R. v. Seguin Date:, 2016 BCPC 31

Citation: R. v. Seguin Date: 20160127 2016 BCPC 0031 File No: 43339-1 Registry: Prince George IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. JACQUES HENRI SEGUIN REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE S. KEYES Counsel for the Crown: S. Mengering Counsel for the Defendant: B. Gilson, Q.C. Place of Hearing: Prince George , B.C. Date of Hearing: January 27, 2016 Date of Judgment: January 27, 2016 [ 1 ] THE COURT: Mr. Seguin pleaded guilty before me today to the offence of committing manslaughter with the use of a

firearm. Mr. Seguin killed his son, Christopher Seguin, on August 16th, 2013, by shooting him. [ 2 ] I heard evidence at a preliminary inquiry with respect to this matter in March 2015, and counsel submitted it was for that reason they placed this matter before me today. [ 3 ] They have agreed that I may consider the evidence given therein as part of the circumstances of this offence. I have also been provided with an agreed statement of facts with respect to the circumstances. [ 4 ] Mr. Seguin was 66 years old at the time of the events.

He had a close and loving relationship with his son Christopher, who suffered from Fragile X Syndrome, Bipolar Disorder, Type 2 Diabetes, and possibly Asperger’s Syndrome. [ 5 ] I also heard extensive evidence that Christopher struggled with the use of illicit drugs, and from time to time he exhibited mood swings that were sudden and irrational, and violent behaviour. [ 6 ] On August 16th, 2013, Mr. Seguin and his son were engaged in a ten day fishing trip, and staying at Mr.

Seguin's cabin, on the shores of Takla Lake. [ 7 ] After a day of fishing they went to a neighbour's cabin to barbeque the fish they caught. They were both drinking beer. Mr. Seguin brought his loaded rifle with him in case of bears. There was bear scat on the ground nearby. They were relaxed and happy. A couple of hours later, Mr. Seguin went back to his own cabin to retrieve some spices and carried the rifle with him. [ 8 ] When he returned his son Christopher was in a rage, but Mr. Seguin did not know why. He said, "Christopher just exploded." [ 9 ] Mr. Seguin shot Christopher three times with the rifle. Mr.

Seguin told me he did not really know what had happened. He said that he had once been attacked by a grizzly bear, and he reacted just the same way to Christopher's behaviour, and shot him without thought. [ 10 ] I infer from the Crown's decision to proffer a new Information, charging only manslaughter, that it is accepted that Mr. Seguin did not have any intention to kill his son, although the shooting was not an accident. [ 11 ] I find that Mr. Seguin shot his son in fear and alarm, in circumstances that did not amount to self-defence at law.

I find that the wrongful act which caused the death must have been the careless use of a firearm. [ 12 ] The Crown and Defence placed before me a joint submission for a sentence of four years. That is the mandatory minimum for this offence. Legal Principles [ 13 ] The general principles of sentencing, under s. 718 of the Criminal Code , require that the court weigh a number of considerations to arrive at a fit sentence.

These considerations include that a sentence ought to demonstrate that society denounces the offending conduct, and that the sentence ought to deter the offender and other people from committing such offences. [ 14 ] The sentence may separate the offender from society, if that is appropriate, and ought to attempt to rehabilitate offenders and provide reparations to the victim.

It should also promote a sense of responsibility in the offender, and provide an acknowledgement of the harm done to the victim. [ 15 ] Under s. 718.1, the fundamental principle is that the court must impose a sentence that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. A fit sentence must take into account the nature of the offence, the character of the offender, and the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence. [ 16 ] Under 718.2(

b) the sentence that the court imposes should be similar to sentence imposed on similar offenders for similar crimes. So I must consider previously decided cases to help arrive at a fit sentence. However, each case must be decided on its own facts with regard to the particular offender before the court. [ 17 ] Counsel have provided me with the case of Regina v. McMath , a 2015 decision of the B.C. Supreme Court, to assist with respect to the appropriate range of sentence. [ 18 ] In that case, Mr.

McMath was convicted of manslaughter after he accidentally shot his ex-wife, with a rifle that he had left loaded to shoot Coyotes. [ 19 ] In that case the unlawful act that he committed was to leave the firearm loaded with its safety off, with the result that when he tried to unload it he shot his ex-wife, causing her death. [ 20 ] In that case the sentence imposed was four years, the mandatory minimum. It was found to be a fit sentence in the circumstances. [ 21 ] In the circumstances of this case, the manslaughter of Christopher Seguin was not accidental, because Mr.

Seguin did point the rifle at him and shoot, and pull the trigger. However, I accept that he did not intend to kill him, nor expect that that would happen. [ 22 ] Ms. Mengering for the Crown points out that the aggravating factors in this case include that the parties were drinking alcohol, although it is not suggested that Mr.

Seguin was intoxicated, in the presence of a loaded firearm, and that there were serious consequences. [ 23 ] I am instructed that -- and I am quoting here -- "In identifying aggravating factors it is important not to rely on factors that are part of the offence itself, thus counting them twice, to the detriment of the offender." That comes from R. v. Desmond , 2011, BCSC 689 .

