R. v. McNutt, 2020 NSSC 219

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. McNutt , 2020 NSSC 219 Date: 20200811 Docket: 498000, 498002, 498004, 498006, 498007 Registry: Halifax Between: Her Majesty The Queen v. Michael Patrick McNutt Restriction on Publication – Sections 486 of the Criminal Code Decision on Sentencing Judge: The Honourable Justice Jamie S.

Campbell Heard: August 10-11, 2020, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Counsel: Mark Heerema and Shauna MacDonald, Crown Attorney Colin Coady, Defence Attorney By the Court: Introduction [ 1 ] Michael McNutt has irreparably damaged the lives of so many people that it is hard to calculate or comprehend the scope of the harm that he has caused. He sexually preyed upon 34 boys, who are now grown men. They have suffered from childhoods that were severely disrupted. Some have dealt with depression. Some have struggled with substance abuse. Some have had ongoing issues with anger. Some have had a series of broken relationships.

It is a familiar pattern in cases that involve sexual violence against children. For each of those damaged lives there are grandparents, parents, spouses, former spouses, children, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, and professionals who have picked up the pieces, often without knowing why there were pieces to be picked up. [ 2 ] The sentencing of Michael McNutt will not put those pieces back together. What has happened cannot be changed. Those affected know that the only thing they can do is to try to cope, as they have tried to cope over these many years.

The only just conclusion in cases of stolen young lives would be to have those lives restored. That can’t be done. Nothing that happens to Michael McNutt is ever going to restore what he took, fix what he broke or ease the pain that he inflicted. [ 3 ] When Mr. McNutt spoke to the court yesterday, he expressed his remorse for what he had done. He hoped that the victims of his crimes would find closure. I hope that some of these men find that. Most won’t.

The pain of what they went through at the time and the decades of pain that followed will not somehow be ended when a 67 year old man is taken off to jail today. [ 4 ] People often call for justice for the victims of crime. Justice for those victims is not achieved by letting loose the angry impulse to extract vengeance. Vengeance is an emotional reaction driven by anger and masquerading as justice. Retribution is different. Retribution is not driven by anger.

It is the result of a reasoned and deliberate consideration of the consequences that ought to be imposed, having regard to all the circumstances including those of the person who is being sentenced. Sentencing is not done in anger

and when the crimes committed are of such a nature that anger is the only natural human reaction to them, it is particularly important that the impulse to vengeance be stayed by the hand of justice. Facts [ 5 ] The facts of this case are a catalogue of depraved predation. Michael McNutt was a sexual predator and a paedophile. [ 6 ] Each of these victims has suffered in his own way in some cases, over the course of the last 50 years. It is not enough to refer to 34 victims, as a group to convey the magnitude of what has happened.

While the sentencing of Michael McNutt is a single event, what happened to these boys, now for a long-time, grown men, was not a single event. For some the abuse they suffered happened many times. For others, the actual abuse happened once. But for all it was relived and reprocessed innumerable times over decades of trying to understand why this happened to them. [ 7 ] A paragraph or two in legal judgement summarizing a horrific event that has haunted a person for decades cannot begin to convey what happened here or why it happened, or why it continued to happen.

It is important however that, to the extent possible, the public record reflects the individual crimes that have been committed. The cumulative effect of Michael McNutt’s crimes should not be allowed to diminish the individual stories of individual lives. Each of these few paragraphs represents one of 34 lives and the multitude of other lives forever disrupted and damaged. [ 8 ] Mr. McNutt worked as a teacher in Sir Robert Borden Junior High in Dartmouth, from 1977 to 1983. As a result of complaints from parents about his behaviour with students he was given the opportunity to resign in 1983.

He resigned from his position. He started teaching again as a substitute with the Halifax District School Board in May 1985. That employment continued until a sexual offence complaint was made to the police in 1994. [ 9 ] During his time as a full- time teacher and substitute teacher Michael McNutt was involved in extracurricular activities. He was a coach on at least 11 baseball, hockey and football teams. [ 10 ] Mr. McNutt’s modus operandi was generally consistent across all the victims. The narrative of his crimes is a long one. It is a narrative that justice and history each demand be spoken out loud.

