R v EAG, 2023 ABCJ 181

In the Alberta Court of Justice Citation: R v EAG, 2023 ABCJ 181 Date: 20230816 Docket: 210936571P1 Registry: Calgary Between: His Majesty the King Crown - and - EAG Accused Restriction on Publication Identification Ban – See the Criminal Code ,

section 486.4 . By Court Order, information that could identify X and Z must not be published, broadcast, or transmitted in any way. NOTE: Identifying information has been removed from this judgment to comply with the ban so that it may be published. Reasons for Sentence of the Honourable Justice A. J. Brown Sentence [ 1 ] For the offence of sexual interference with his granddaughter, Mr.

G is sentenced to a penitentiary term of 7 years; for the sexual assault he committed on his granddaughter, he is sentenced to 3 years concurrent. [ 2 ] He is also subject to a stand-alone restitution order in the amount of $12,610.00, the cost to date of therapy for his granddaughter and her parents. Introduction [ 3 ] Mr. G was convicted after trial of the sexual interference offence that had gone on between January 1 and August 27, 2021, in Calgary, and of the sexual assault that happened in August 2021, in Parksville, British Columbia. At trial, Mr.

G testified that the sexual interference allegations were completely false; he freely admitted the substance of the sexual assault, asserting that his action was done solely to relieve his granddaughter of discomfort occasioned by a birth defect that involved parts of her vagina being on the outside. Rebuttal evidence refuted the claim of a birth defect. [ 4 ] In both the pre-sentence report and the psychological/risk assessment prepared for sentencing, Mr.

G admitted that all the allegations were true, and expressed profound regret and remorse for the harm he had visited on his granddaughter and the rest of his family. Positions of the Parties [ 5 ] Crown Counsel argues that a fit sentence for Mr. G is one of 12 years, reduced to 9, for totality, and arrived at by imposing 9 years, reduced to 7, for the sexual interference, and 4 years, reduced to 2, for the sexual assault. Crown also seeks a stand-alone restitution order to support counselling for Mr. G’s granddaughter.

[6] Defence Counsel takes no issue with the stand-alone restitution order but submits that a fit sentence is one of 2 years’ less one day imprisonment,followed by 3 years’ probation. In support of a short period of incarceration and lengthy probation, Defence Counsel argues that Mr. G is considered a lowrisk to re-offend, suffers from mental health and age-related physical problems, is a good prospect for rehabilitation and is extremely remorseful.

Authorities Considered [7] I have reviewed R v Friesen 2020 SCC 9, the guiding Supreme Court authority for sentencing crimes of sexual violence perpetrated againstchildren, R v Hutchings 2012 NLCA 2 for considerations of concurrent and consecutive sentencing, and totality, R v Belcourt 2010 ABCA 319 and R vDedeckere 2017 ONCA 799 for the mitigating effect of mental illness, R v Legare 2009 SCC 56 for a definition of “grooming,” and R v Hajar 2016 ABCA222 for the Alberta Court of Appeal starting point guideline of 4 years for sexual offences against children. [8] I have considered the following comparator cases: R v AD 2022 ONSC 821; R v AK 2022 ONCA 508; R v Andress 2022 ONSC 1496; R v BJT2019 ONCA 694; R v BLJ 2023 BCPC 39; R v BM 2023 ONCA 224; R v Boucher 2020 ABCA 208 , 2020ABCA 208; R v DHW 2021 ABPC 123;R v DJH 2022 BCSC 1743; R v EF 2021 ABQB 639; R v JB 2023 ONSC 1275; R v JSM 2016 NSSC 158; R v KER 2021 ABQB 976; R v KWP 2016MBQB 99; R v Lemay 2020 ABCA 365; R v LSN 2020 BCCA 109; R v M-M 2022 ABQB 197; R v Nystrom 2023 BCCA 232; R v Quintero-Gelvez 2023ABCA 64; R v SB2 2022 ONSC 821; R v Williams 2019 BCCA 295; and, R v WMW 2023 ABPC 14.

Facts [9] Mr. G is the maternal grandfather of Z. For five years or more he was one of three family members acting as caregivers to Z, while X, hermother, was working full-time. Mr. G collected Z from her after school program every Tuesday and Thursday, and cared for her by taking her to swim, goingon walks or bike rides, playing board games or watching movies at his home, and preparing dinner for her.

