r v. JEFFJORGENSEN, 2021 QCCQ 655

R. c. Jorgensen 2021 QCCQ 655 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Criminal and Penal Division No: 500-01-194387-194 DATE: February 15, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE MÉLANIE HÉBERT ______________________________________________________________________ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Prosecutor v.

JEFFJORGENSEN Accused ______________________________________________________________________ SENTENCE ______________________________________________________________________ OVERVIEW [ 1 ] Jeff Jorgensen pled guilty to having extorted KA, a well-known Tunisian citizen who is at the head of a group of companies with activities across the world. [ 2 ] The facts underlying the offence are described in a Joint Statement of Facts. In short, using two false names and two false e-mail accounts, Mr.

Jorgensen contacted KA and threatened to publicly release explicit sexual images, videos or material involving KA and members of his family, if KA did not comply with his demands. These demands included payment of US$2,500,000 in Bitcoins. [ 3 ] The Court must now sentence Mr. Jorgensen for this offense. The Crown is seeking a sentence of four years of imprisonment while the Defence is asking for a sentence of two years of imprisonment.

ANALYSIS General sentencing principles [ 4 ] The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention measures, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society [1] . [ 5 ] This purpose is met by the imposition of “just sanctions” that reflect the following sentencing objectives: denunciation, general and specific deterrence, separation of offenders, rehabilitation, reparation and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm caused to the victim and to the community [2] . [ 6 ] A sentence must always be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

The more serious the crime and its consequences, or the greater the offender’s degree of responsibility, the heavier the sentence will be. In other words, the severity of a sentence depends not only on the seriousness of the crime’s consequences, but also on the moral blameworthiness of the offender. Thus, whatever weight may be given to the sentencing objectives, the sentence must respect the fundamental principle of proportionality [3] . [ 7 ] In short, the determination of a just and appropriate sentence is a highly individualized exercise.

It requires the sentencing judge to balance sentencing principles and objectives while considering the circumstances of both the offense and the offender. It involves a variety of factors that are difficult to define with precision and that will be weighed differently depending upon the circumstances of each case. Sentencing principles applicable to extortion and to crimes involving threats to disclose sexually explicit material

[ 8 ] In R. v. Davis [4] , a case involving threats to disclose nude photographs in exchange for sexual favors, the Supreme Court noted that: “(

e) xtortion criminalizes intimidation and interference with freedom of choice. It punishes those who, through threats, accusations, menaces, or violence induce or attempt to induce their victims into doing anything or causing anything to be done. (…) When threats are coupled with demands, there is an inducement to accede to the demands. This interferes with the victim’s freedom of choice, as the victim may be coerced into doing something he or she would otherwise have chosen not to do” [5] . [ 9 ] Extortion is a crime of greed, premised on instilling fear.

It is an extremely serious offense in itself but, as it is broadly defined in the Criminal Code , it can occur in a wide variety of circumstances [6] . [ 10 ] As stated in R. v. Hunt [7] , access to social media has dramatically changed the potential impact of extortion. The release of intimate images through social media allows for the instant sharing and dissemination of these images on a worldwide basis, jeopardising the victim’s right to dignity, to sexual integrity and to privacy. Once these images have been shared, the damage is done.

It is very difficult for the victim to retrieve or to limit further dissemination of these images. As a result, the victim must not only live with the humiliation of seeing his or her intimate image disseminated but he or she must also live with the constant threat of seeing these images resurfacing. [ 11 ] Common sense and human experience dictate that a threat to release an intimate image is a powerful tool for extortion, considering the devastating and potentially long-lasting consequences attached to the sharing and dissemination of these images.

As a result, sentences for this type of crime should emphasize the need for denunciation and general deterrence. A person’s right to dignity, to sexual integrity and to privacy is of utmost important in our society. Principles applied to Mr. Jorgensen [ 12 ] The maximum sentence for extortion is life in prison.

This reflects the objective gravity of the offence. [ 13 ] The circumstances surrounding the offence, which are detailed in the Joint Statement of Facts, reveal the presence of the following aggravating circumstances: • The extortion extended over a two-month period: it began in mid-June and lasted until Mr. Jorgensen’s arrest in mid-August. • The extortion was premeditated, thoughtfully planned and executed. For example, false names and false e-mail accounts were used. • Over the two-month period during which the offence occurred, numerous threatening messages were sent to KA and his father.