I have not referred to the victims by name or initials to preserve their privacy. Their anonymity should not diminish their individuality. [ 11 ] (Count 34) One of the victims reported that he first met Michael McNutt when Mr. McNutt was an umpire in the baseball league that the man played in as a boy. Mr. McNutt took an active interest in him. The boy was from a large family who could not afford many “extras”. His parents were happy that Mr. McNutt was showing such an interest in their son. Michael McNutt would often buy him pizza and ice cream.

One day Michael McNutt took the boy in his car to a park and began rubbing the boy’s genitals. Michael McNutt performed oral sex on the child on multiple occasions. In exchange Mr. McNutt gave him things that his parents could not afford. This was not an adolescent. This was a child. The boy was then between 10 and 12 years old. [ 12 ] (Count 25) Michael McNutt was a football coach during in the early 1970’s. One of the 10 or 11 year old boys was a particularly talented player. Michael McNutt asked him to come to his place so that they could go over some plays. He lived nearby so the boy walked over to Mr.

McNutt’s residence. They practised football in a local field then went back to Mr. McNutt’s place. They watched hockey before going to bed. After about 15 minutes in bed the boy felt Michael McNutt touching his genitals with his hand. He asked if the boy “liked that”. Michael McNutt told the boy that it was his decision who got the ball during games and because the boy wanted to please his coach he did not resist. He stayed the night and left the next morning. [ 13 ] (Count 26) In 1973-74 while Michael McNutt was coaching football, he rented a room at a local hotel with one of the other coaches.

Four or five players were invited, and alcohol and pizza were provided to the then 12 or 13 year old boys. Some of them stayed overnight with the two coaches. One of the boys woke up during the night to feeling Michael McNutt’s hand touching his penis. He pushed Mr. McNutt away twice. He left the hotel room in the morning and walked home. [ 14 ] (Count 4) Between 1976 and 1978 Michael McNutt was a Grade 7 and 8 teacher. He took the Grade 7 class camping. Four of the boys slept in a tent with him. Mr. McNutt kept bringing up the topic of masturbation. One of the victims, who was in that tent, related that Mr.

McNutt took a liking to him and would often call to speak with him. He felt flattered by the attention. He was 13 at the time. Mr. McNutt invited him to his apartment with another student. Mr. McNutt took them to the liquor store and bought beer. They drank beer and watched hockey. Both boys were invited to sleep in the bed with Mr. McNutt. He grabbed one of the boys’ genital area twice and after the second time the boy got up and slept on the couch. [ 15 ] (Count1) During the 1978-1979 Michael McNutt was a Grade 8 teacher and flag football coach.

He invited one of the boys to his home to watch a CFL game, saying that other students would be there as well. The boy was dropped off by his parents. No other students were there. Michael McNutt offered him beer and they watched the game on television. After they had drank a few beers, Michael McNutt told the boy that the other students couldn’t make it. The boy drank about 8 beers that evening. [ 16 ] Michael McNutt asked the boy to complete a questionnaire relating to sexual activity.

The questions included ones like, “Do you masturbate?”, “Do you ever think of other guys?” and “Have you ever been with a boy?”. The boy completed the questionnaire. [ 17 ] When the game was over the boy was feeling what he later as an adult, described as “pretty buzzed”. Michael McNutt suggested that he sleep in his bed. He awoke to find Michael McNutt’s hand on his waist moving toward his genitals. The boy pushed the hand away and said, “I’m not like that”. He fell asleep again and the same thing happened. The next morning Mr.

McNutt drove him to a sports practice. [ 18 ] (Count 2) That same year Michael McNutt invited 3 players from the junior high hockey team to stay over at his home to watch “Hockey Night in Canada.” During the evening Mr. McNutt took each of the 13 year old boys into a separate room. One of the boys said

that Mr. McNutt told him that he had a nice body and performed oral sex on the boy while the boy lay on the bed next to him. [ 19 ] (Count 3) Once again, during the 1978-1979 school year Michael McNutt invited one of the Grade 9 boys to his home to watch sports and to help coach a football team the next morning. The 14 year old boy felt honoured at the invitation from a cool and popular teacher. The boy’s parents dropped him off. Mr. McNutt offered him beer. He asked the boy whether, if there were no women left on earth it would be okay to sleep with a man.

