition to the anxiety inducing nausea, she has strength and circulation issues in her hands and wrists that she attributes to how tightly she was bound. She also contracted the MRSA virus that had a negative effect on her immune system and required her to take potent antibiotics. The antibiotics had side effects that caused her such physical discomfort that in addition to the psychological challenges the incidents caused, she was unable to continue her schooling or pursue work.

At the time she prepared the Victim Impact Statement she had yet to find work. [ 8 ] In

summary, the impact of the offences on J.’s psychological, physical, and economic health has been profound. THE ACCUSED [ 9 ] P.S. is 49 years of age. [ 10 ] He had a difficult upbringing marked by his own sexual abuse, being bullied, drug use, and leaving home and school at a young age. He spent much of his teenage years in and out of juvenile detention. [ 11 ] Eventually he obtained his grade 12 diploma and held various jobs in the construction industry but was often let go because of his drug addiction. At one time he had his own general contracting company. When not working, he has supported himself at times with crime.

[ 12 ] P.S. has a criminal record spanning from 1989 to 2015. In that time he has amassed 26 convictions; 4 drug related and 16 property offences among them. He has no convictions for crimes of violence. Nevertheless, his past has been marked by violence both generally and in his domestic relationships including with G.D. [ 13 ] A Psychiatric Report prepared by Dr.

Whittemore of the Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission notes P.S.’s acknowledgment of violent thoughts and “wanting others to hurt the way he hurt.” Further, he has auditory hallucinations where he hears a voice telling him to hurt others which he has acted on at times, but been able to ignore when sober. [ 14 ] P.S. started using drugs at a young age and became addicted to cocaine and heroin. In the year leading to the offences he was using methamphetamine daily and was high on methamphetamine when the offences were committed.

He has attended numerous drug treatment programs in the past but has not completed any.

He is attending drug and alcohol counselling and has completed Substance Abuse Education and other Essential Skills to Success modules while in custody. [ 15 ] As a youth P.S. was assessed as being “well on his way to developing an anti-social personality.” Over time, his various mental health diagnoses have included psychotic symptoms including auditory hallucinations, addiction, suicidal ideation, mood disorder, and “sociopathic orientation.” Throughout his life he has been prescribed medications for some of these conditions but, according to P.S., he does not stay on them long enough to have an effect.

He acknowledges, however, that he has a lot of problems that he needs help with. [ 16 ] Character letters were provided by his mother and sister. They support him. The letters describe P.S. as someone who takes ownership and responsibility for things, and accepts blame even when he is not responsible or to blame. According to his sister - who has an idea of the nature of the charges but not specifics - he has a heart, and is caring and helpful.

According to her, with proper treatment and counselling, instead of incarceration, he would be an asset to society. [ 17 ] According to his mother, P.S. is a kind and thoughtful person. She has noticed a change in P.S. since he went into custody. He has a new determination to avoid drugs. Indeed, according to a letter provided by David Farquhar, a substance abuse liaison at Surrey Pretrial Centre, where P.S. is housed, P.S. has been involved in substance abuse programming since the spring of 2015.

He reports that P.S. has made much positive change gained through his commitment and determination to the program, and that he presents a strong example of what can be achieved while incarcerated. [ 18 ] In his interviews in preparation of the Psychiatric Report, conducted December 12, 2016, January 10 and 24, 2017, P.S. discussed his mindset, as best he could understand it, in committing the offences. He said he had consumed excessive amounts of methamphetamine and began losing control of his thoughts.

He said he knew something bad was going to happen, that he felt anger and hate, and wanted to make others feel how bad he felt. He said threats to J. in the course of the offences were made to make her compliant because “if she wasn’t compliant I could have killed her.” [ 19 ] P.S. expressed remorse to Dr. Whittemore and to this court through his counsel, and appeared to Dr. Whittemore to take responsibility for his actions generally. It was also Dr.