He also saw Z most Saturdays and Sundays,taking her to an activity on Saturday and attending church on Sunday with other family members. [10] In addition, every August, grandfather and granddaughter would go on a camping holiday on Vancouver Island near Parksville, British Columbia.This camping trip lasted as long as three weeks and typically involved crab fishing, hiking and other outdoor activities. [11] Z, a bright, articulate 13-year-old at the time of trial, testified about her love and trust of her “Papa.” She enthused, in particular, over crab fishingin the summer, and movie watching at his home.

She said that her Papa was kind and would never hurt her. [12] In 2021, however, when Z was 12 and at her grandfather’s home on Tuesdays and Thursdays, Papa’s affection for her gradually manifested itselfin a different way. When Mr. G and Z were sitting side by side on the couch to watch movies, Mr. G began to rub Z’s breasts over her clothing. A slowprogression found the rubbing moving to her vaginal area, then, under the clothing and, in time, to having Z remove all her clothing. At one point, Z asked ifher grandfather had done this with her mother; Mr.

G replied that he had not, but her mother would probably not approve, and this should remain their secret. [13] On the August camping trip, Z was bothered by long, tangled pubic hair, about which she had complained to her mother before the trip. Xpromised Z that she would help her care for the problem on her return from camping. It was a hot summer in Parksville and Z was increasinglyuncomfortable, grabbing repeatedly at her crotch. Mr. G offered to deal with Z’s discomfort by shaving her pubic hair. Z agreed. Mr.

G then had her lie downin the camper trailer and used his beard razor to shave her pubic hair. [14] On her return from the camping trip, Z was in the bathroom at the same time as her mother; she stepped out of the shower, her mother observed theshaved pubic area and asked Z if she had done it. Z replied that Papa had done the shaving. X immediately told Z that that was entirely inappropriate. [15] A short conversation followed, in which X sought to confirm that Z knew about inappropriate touching. Z assured her that she did, but a short timelater, asked whether it was only wrong to touch under clothing.

A longer conversation then ensued and brought out the history of the after school touchingthat had been ongoing throughout the year. [16] X then made a complaint to the police and was instructed not to discuss the offences further with her daughter. Z was interviewed and gave astatement describing the abuse, which statement she adopted at trial. [17] Z and her parents have suffered profound psychological and emotional damage as a consequence of Mr. G’s crimes.

One paragraph of the victimimpact statement filed on the sentencing hearing speaks specifically of the stress of the trial: The court proceedings were very traumatizing, missing several weeks of school and work from having to relive the trauma. This experience heightened [Z]’sresponse to the trauma leading her to be diagnosed with PTSD. This includes anxiety attacks several times a week where she hyperventilates and usuallyvomits, the inability to sleep more than a few hours at a time even when fully medicated, severe depression and night terrors so severe that she wakes upscreaming, crying and covered in sweat.

These symptoms continue daily with no end in sight. (Exhibit S-6) Mr. G’s Background [18] Mr. G is now 67 years old and has no previous criminal record. He was born and raised in St John’s, Newfoundland, and moved to Calgary 30years ago for work. Mr. G was the youngest of four and the only boy. His eldest sister died five years ago; his two surviving sisters live in Alberta. One ofhis sisters was interviewed for the pre-sentence report. She described her brother as “kind and helpful” although also impulsive. She had not spoken with Mr.G in about a year. [19] Mr.

G described being well taken care of in his childhood, although his family members were not affectionate and rarely displayed emotion. Hespoke of growing up in the company of “hard men.” School was not a positive experience for Mr. G: he made few friends, exhibited behavioural problems,had spells of truancy, and was subjected to physical discipline, and also to bullying. To the writers of the pre-sentence report and psychological/riskassessment, Mr.

G disclosed for the first time that he was sexually assaulted when 12 or 13 years old by a neighbour, and that a friend who was similarlyassaulted committed suicide at 16. [20] After high school, Mr. G worked as a carpenter and building homes. He earned his journeyman’s ticket in carpentry in 1980. At 23, he married; heand his wife had two children, a daughter (Z’s mother) and a son. Mr. G described his marriage as difficult, as his wife was an angry person; they separatedonce their children were adults. [21] After the move to Calgary, Mr.