The boy reported years later, as an adult, that he felt at the time instantly uncomfortable. After watching television and not wanting to insult the teacher, the boy agreed to sleep in the same bed with him. Mr. McNutt said to him that he should not feel surprised if he felt the bed shaking because “I may be masturbating”. The boy woke up to the bed shaking and heard Mr. McNutt masturbating in the bed next to him. He went to football practice with Mr. McNutt the next morning. [ 20 ] (Count 27) In the summer of 1979 Michael McNutt was a football coach.

One of the players invited a friend to play a few games with them that summer and that resulted in the friend being introduced to Michael McNutt. The player invited his friend to come to Mr. McNutt’s place for a BBQ and drinks. The boys were 13 or 14 years old at the time. The two boys went and there were two other boys at the BBQ along with Michael McNutt. That evening the boy who had been invited by his friend drank a lot of vodka and passed out. He woke up with Mr. McNutt touching his genitals under his underwear. The victim, now an adult, recalls the room spinning when this was happening.

He pulled away from Mr. McNutt and rolled over. He passed out again and woke to the sound of someone masturbating. He left the bedroom and went out to the couch. He left the next morning when Mr. McNutt was still in bed. [ 21 ] (Count 28) In the summer of 1980 Mr. McNutt invited 5 male students to go on a camping trip with him. He was then a grade 7 teacher. It was raining on the day they were to leave, and they went to Michael McNutt’s apartment to wait out the weather. Mr. McNutt offered each of the boys alcohol and cigarettes before asking them one by one to go into the bedroom.

One of the victims recounted that he was given a piece of paper with a series of questions such as, “Do you have pubic hair?” “Have you kissed a boy?” And “Have you seen another boy’s erection?” Mr. McNutt took them camping at a local park. Some of the boys slept in a tent and others slept in the car with Michael McNutt. Mr. McNutt said that they should sleep in their underwear to generate heat. The 12 year old boy awoke to Michael McNutt rubbing his back and trying to roll him over. He resisted and fell asleep. He was awakened again, and Michael McNutt had his hand down the boy’s underwear touching his genitals.

The boy was shocked and pretended to be waking up from a nightmare. He said that he had to leave the car and sat on a picnic table until morning. The next day he said that he was not feeling well, and Michael McNutt drove them all home. [ 22 ] (Count 29) Another victim reported that Michael McNutt was his teacher in junior high school. One day, when the boy was 15, Mr. McNutt asked him to come over so they could watch a baseball game together. They sat on the couch and the boy had two beers. Mr. McNutt said that the boy had a “buzz on” and should stay.

The next thing he remembered was laying in Michael McNutt’s bed and feeling like he couldn’t move. He could feel Michael McNutt’s hands “all over” him. He fell asleep and when he woke up his clothes had been removed. Michael McNutt put his hands on the boy’s penis and tried to masturbate him. The boy just laid there, pretending he was asleep. He got up the next morning, got dressed and left before Mr. McNutt woke up. [ 23 ] (Count 5 and 6) One of the victims reported that Michael McNutt was a family friend and coach around 1979 or 1980. He said that Mr. McNutt was like a “big brother” to him.

While on a trip for a baseball team, the boy was in a hotel room with his sister. Michael McNutt came into the room and began to touch the boy’s genitals with his hand while the boy was laying next to his sister. Later that summer the boy stayed at Mr. McNutt’s apartment a few times and on one occasion other intoxicated teenage boys were there. On each of the three occasions the boy would sleep in the same bed with Michael McNutt and Michael McNutt would perform oral sex on him.

He recalled that once Michael McNutt kissed him on the lips. [ 24 ] (Count 7) Also, during the 1979 to 1980 school year Michael McNutt offered extra help to a 14 or 15 year old boy who was struggling in school. Mr. McNutt took the boy to his apartment and gave him liquor. Mr. McNutt sat next to him on the couch and began to feel the boy’s upper thigh. The boy left and never saw Michael McNutt again. [ 25 ] (Count 8) In the summer of 1980 Michael McNutt was coaching boys’ baseball. The team had a tournament in Truro.

One of the boys reported that he travelled to Truro with Michael McNutt another coach and another player. They shared a room and the boy slept in the bed with Michael McNutt. During the night he woke up to find Mr. McNutt touching his genitals with his hand. The boy was 13 or 14 years old. [ 26 ] (Count 9) Another 13 or 14 year old boy was on a baseball team that Michael McNutt coached in 1980 or 1981. The parents, coaches and players would get together at the home of one of the players. Michael McNutt got alcohol to one of the boys during one of these get togethers.