Whittemore’s opinion that P.S. lacked insight into the psychological terror he caused J. and lacked insight into the seriousness of his drug problems, need for treatment, and the risk factors leading to his offending including the present offences. [ 20 ] Dr. Whittemore diagnosed P.S. as having Substance Use Disorders, Antisocial Personality Disorder, and Sexual Sadism Disorder. Risk assessment and management testing placed him high on psychopathy symptom ranking with dominance, selfishness, and callous disregard being “prominent parts of his personality structure.” [ 21 ] In conclusion, Dr.

Whittemore writes: An examination of the above factors suggests P.S. presents a high risk to engage in future sexual offenses and violence in the community. The current offenses were extreme in terms of the exceptional level of prolonged physical and sexual violence, the physical and psychological coercion, and the profound callousness. His sexual deviancy, his psychopathic personality traits, and his violent thoughts raise significant concern with regard to his risk.

Additionally, his problems with substances, mental health symptoms, as well as his difficulties complying with conditions of supervision, are significant concerns. Taken together the risk factors suggest the most probable scenario involves a repeat of, or a twist on (e.g., different context, the victim-type), the current offence. For many individuals, there is the potential for a behavioural escalation (e.g., more severe, physically violent, or diverse sexual violence).

Given his own expressed concerns about the potential for serious physical harm, his sexual deviance, compromised internal controls, the statements he made about these issues during the offenses and statements he made related to the offenses, it is my opinion that if his risk escalates in the future, lethality is a possible outcome… [ 22 ] As for P.S.’s rehabilitation: His behaviour reflects his underlying fantasies, thoughts and beliefs requiring serious, intensive interventions; however, even with intervention his prognosis is guarded, and even with engagement and completion of treatment his level of risk may not shift.

THE PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING [ 23 ] The fundamental purpose of sentencing is 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. This purpose is achieved by considering the objectives of sentencing identified in s. 718 (

a) of the Criminal Code , in the context of an offender’s personal circumstances, and the circumstances of the offence. In this process an assessment of the accused’s moral blameworthiness for the commission of the offences and a blending of the various objectives of sentencing to suit the individual case will take place. [ 24 ] The purpose and principles of sentencing take into account the needs of the community and the offender. In the end, the sentence must balance these needs giving weight to some more than others, depending on all the circumstances of the individual case. This is the blending referred to above.

[25] In the present case, the Crown emphasizes concerns for deterrence, both general and specific, and denunciation, while thedefence acknowledges those concerns but reminds the court to ensure rehabilitative principles are not ignored. [26] Despite these various considerations and the balancing of objectives that must take place, the analytical process actually has anarrow focus. In the end, the court is to arrive at a sentence that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender’s degreeof responsibility.

Sentencing Objectives Requiring Emphasis [27] All of the objectives of sentencing remain important including rehabilitation; however, for serious offences of the nature theaccused committed, denunciation and general deterrence require emphasis (R. v. Thurairajah, 2008 ONCA 91 , [2008] O.J. No.460, paras. 41-42). This emphasis intensifies with the seriousness of the circumstances surrounding the offences (Thurairajah).

Giventhe accused’s circumstances as outlined above, specific deterrence also requires particular emphasis as does another objective, the needto separate the accused from society. [28] A brief description of the concepts behind some of these objectives is worth stating. (

i) Denunciation [29] The objective of denunciation is to communicate through the sentence society’s condemnation of an offender’s conduct (R. v.C.A.M., (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500). (ii) General Deterrence [30] Deterrence operates in a general way. Those that would break the law must know, and law-abiding citizens must be assured,that law-breakers will receive sentences which reflect the seriousness of their crimes (R. v.

Johnson (1996), (BC CA),112 C.C.C. (3d) 225 (B.C.C.A.)) (iii) Specific Deterrence [31] The duration of the sentence must be long enough to dissuade an offender from committing a repetition of the offence. Theimplication being that a repetition of the offence will result in another significant sentence. (iv) Retribution [32] Although not specifically mentioned as a principle of sentencing in s. 718 of the Criminal Code, Retribution is woven into theprinciples that are mentioned in that

section (C.A.M., at para. 79). Retribution in sentencing sanctions the moral culpability of anoffender, and thus, the moral blameworthiness of an offender is an important consideration in determining an appropriate sentence. [33] Retribution should not be confused, however, with vengeance which plays no role in sentencing.