G continued working as a carpenter in construction and house renovation, until switching five years ago to doingseasonal car tire changes. The tire caddy work ended abruptly in May 2021, when Mr. G was assaulted by the office manager and suffered a head injury. Thediagnosis at the time was Post Mild Traumatic Brain Injury; more recently, a “slow growing . . . likely non-cancerous tumor” was discovered, one withpotential symptoms of vertigo, tinnitus and hearing loss. [22] Unable to return to work after the assault and resulting brain injury, Mr.

G has received support payments from Workers Compensation andcounselling and cognitive behavioural therapy to address PTSD, ADHD, anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. Mr. G has not divulged his sexualoffending to his counsellor. [23] Mr. G suffers from physical health problems as well, including coronary artery disease, a heart attack in October 2012, Acute Coronary Syndrome

in January 2014, high blood pressure, cholesterol, ulcers, and heartburn. He takes prescribed medication to address his health issues. [ 24 ] A loner all his life, Mr. G relied on work colleagues and participation in a church-affiliated men’s group for friendship. The loss of his ability to work and complete estrangement from family and church following the laying of the sexual offence charges have left Mr. G isolated and alone. He asserts that he intends to apply for Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) once he has been sentenced. [ 25 ] The psychological/risk assessment prepared for sentencing rated Mr.

G a low risk for sexual recidivism but also noted the following: As is commonly the case among untreated sexual offenders, Mr. G rationalized his sexual offending behaviour by endorsing he was “stressed, depressed, mixed up and made a mistake.” Further, he attempted to minimize his sexual behaviour by indicating he did not know what he did was “that” wrong, or “how the sexual things happened.” Further, he feels victimized by the charges made against him. He also placed responsibility on the victim, who[m] he believed wanted and liked the sex things that happened. . . . The findings indicated that Mr.

G is emotionally immature and views himself as a victim who is mistreated and misunderstood. . . . Of note, he did not believe he needs help to manage his sexual impulses and behaviours.

His resistance to treatment may be due to his beliefs of being victimized in life, and he may present with negativity and resentment which would need to be a focus of attention in treatment. (p. 17, Exhibit S-2) Sexual Violence Against Children [ 26 ] In R v Friesen , the Supreme Court of Canada has given clear and strong direction in the sentencing of cases of sexual violence against children, saying at para 5: [W]e send a strong message that sexual offences against children are violent crimes that wrongfully exploit children's vulnerability and cause profound harm to children, families, and communities.

Sentences for these crimes must increase. Courts must impose sentences that are proportional to the gravity of sexual offences against children and the degree of responsibility of the offender, as informed by Parliament's sentencing initiatives and by society's deepened understanding of the wrongfulness and harmfulness of sexual violence against children.

Sentences must accurately reflect the wrongfulness of sexual violence against children and the far-reaching and ongoing harm that it causes to children, families, and society at large. [ 27 ] In particular, the Court addresses six issues affecting the sentence: • The higher the risk posed by the offender, the more important becomes the separation of the offender from the community. • If the offender occupied a position of trust, a higher sentence must be imposed. • When the offending behaviour happened many times, over longer periods of time, significantly higher sentences must be imposed. • The age of the child may be an aggravating factor, i.e., very young children are even more vulnerable. • Sentencing decisions must avoid the danger of assigning a hierarchy of seriousness to the type of sexual interference, being mindful of the extreme harm that can be done to children by all forms of sexual violence. • And, a child’s participation is not a mitigating factor: “a breach of trust or grooming that led to the victim’s participation is an aggravating factor.” (para 153) [ 28 ] Of these six factors, only the elevated level of risk is not present in Mr.

G’s case. [ 29 ] In reference to the age of the child, apart from the remarks about the vulnerability of the very young, the Court also makes observations about adolescent children that are applicable in this case: . . . [C]ourts must also be particularly careful to impose proportionate sentences in cases where the victim is an adolescent.

Historically, disproportionately low sentences have been imposed in these cases, particularly in cases involving adolescent girls, even though adolescents may be an age group that is disproportionately victimized by sexual violence. (Para 136) [ 30 ] I was referred to many comparator cases, as listed earlier in these reasons and summarized in Appendix A. In deciding on the appropriate sentencing range for Mr. G, I was guided first by the post- Friesen cases involving offenders in a position of trust who had been sentenced after trial.