He suggested to the boy that the boy and some of the others go with him to a nearby school to hang out. They did. Mr. McNutt began to rub the boy’s leg and said that it would be “really hot” if the boy and his friends kissed. On another occasion when Michael McNutt was housesitting for someone, he invited a few players to come over. One of the boys had been drinking that night and didn’t want to get in trouble so he stayed with Mr. McNutt. Mr. McNutt provided more alcohol and at the end of the evening the boy fell asleep on the couch. He awoke to Michael McNutt touching his genitals with his hand.

The boy left, crying. [ 27 ] (Count 10) Just before Christmas of 1980 Michael McNutt asked one of the Grade 8 boys if he and a friend would help to move some furniture. The friend was not allowed to go. One boy went. Mr. McNutt gave him a Coke with rum in it. They watched television and talked about hockey and girls. Michael McNutt asked him if he would ever consider being with a guy and told him that other students were involved in that sort of thing. [ 28 ] The boy went to leave but felt tipsy from the alcohol. He was worried that his parents would know that he had been drinking.

Michael McNutt told him that a massage would help to sober him up. Mr. McNutt told him to take his shirt off and lay on the bed. The boy told him not to go below the waist. The massage didn’t help to sober him up. Mr. McNutt grabbed the boy’s crotch over his pants and said, “You’re enjoying this.” Mr. McNutt then drove the 13 year old boy home. [ 29 ] (Count 11) Once again during the 1980-1981 school year three boys went to Mr. McNutt’s apartment where he provided them with alcohol. There were other teenaged students there when they arrived.

The boys were taking turns going into a bedroom and engaging in sexual activities with a teenaged girl. One of the boys said that Michael McNutt said to him things like, “You should really

get a blowjob from her…It’s really good, you gotta do that.” At the end of the night the boy was laying on the couch when Michael McNutt grabbed his penis and tried to masturbate him. He said that Mr. McNutt told him he should think about that girl. The boy was 14. [ 30 ] (Count 12) Michael McNutt was a hockey coach in the 1980-981 school year at Sir Robert Borden. Toward the end of the season he invited a 12 year old to his place for an end of year sleep over and pizza party. The boy was dropped off at Mr. McNutt’s apartment. No other teammates were invited.

There was a lot of alcohol present and Michael McNutt gave the boy rum and Coke. Mr. McNutt offered to call some girls to the apartment to have sex with the boy. The boy said he was not ready to have sex yet. [ 31 ] Michael McNutt told the boy that by looking at him he could tell that he was ready. Mr. McNutt began to rub the boy’s body over his clothes, removed his clothes and began rubbing the boy’s penis over his underwear. Mr.

McNutt then removed the underwear and performed oral sex on the boy. [ 32 ] (Count 13) In April 1981 Michael McNutt invited a 13 year male student and one of his friends to come over to his apartment to hang out. Mr. McNutt told the boys that he would speak to their parents and say that he needed their help moving units within the apartment building. That was just a ruse to get the boys to his place. Once in the apartment Mr. McNutt gave the boys alcohol. One of the boys vomited on himself. He lay on the couch and awoke to Mr.

McNutt grabbing his penis. [ 33 ] (Count 14) In the summer of 1981 Michael McNutt asked one of the boys to come to his place and throw a baseball with him. The 14 year old boy went. Mr. McNutt drove him around in his car and let the boy steer for a while. When they got back to the apartment Mr. McNutt told the boy he could have a shower but asked him to keep the door open. [ 34 ] A few weeks later Mr. McNutt asked the boy if he wanted to borrow the car again. The boy went to his apartment and Mr. McNutt took him to the bedroom where he touched the boy’s penis with his hand.

The boy said that he did not want to do that, but that Mr. McNutt could do it if he would give him his car. Mr. McNutt offered to the boy that he could bring his girlfriend back to the apartment and they could use the bedroom. [ 35 ] The boy picked up his girlfriend and they went back to Mr. McNutt’s apartment. They went into the bedroom and got in bed. They were there for a few minutes and Michael McNutt came into the bedroom and got into bed with them. The boy told him to leave which he did. [ 36 ] The boy took his girlfriend home and came back to Mr. McNutt’s apartment. While there Mr.