These messages aimed at installing a climate of fear and at feeding this climate of fear. • While the extortion was directed toward KA, other members of his family, including his wife, his mother and his father, were targeted.

There is more than one victim in this matter. • The tool used for extortion was intimate images involving KA and other members of his family; the threat was the dissemination of these images on a large scale including: the social media, various individuals with whom KA and his family had dealings, local mosques, 4-5 stars hotels, restaurants, boutiques. • The treats were implemented: intimate images of KA’s wife, his mother and his father were sent to individuals with whom the family had dealings. • AK and his family suffered serious consequences as a result of Mr.

Jorgensen’s actions, as appear from the Victim Impact Statement. That being said, when one installs a climate of fear, such as the one installed by Mr. Jorgensen in this case, serious psychological consequences are to be expected. [ 14 ] As for the mitigating factors, there are two. First, Mr. Jorgensen pled guilty early enough in the criminal process to avoid the need for testimonies from AK and his family. Second, Mr. Jorgensen has no criminal record. At 47, he is a first offender. [ 15 ] In this regard, the personal circumstances of Mr. Jorgensen, are as follows: • Mr.

Jorgensen grew up in a stable and happy family. He is still close to his parents and his sister. His parents have always supported him financially. He did not need to work and, apart from a period of two years when he worked as a helicopter pilot, he did not report any income until 2017.

• Mr. Jorgensen now manages the family’s investments. While his family and friends are aware of the crime that he committed, they tend to minimise what actually occurred. One person even referred to the crime as a plan wrongly executed. • In her presentencing report, the probation officer noted that that Mr. Jorgensen lacks capacity for self-criticism, does not recognise that his actions were violent, blames KA for having complained to the police, denies that KA suffered a prejudice as a result of his actions, lacks empathy and cannot measure the consequences of his actions.

As a result of the foregoing, the probation officer is of the opinion that the risk of re-offending is present. [ 16 ] Overall, Mr. Jorgensen’s moral culpability is high. As stated before, the crime was premeditated. Its implementation necessitated the creation of false identities, the creation of false e-mail accounts and multiple communications with AK and his father over a two- month period. Thus, this crime cannot be explained by a momentarily lapse of judgment. [ 17 ] At the sentencing hearing, Mr.

Jorgensen’s lawyer argued that his client’s moral blameworthiness is attenuated by the fact that he was manipulated by an accomplice. While the phone seized at the time of Mr. Jorgensen’s arrest reveals that he had an accomplice, Mr. Jorgensen did not testify at the sentencing hearing. Consequently, there is no evidence that he was manipulated by his accomplice. All that the Court can say is that he did not act alone. This fact does not mitigate his moral blameworthiness. [ 18 ] In addition, the Court does not believe that Mr. Jorgensen’s actions were motivated by a desire to punish AK for his lifestyle.

Indeed, if that was the motivation, why not simply release the images and ruined AK’s reputation? In this regard, the Court shares the conclusion of the probation agent. Mr. Jorgensen’s actions were motivated by greed. [ 19 ] In light of the foregoing, the sentence to be imposed upon Mr. Jorgensen must reflect the need for denunciation and general deterrence. It must also reflect the need for specific deterrence. Mr. Jorgensen needs to understand that his actions were of a violent nature and caused harm to AK and his family.

While rehabilitation is always a factor to consider when faced with a first-time offender, this factor plays a lessor role in the matter at hand given that Mr. Jorgensen still cannot measure the consequences of his actions. Thus, taking into consideration that Mr. Jorgensen was detained for two days at the outset of this matter, the Court imposes a sentence of 30 months of imprisonment upon Mr. Jorgensen. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: IMPOSES a sentence of 30 months of imprisonment. In addition, IMPOSES : • a weapon prohibition order for 10 years, pursuant to s. 109 Cr.

C.; • a DNA order pursuant to s. 487.051 Cr. C. _________________________________ MÉLANIE HÉBERT, J.C.Q. Mtre Luc Pagé Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions For the Prosecutor Mtre Pierre L’Écuyer Morneau L'Ecuyer La Leggia Rouleau s.n. For the Accused Date of hearing: January 17, 2021