Those decisions were AK , BLJ , DHW , JB , KER , EF , Andress and DJH , and supported a broad range of 2 years less one day to 9 years. A further sort for cases of grandfather-granddaughter relationship, or equivalent, narrowed the comparators to AK , BLJ , DJH , KER and SB2 , and the range to one of 3 to 8 years. Analysis of that range while being mindful of the danger of assigning a hierarchy of seriousness to the type of sexual interference leads me to conclude that the most accurate range in Mr.

G’s case is one of 6 to 9 years. [ 31 ] Cases supporting lower sentences than the range of 6 to 9 years are distinguishable as follows: AD – school custodian; less serious; fewer instances DHW – significant Gladue factors EF – once, very short-lived LSN – twice only, although with related record, Gladue factors M - M –

summary conviction offence SB2 – far fewer instances, i.e., “at least three times” WMW – exceptional facts, e.g., self-reporting, extreme mental illness [ 32 ] On the high end of the range, 9 years imposed in the case of JB , the case is distinguished from Mr. G’s as involving abuse that went on for far longer and a high degree of physical interference with the child victim. Sentencing Principles Applied to Mr. G [ 33 ] It is argued that Mr. G’s sentence ought to be reduced for considerations of his mental health issues. While it is important and well-established law

that an offender’s moral blameworthiness is reduced in instances of mental illness causing or contributing to the commission of the offence ( Belcourt ), that is not the evidence in this case. And Mr. G’s stated intention to pursue MAID at an early opportunity speaks only to specific deterrence. Apart from failing to address general deterrence, such a Faustian bargain should be roundly rejected on public policy grounds for seemingly condoning voluntary execution. [ 34 ] The Crown submitted that consecutive sentences should be imposed for the sexual interference and sexual assault offences.

As I explained when finding Mr. G guilty, the sexual interference offence was certainly sexual assault but would have been stayed by virtue of the Kienapple principle. The lengthy grooming that constituted the sexual interference offence led inexorably to the shocking situation of Z not understanding that the sexual assault of her grandfather shaving her pubic hair was wrong; the two offences were inextricably linked and ought to be sentenced concurrently. [ 35 ] There are two slight mitigating factors in Mr.

G’s case, that he is a low risk to re-offend and that, ultimately, he confessed to his crimes and expressed genuine remorse. However, his testimony that his granddaughter had falsely accused him constituted a monumental betrayal by Z’s beloved and trusted Papa and has caused profound and lasting harm to Z and her family.

Conclusion [ 36 ] The aggravating factors are many: this is a case of domestic violence, a shocking abuse of trust, on a child poised on adolescence with all the confusion and insecurity that accompany that time of life, it involved lengthy grooming that perverted a previously and appropriately loving relationship, and has caused extreme damage to Z, her parents and other family members. [ 37 ] Of all the comparator cases I reviewed, I consider AK (8 years) and KER (6 years) to be of the greatest assistance. I would increase Mr.

G’s sentence from that of KER to reflect the length of time of the grooming and the extreme harm caused to Z, but reduce from the 8- year sentence in AK , out of consideration for Mr. G’s age and poor health. [ 38 ] The 4-year starting point guideline from Hajar applies to the sexual assault, which I reduce to 3 years when considering the short duration of the offence. [ 39 ] Therefore, the sentence is 7 years for the sexual interference and 3 years concurrent for the sexual assault.

Heard on the 22 nd day of November, 2022 to the 23 rd day of November, 2022, the 30 th day of November, 2022, the 6 th day of April, 2023 and the 2 nd day of August, 2023. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 16 th day of August, 2023. A. J. Brown A Justice of the Alberta Court of Justice Appearances: K. A. Morris for the Crown L. D. Halcro for the Accused

Appendix A NAME GP? AGE FACTS RECORD OTHER FACTORS SENTENCE AD No 64 Custodian at elementary school molested two 10- year-olds no fewer than five times by grabbing their buttocks and gyrating his groin against their groins and buttocks. No Aggravating: position of trust and authority; repeated instances; child victims; grooming behaviour. Mitigating: Low risk to reoffend; family support; poor health; caregiver for wife. Collateral: lost job. 17 months.

AK * No “much older” Over 6 years, great-uncle abused great-niece when she was between 7 and 11 years old by rubbing her, pinning her arms down above her head, committing digital penetration, penile penetration and forced fellatio. Five occasions were specifically described; in total, there were 15 – 20 occasions. No Aggravating: position of trust; much older family member; child very young when first assault occurred; length of time over which abuse occurred; penile penetration; use of force. Mitigating: In stable, long-term relationship; strong family and community support. 8 years.