McNutt performed oral sex on him, telling him that it was payment for the use of the car and the bedroom. The boy came back a few weeks later because Michael McNutt said that he had a gift for him. He gave the boy a Rubik’s cube and grabbed his crotch. The boy left and quit the baseball team. [ 37 ] (Count 30) Also, in the summer of 1981 Mr. McNutt was introduced to a boy who was in Grade 5. That came about through a man who owned a trailer where the boy used to hang out with some of his friends. The boy went to Mr. McNutt’s apartment a few times during that summer. Mr. McNutt offered him cigarettes and beer.

The boy was provided with a questionnaire that had questions like “What colour is your underwear?” And “Do you like to play with yourself?” On one occasion in the apartment, Mr. McNutt took the boy into the bedroom and laid him on the bed. He did not say anything to the boy before he started to perform oral sex on him. The victim said that at the time he was too young to get an erection. Michael McNutt stopped. The boy left and never came back. The child was 10 years old. [ 38 ] (Count 31) Yet again, in the summer of 1981 Michael McNutt was coaching baseball and took his team to a tournament in Stellarton. Mr.

McNutt slept in a room with three players. One of the boys shared a bed with him. He said that before he fell asleep, he felt Michael McNutt reach over him and touch his penis. Mr. McNutt tried to masturbate the boy and told the boy that he could masturbate him if he wanted to. The boy rolled off the bed and wedged himself between the bed and the wall. He stayed there for the night. He tried to avoid Michael McNutt after that. [ 39 ] (Count 32) In May of 1982 Michael McNutt was coaching a bantam baseball team. He took and interest in one boy and told the boy that he would have to work extra hard to make the team.

The boy got a call from Michael McNutt who asked him to come over to his place to organize some equipment. When he got there Michael McNutt offered him alcohol. Mr. McNutt left the room at one point and returned, naked and fondling his own penis. The victim said that as a boy he believed Mr. McNutt liked him and that they were doing “adult things”. Once again, Michael McNutt left a questionnaire on the kitchen table and told him to fill it out. It had questions like: “Are you prepared to travel? Will your parents be coming with you? Would you be willing to share a bed with a player/coach?

If you were in bed with a coach and it rolled over with an erection and it touched you, would you be ok with that or how would you react?” Mr. McNutt took a shower and came out naked, rubbing his genitals with the towel. They then went to the YMCA. Mr. McNutt took him to the sauna and took his towel off so that he was naked. Mr. McNutt encouraged the boy to take his shorts off so that he was naked as well, telling him that was how it was done in Europe. The boy refused. Mr. McNutt insisted that they have another shower and again pressured the boy to take his shorts off.

McNutt tugged at the boy’s shorts and belittled him for not taking a proper shower. The boy would not take his shorts off. Mr. McNutt drove him home and told him not to tell anyone, suggesting that if the other guys on the team knew they would hate the boy. The boy was 15. [ 40 ] (Count 15) During the 1985-1986 school year Mr. McNutt was a substitute teacher at St. Stephen’s Elementary School. One of the boys, who did not have a father figure in his life, would talk to Mr. McNutt about hockey which was “his life”. Mr. McNutt would take him for drives in his car, take him swimming or to play video games.

Michael McNutt would provide him with alcohol and the boy would get drunk. On more than one occasion Mr. McNutt massaged him and performed oral sex on him. The boy was 13 years old at the time. [ 41 ] (Count 35) Around the same time, between 1985 and 1986 Mr. McNutt took three boys to his apartment. They were about 13 years old. The boys sat on the couch and Mr. McNutt provided them with a questionnaire that had questions on it like: “What kind of sex do you like?” and “ Have you ever had sex before?” Michael McNutt provided the boys with alcohol.

One of the victims related that his next memory was waking up in Mr. McNutt’s bedroom with Mr. McNutt performing oral sex on him. He quickly got up and left.

[ 42 ] (Count 16) In 1986-1987 Mr. McNutt was coaching hockey. He asked one the boys to complete a “questionnaire” that contained questions about alcohol and sexual fantasies. One occasion Mr. McNutt gave the boy alcohol and started rubbing his shoulders. He then started rubbing the boy’s genitals with his foot. Following that Mr. McNutt performed oral sex on the 13 year old boy on multiple occasions at the rink. [ 43 ] (Count 17) In April 1987 one of the boys told Mr. McNutt that he was planning a party with some friends. They were going to invite some older girls. Mr.