Retribution was described thisway by Lamer, C.J., at para. 80 of C.A.M.: Retribution in a criminal context, by contrast, represents an objective, reasoned and measured determination of an appropriatepunishment which properly reflects the moral culpability of the offender, having regard to the intentional risk-taking of the offender, theconsequential harm caused by the offender, and the normative character of the offender’s conduct. Furthermore, unlike vengeance,retribution incorporates a principle of restraint; retribution requires the imposition of a just and appropriate punishment and nothingmore. (

v) Separating Offenders from Society where Necessary [34] Where the offender’s circumstances lead to the conclusion that they present a danger to the public if out in the community, thenthey should be detained in custody for a period of time sufficient to reasonably conclude that the danger has subsided (R. v. Downey,[2010] O.J. No.1038). (vi) Rehabilitation [35] A sentence must not eliminate all hope for an offender or any incentive for an offender to commit to their rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation of an offender in custody involves programs designed to equip an offender with the ability to make productive and lawabiding choices when released. CASE LAW [36] I have been provided with case authorities to help situate where in the continuum of sentences P.S.’s ought to fall. Becausesentencing is an individualized process, there are distinguishing features to the cases that have been provided. Nevertheless, I have readall of the cases but do not find it necessary to discuss them in these reasons.

ANALYSIS [37] There are many aggravating features in P.S.’s case. [38] Speaking generally, the offences the accused committed were physically violent, cruel, degrading, and dehumanizing. Theywere an extreme violation of J.’s physical integrity, personal security, and dignity. They involved psychological manipulation throughthreats and fear. Psychologically, her vitality and innocence has been extinguished. The severity of trauma she has experienced, and isexperiencing, is not surprising given what the accused inflicted upon her.

[ 39 ] Other aggravating features include: • That there was an element of planning to the offences. In essence, this was an intentional, planned, and executed torture of a young woman. • The prolonged duration of the offences, 2 days. • The repeated acts of violence and degradation over that period of time. J. was repeatedly sexually assaulted and threatened by the accused to ensure she would be terrorized into compliance. • J. was 16 years old at the time of the offences.

Section 718.2 (a)(ii.1) of the Criminal Code specifically identifies the abuse of someone under the age of 18 as an aggravating factor. • Not only was J. 16 years old at the time, but she was a friend of the accused’s stepson. While not in a position of trust or authority over J., there was nevertheless a power imbalance between the accused and J. by virtue of the age difference between them, and the accused being the stepfather of her friend.

She was vulnerable as a result. • J. suffered multiple injuries. • The accused presents a high risk to engage in future sexual offences and violence of equal or possibly worse gravity than the present offences while in the community. • Even with intensive interventions, the accused’s rehabilitative prospects are guarded. [ 40 ] In mitigation: • The accused provided candid statements to the police after his arrest about his involvement in the offences. • He has pled guilty. At some level he is remorseful. I put it this way because through counsel he has expressed his remorse to this court.

He has also expressed remorse to Dr. Whittemore and a general willingness to take responsibility for the offences, but Dr. Whittemore has reservations of the sincerity of his remorse given her conclusion that the accused lacks some insight into the offences, and the “psychological terror” he caused J., and minimized some of his behaviour. • He has no violent offences in his criminal record. It is hard to put any stock in this; however, given he has a lengthy criminal record, and his admission of being involved in numerous violent incidents in his past. • He has started attempts at rehabilitating himself.

He is attending drug and alcohol counselling and has completed Substance Abuse Education and other Essential Skills to Success modules while in custody. He appears to be making positive strides in these programs. Relating the Offences to the Purpose and Objectives of Sentencing [ 41 ] Relating the offences to the objectives of sentencing, society would wish to denounce in strong terms the offences the accused perpetrated against J. Furthermore, the offences are extremely serious.