Andress No Elderly Babysat three complainants. Niece was sexually abused almost daily for almost 7 years when she was 9 to 14. Offender put his penis in her mouth. A 12-year-old complainant was sexually touched for a week and once forced to touch the offender’s penis. The third complainant was abused over the course of 14 months when she was 10; the offender put his penis in her mouth and ejaculated. No Aggravating: position of trust; child victims; extreme youth; repetitive offending; length of time. Mitigating: primary caregiver for wife; good work record; age. 7 years.

BJT No Father twice shaved daughter’s pubic hair, first when she was 13, then, 15. New trial ordered on first incident, sexual interference offence only. Second incident also involved digital penetration and inappropriate comment. No Significant mental health issues; unable to work; off his medication on day of offence; recently learned of indigenous heritage; remorseful. Aggravated by racist nature of offence. 9 months. BLJ * No Late 40s to early 50s Trial took place 8 to 13 years after the abuse of great-niece of offender.

She was between 6 and 11 years old when, on four occasions, offender committed assaults that included fellatio, cunnilingus, digital and penile penetration, and ejaculation. On one occasion, the complainant’s same age friend was present and also assaulted. Dated and largely unrelated (assault causing bodily harm, impaired driving). Aggravating: position of trust; young age/extreme vulnerability of child; extreme degree of physical interference; young friend also assaulted; viewing of pornography; repeated assaults; extreme harm done.

Mitigating: low risk; some family and community support; gainfully employed all adult life. 7 years. BM Yes, after preliminary inquiry. 18 - 22 Two 12-year-old victims. Offender in romantic relationship with children’s father. Abuse of one child began with touching and moved to anal intercourse, without a condom, causing victim to scream in pain. Pornography was viewed. The second child suffered 20 to 30 instances of vaginal penetration and ejaculation. A condom was used only once. No Aggravating: child victims; position of trust; grooming; multiple incidents; length of time.

Mitigating: Genuine remorse; mental health issues; guilty plea, although after preliminary inquiry at which victims testified. Collateral: potential immigration consequences. 7 years. Boucher Yes More than 90 major sexual assaults, over 7 months, on 14-year-old girl who viewed him as a father figure. Aggravating: position of trust; age difference; harm suffered by complainant and family members; grooming; abuse continued after wife and daughter had told him to stop. Mitigating: guilty plea; low risk; community and family support; loss of relationship with daughter; full confession on arrest. 8 years.

DHW No 36 When victim was 8 to 10 years old, offender forced her many times to watch pornography with him, while he masturbated. On one occasion, he forced her to lick semen off his finger. Unrelated, two youth and five adult convictions. Aggravating: position of trust; extreme vulnerability of child; extreme harm; repetition of offence. Mitigating: significant Gladue factors. 3½ years. DJH * No 54 Step-grandfather of 7-year- old abused her many times over weeks or months. Abuse included cunnilingus, digital penetration, fellatio and forced licking of his anus.

Victim was restrained and blindfolded, and threatened with death if she told anyone. No. Aggravating: child victim; extreme youth; multiple occasions; length of time; position of trust; degree of physical interference; threats. Mitigating: supportive family. 6 years. EF No 48 Father of 14-year-old victim pinned her hands above her head as she lay on her back and touched her breasts under her shirt for about a minute. Dated, unrelated. Aggravating: domestic violence; child victim; extreme harm; position of trust; physical force. Mitigating: remorseful; low risk; ill health. 2 years.

Friesen Yes 29 After intercourse with victim’s mother, offender had mother bring 4-year- old daughter into the room and force the child to perform fellatio on him. Mother’s friend intervened to rescue crying child. Offender demanded mother bring child back to be raped. No Aggravating: child victim; extreme youth, vulnerability; extreme harm; Mitigating: guilty plea; remorseful; childhood of abuse and neglect. 6 years. JB No 57 Over two years, when victim was 10 to 12 years old, father figure offender committed 25 to 30 sexual assaults, including touching and vaginal penetration.

No Aggravating: young age of victim; extended period of offending; high degree of physical interference; father figure, position of trust; devastating harmful effect on victim. Mitigating: indigenous background; family and community support; out of character. 9 years. JSM No 61 Offender was father of victim’s best friend and next door neighbour. Over the clothes vaginal touching, once under the clothes. Offender had child touch his penis and masturbate him. No Aggravating: Child deeply affected; child victim; offender told child not to tell.