[ 24 ] The consequences of this event were, of course, as serious as they can possibly be, but I cannot consider that as an aggravating circumstance, given that it is the basis for the charge in the first place. [ 25 ] Thus, I find that it is somewhat aggravating that the parties were drinking, but since there is no evidence that Mr. Seguin was drinking excessively I do not find that to be an aggravating factor. In terms of mitigation [ 26 ] I accept that Mr. Seguin is bitterly remorseful, and has been from the moment that this event occurred.

The evidence from the neighbours and police officers who attended and dealt with Mr. Seguin is entirely uniform in that regard. Mr. Seguin was distraught and grief-stricken from the moment the event occurred. I accept that he loved his son, and had spent years supporting him and caring for him, despite his mental health problems and volatile temper. [ 27 ] Mr. Seguin tells me that as far as he is concerned his life is over. He sees his son's face every day. [ 28 ] I have read the victim impact statement from Nicole Seguin, Mr.

Seguin's daughter, and Christopher's sister, who eloquently describes the tragedy that has overcome her family. First, by her brother's mental health troubles, which brought fear and alarm to his family members, and then by his death, at the hands of her father. She says her father lives with a guilty broken heart. She has forgiven her father, and asks that I consider that in sentencing. [ 29 ] I am informed by Ms. Mengering that Charlene Seguin, Christopher's mother, says that she is sometimes angry and sometimes filled with compassion for Mr. Seguin, and sometimes filled with both.

She did not want to fill out a victim impact statement, and she said she would not be here today, and she is not. [ 30 ] I have considered submissions of counsel and the law. These circumstances are not at the very lowest end of seriousness for the offence of manslaughter with a firearm, but they are close to the lowest end. [ 31 ] With respect to the offender, however, I am of the view that Mr. Seguin, an older man with no criminal history at all, who is filled with grief and remorse, is someone at the least blameworthy end of the sentencing spectrum.

There is not much more the court could do to him by way of sentence that would be more than the life sentence he has imposed upon himself. [ 32 ] Counsel submits there is no need for specific deterrence, in this case, and I agree. I am satisfied that Mr. Seguin will not commit such an offence ever again. [ 33 ] With respect to the objective of general deterrence, I am also satisfied that the particular circumstances of this offence are very unique, and if another offender found himself in the very same position, this would likely be the very appropriate result. [ 34 ] Stand up, Mr.

Seguin. [ 35 ] I impose a sentence on you of four years, less credit for the time that you have served already, so that is less credit for 21 days. [ 36 ] There will also be a DNA order, and I will go through that in a minute; and a firearms prohibition, and I will go through that in a minute; and I will endorse for the record that I make a recommendation that Mr. Seguin be placed in a minimum security institution, and be given access to counselling for grief and loss. [ 37 ] I would say this to you, Mr. Seguin. I am told you are a devout Catholic, and you are filled with grief, and you are filled with guilt.

Atonement is a way to deal with guilt, and perhaps you will find a way to atone for your guilt by helping others in the future, as you helped Christopher in the past. And that is what I have to say to you about that. You can sit down. [ 38 ] With respect to the DNA order, this is a primary designated offence, and it is proper that a sample be taken from Mr. Seguin, and I will make that order. [ 39 ] Madam Clerk, it is pick list number 161.

Pursuant to s. 487.051(1) of the Criminal Code , I make an order in Form 5.03, authorizing the taking of a number of samples of bodily substances by any peace officer for the Province and British Columbia, that is reasonably required for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis and registration in the National DNA Databank from Jacques Henri Seguin, on or before February 28, 2016. [ 40 ] Mr. Seguin, all they do is just take a prick of your finger; it is not a big deal.

Okay? [ 41 ] Then with respect to firearms, there will be a mandatory firearms prohibition under s. 109 of the Criminal Code , and it will be for life. [ 42 ] 165: You are prohibited from possessing any firearm, crossbow, restricted weapon, prohibited weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substances for life. [ 43 ] Is there anything else, counsel? [ 44 ] MR. GILSON: Forfeiture order with respect to the weapon used in the offence. [ 45 ] THE COURT: All right. [ 46 ] MR. GILSON: My client has asked that it be destroyed. [ 47 ] THE COURT: All right.

I will make an order that the weapon used in this offence, which was seized by the police, will be forfeited to Her Majesty for destruction.

[ 48 ] MR. GILSON: Thank you, Your Honour. [ 49 ] THE COURT: Anything further? [ 50 ] MS. MENGERING: Thank you. Nothing further. [ 51 ] MR. GILSON: And thank you for the time of -- of looking through this. My client appreciates it. [ 52 ] THE COURT: Good luck, Mr. Seguin. [ 53 ] THE ACCUSED: Thank you, Your Honour. [ 54 ] THE COURT: You go with Madam Sheriff now. (REASONS CONCLUDED)