In the name of deterrence, the sentence must make a clear statement to potential offenders, and this offender specifically, that such conduct will be treated harshly by any court. The consequences to any victim and the public at large are too great to do otherwise. [ 42 ] P.S.’s conduct was intentional, planned to a degree, prolonged, and repetitive. The consequential harm caused to J. was significant. P.S.’s moral culpability for the offences is high. The sentences imposed must reflect this. [ 43 ] In my view, P.S. presents a danger to the public if out in the community.

I base this conclusion on the evidence before the court including inferences I draw from the circumstances of the offences and the information contained in the psychiatric and pre-sentence reports. P.S.’s psychological diagnoses suggest no easy or quick fix. He needs to be separated from society for a lengthy period for society’s protection. [ 44 ] The sentences imposed do not ignore rehabilitation.

However, the importance of formulating a sentence that meets the specific objectives just discussed overwhelms the influence of P.S.’s rehabilitation in the sentencing calculus. [ 45 ] Before leaving this area of analysis, I am mindful that restraint must be exercised and that a proportionate sentence ought to be imposed and nothing more. CONCLUSION [ 46 ] In conclusion, I find a proportionate sentence to the gravity of the offence and P.S.’s degree of responsibility to be a cumulative sentence of 15 years jail. I will credit P.S. with 1,395 days pre-sentence custody which includes enhanced credit.

This translates to 3 years and 10 months that P.S. has already spent in custody. That period shall be deducted from the appropriate sentence leaving a balance of 11 years, 2 months, to be served. The 2 months shall be based on a 30-day month for the purpose of sentence calculation by corrections authorities. [ 47 ] The breakdown of the sentences shall be as follows: Count 1 : 15 years - 3 years, 10 months = 11 years, 2 months Count 2 : 15 years - 3 years, 10 months = 11 years, 2 months

Count 4 : 8 years - 3 years, 10 months = 4 years, 2 months Count 6 : 4 years - 3 years, 10 months = 2 months [ 48 ] The sentences shall be served concurrent with one another given they were part of the same series of events. Ancillary Orders [ 49 ] In addition to the jail sentence imposed, I make the following Ancillary Orders: 1) DNA Order: S. 487.051 Count 1, Administering a Stupefying Drug to Commit Aggravated Sexual Assault, Count 2, aggravated sexual assault, and Count 4, Unlawful Confinement, are primary designated offences in

section 487.04 of the Criminal Code . By consent, there will be an order pursuant to

section 487.051 of the Criminal Code requiring P.S. to provide such samples of his bodily substances as are reasonably necessary for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis. 2) S. 109: Weapons Prohibition Also attached to Count 2, will be a weapons prohibition by consent. Pursuant to

section 109 of the Criminal Code , P.S. is prohibited from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, restricted weapon, ammunition, explosive substance, prohibited weapon, or prohibited device for life. 3) Sex Offender Registration (SOIRA) Also by consent, there will be an order under

section 490.012 (1) of the Criminal Code in Form 52, requiring P.S. to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, S.C. 2004, c. 10 for life. 4) S. 743.21: Non-Communication Pursuant to

section 743.21 of the Criminal Code , P.S. shall be prohibited from communicating directly or indirectly with J. during the custodial period of his sentence. 5) S. 743.2: Report to Correctional Service Pursuant to

section 743.2 of the Criminal Code , copies of these Reasons for Sentence, the Pre-Sentence Report, and the Psychiatric Report of Dr. Whittemore tendered in evidence at the sentencing hearing, shall be forwarded to the Correctional Service of Canada. The Honourable Judge J.I.S. Sutherland Provincial Court of British Columbia CORRIGENDUM – Released June 9, 2017 [1] This corrigendum to my Reasons for Sentence dated May 29, 2017, is to correct paragraphs [13], [19], [20], [21], and [40] with the right spelling of Dr. Whittemore’s name. Paragraph [49] is also corrected.

These paragraphs should read as follows: [13] A Psychiatric Report prepared by Dr. Whittemore of the Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission notes P.S.’s acknowledgment of violent thoughts and “wanting others to hurt the way he hurt.” Further, he has auditory hallucinations where he hears a voice telling him to hurt others which he has acted on at times, but been able to ignore when sober. [19] P.S. expressed remorse to Dr. Whittemore and to this court through his counsel, and appeared to Dr. Whittemore to take responsibility for his actions generally. It was also Dr.