Mitigating: Supportive family; no record. 2 years less one day + 12 months’ probation KER * No 76 Offender, in his mid-60s at the time, assaulted his 8 or 9-year-old granddaughter twice at his apartment when he was babysitting her overnight. The first incident, when the victim’s younger brother was also staying overnight, included the offender lying naked in bed with his granddaughter and performing cunnilingus on her; she was too small to wriggle away or push him off.

The second time, he was touching her vaginal area over the bedclothes and desisted when his granddaughter’s “no’s” became loud enough to wake neighbours. No Aggravating: domestic violence; child victim; position of trust; repeated incidents; physical force used; significant actual and potential harm. Mitigating: none. 6 years.

KWP No 66 Grandfather of 4-year-old victim. One sexual touching, one cunnilingus. No Aggravating: child victim; domestic violence; position of trust. Mitigating: Primary caregiver for wife and special needs grandson; health issues; low risk; supportive wife. 30 months Lemay Yes 35 Five times, offender touched 15-year-old complainant’s breasts, digitally penetrated her, had her perform fellatio on him, ejaculating in her mouth. Once, started to penetrate with his penis. No Aggravating: position of trust (family friend, “uncle” status); child victim; repetition; average to moderate-low risk.

Mitigating: guilty plea; indigenous; no record; childhood abuse. 4 years. LSN No 37 Stepfather of 11-year-old victim twice touched child’s breasts and once touched her vagina under her pyjamas. Yes, for sexual interference. Aggravating: child victim; domestic violence; position of trust; high risk; touching occurred in child’s home; related record. Mitigating: Indigenous; remorseful; employed. 2 years – one day. M-M No 65 Uncle repeatedly touched 6-year-old’s genitals over her clothing, causing pain.

Aggravating: child victim; extreme vulnerability; domestic violence; position of trust; multiple occasions; actual harm; in child’s home. Other:

summary conviction offence. 1 year + 2 years’ probation. Nystrom No 19 Offender and 14-year-old victim were both homeless when offender committed sexual assaults three times, the first including digital penetration, anal and vaginal intercourse. The second incident was forced anal intercourse, after the victim had been thrown to the ground and suffered cuts and bruises. The last incident was one of digital penetration. No Aggravating: young, vulnerable, homeless victim; repeated offending. Mitigating: youth; cognitive impairment; no record. 3½ years.

Quintero-Gelvez No 22-year-old victim had lost consciousness and came to, naked, and being sexually assaulted by offender and his friend. Friend pinned victim’s arms while offender penetrated her vagina with his penis. No Aggravating: two on one; victim not capable of consenting; unlawful confinement; significant harm inflicted. Mitigating: positive pre-sentence report. 4½ years. SB2 No * 59 Step-granddaughter was 5 to 13 during the years when, at least three times, offender touched child’s vagina and buttocks under her underwear.

No Aggravating: child victim; domestic violence; position of trust; in child’s home. Mitigating: Primary caregiver for wife; wife supportive; employed; no record. 3 years. Williams Yes 23, 25 Offender met a 14-year-old and a 15-year-old through a social media app. Both girls initially said they were older but offender soon knew their true ages. The first “relationship” lasted off and on for two years and involved many instances of sexual intercourse. The second offence consisted of eight instances of sexual intercourse over six weeks and impregnation of the victim, against her wishes.

Both offences involved domineering, controlling behaviour on the part of the offender. No Aggravating: two victims; youth of victims; extreme harm done. Mitigating: reduced blameworthiness due to significant mental illness, arising in large part from extremely abusive treatment in childhood. 4 years.

WMW Yes 49 The offender is the adoptive mother of the 13- year-old complainant. The complainant functions at the level of an 8-year-old. The offender disclosed to her psychologist and confessed to the police three or four instances of sexual interference with her daughter, over a year; the offences included putting lubricant on a vibrator and the vibrator on her daughter’s vagina, touching her daughter’s clitoris and rubbing her breasts. No Aggravating: child complainant; domestic violence; position of trust; significant impact on complainant; extreme vulnerability of complainant; degree of physical interference.

Mitigating: Extremely remorseful; self-reported; full confession; very early guilty plea; serious mental illness occasioned by severe childhood trauma. 2 year – 1 day CSO + 2½ years.