Whittemore’s opinion that P.S. lacked insight into the psychological terror he caused J. and lacked insight into the seriousness of his drug problems, need for treatment, and the risk factors leading to his offending including the present offences. [20] Dr. Whittemore diagnosed P.S. as having Substance Use Disorders, Antisocial Personality Disorder, and Sexual Sadism Disorder. Risk assessment and management testing placed him high on psychopathy symptom ranking with dominance, selfishness, and callous disregard being “prominent parts of his personality structure.” [21] In conclusion, Dr.

Whittemore writes: An examination of the above factors suggests P.S. presents a high risk to engage in future sexual offenses and violence in the community. The current offenses were extreme in terms of the exceptional level of prolonged physical and sexual violence, the physical and psychological coercion, and the profound callousness. His sexual deviancy, his psychopathic personality traits, and his violent thoughts raise significant concern with regard to his risk.

Additionally, his problems with substances, mental health symptoms, as well as his difficulties complying with conditions of supervision, are significant concerns. Taken together the risk factors suggest the most probable scenario involves a repeat of, or a twist on (e.g., different context, the victim-type), the current offence. For many individuals, there is the potential for a behavioural escalation (e.g., more severe, physically violent, or diverse sexual violence).

Given his own expressed concerns about the potential for serious physical harm, his sexual deviance, compromised internal controls, the statements he made about these issues during the offenses and statements he made related to the offenses, it is my opinion that if his risk escalates in the future, lethality is a possible outcome…

[40] In mitigation: • The accused provided candid statements to the police after his arrest about his involvement in the offences. • He has pled guilty. At some level he is remorseful. I put it this way because through counsel he has expressed his remorse to this court. He has also expressed remorse to Dr. Whittemore and a general willingness to take responsibility for the offences, but Dr.

Whittemore has reservations of the sincerity of his remorse given her conclusion that the accused lacks some insight into the offences, and the “psychological terror” he caused J., and minimized some of his behaviour. • He has no violent offences in his criminal record. It is hard to put any stock in this; however, given he has a lengthy criminal record, and his admission of being involved in numerous violent incidents in his past. • He has started attempts at rehabilitating himself.

He is attending drug and alcohol counselling and has completed Substance Abuse Education and other Essential Skills to Success modules while in custody. He appears to be making positive strides in these programs. Ancillary Orders [49] In addition to the jail sentence imposed, I make the following Ancillary Orders: 1) DNA Order: S. 487.051 Count 1, Administering a Stupefying Drug to Commit Aggravated Sexual Assault, Count 2, Aggravated Sexual Assault, and Count 4, Unlawful Confinement, are primary designated offences in

section 487.04 of the Criminal Code . By consent, there will be an order pursuant to

section 487.051 of the Criminal Code requiring P.S. to provide such samples of his bodily substances as are reasonably necessary for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis. 2) S. 109: Weapons Prohibition Also attached to Count 2, will be a weapons prohibition by consent. Pursuant to

section 109 of the Criminal Code , P.S. is prohibited from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, restricted weapon, ammunition, explosive substance, prohibited weapon, or prohibited device for life. 3) Sex Offender Registration (SOIRA) Also by consent, there will be an order under

section 490.012 (1) of the Criminal Code in Form 52, requiring P.S. to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, S.C. 2004, c. 10 for life. 4) S. 743.21: Non-Communication Pursuant to

section 743.21 of the Criminal Code , P.S. shall be prohibited from communicating directly or indirectly with J. during the custodial period of his sentence. 5) S. 743.2: Report to Correctional Service Pursuant to

section 743.2 of the Criminal Code , copies of these Reasons for Sentence, the Pre-Sentence Report, and the Psychiatric Report of Dr. Whittemore tendered in evidence at the sentencing hearing, shall be forwarded to the Correctional Service of Canada.