McNutt said that they could have the party at his friend’s place in Dartmouth. The party ended up being just himself and two friends, along with Michael McNutt’s at Mr. McNutt’s place. Eventually the boy was left alone with Michael McNutt and Mr. McNutt said that he was too drunk to drive the boy home. Mr. McNutt said that he would sleep on the couch so that the boy could have the bed. The boy woke up to find Michael McNutt in the bed with him, naked with an erection and moving toward the boy’s belt. The boy then insisted that Mr. McNutt drive him home, which he did.

The boy was 13 at the time. [ 44 ] (Count 18) Another man reported that as 13 year old boy, during the 1986-1987 school year, he looked up to Michael McNutt. He had experienced episodes of abuse and lacked positive adult role models in his life. He became aware that Mr. McNutt would rent hotel rooms where players on the hockey team would party and drink. He went to one of these parties and sat on the bed next to Michael McNutt. Mr. McNutt asked him questions relating to sexual activity like whether he masturbated and how. He was drunk and eventually passed out.

When he woke up is pants were being removed and his genitals were being touched by Michael McNutt. He was able to push Mr. McNutt’s hand away. [ 45 ] (Count 19) Michael McNutt was a substitute teacher in 1986-1987. One day on the street he bumped into one of the 12 or 13 year old boys he taught. He asked the boy to come to his home for a visit. The boy agreed. Mr. McNutt brought the boy to his bedroom and they sat on the bed talking about sexual activity. Michael McNutt began touching the boy’s penis with his hands.

The boy left and went to a friend’s house. [ 46 ] (Count 20) In the spring of 1987 Michael McNutt told one of the boys that he could help him make a hockey team. They had met at the boy’s home. Mr. McNutt asked the boy and one of his friends if they wanted to hang out. He took them to the wave pool, and they watched a movie. He told them about different sports massages and massaged their backs. He gave them alcohol and cigarettes. He continued to do massages with the boy completely naked and performed oral sex on the boy on multiple occasions.

One occasion of oral sex was in a classroom when the boy was doing detention. During some of these times, Michael McNutt would perform similar acts on the boy’s friends, in his presence. Mr. McNutt would become frustrated when the boy could not get an erection. Mr. McNutt told the boy that if he said anything about what was happening, he, Mr. McNutt would “get” the boy’s sister. There is no evidence that Mr. McNutt had any intention of hurting the boy’s sister. The threat was intended to secure his silence. The boy was 13 years old. [ 47 ] (Count 33) In the summer of 1987 Mr. McNutt was coaching bantam baseball.

He invited two boys from the team to hang out with him at a hotel in Dartmouth. He gave the boys alcohol and cigarettes. One of the boys got very sick and the other was sent to get a pizza. The boy who had got sick passed out and when he woke up Mr. McNutt was touching his penis. The boy who had gone for pizza later told his friend that Mr. McNutt had performed oral sex on him. The boys were about 14. [ 48 ] (Count 21) Michael McNutt was a bantam hockey coach between 1987 and 1989. He was a substitute teacher at that time as well. One victim reported that as a boy he liked playing hockey for Mr.

McNutt and wanted to impress him. He knew that Mr. McNutt would rent hotel rooms and have small groups of players over. During one of these times he too received the “questionnaire” which included whether he would ever let a man suck his penis. Mr. McNutt would often take him for drives in his car. Before the boy turned 14 Michael McNutt performed oral sex on him, more than once and at more than one location. It often occurred in the presence of the boy’s friends and was in exchange for alcohol, cigarettes and extra ice time. [ 49 ] (Count 22) From 1987 to 1989 Mr.

McNutt was a substitute teacher at Westmount School. He was also a baseball and hockey coach. Another victim reported that Mr. McNutt would provide him and his friends with alcohol and cigarettes. He too reported about the questionnaire and the sports massages. After one such massage Mr. McNutt touched his penis and began to masturbate him. After that, and before the boy turned 14, Michael McNutt performed oral sex on him, more than once and in more than one location.

Once again, that often occurred in the presence of the boy’s friends. [ 50 ] (Count 23) One victim described how when he was 10 years old, he considered Michael McNutt to be a “hero”. Mr. McNutt was a coach and substitute teacher. He eventually began bringing beer to the baseball field and would offer it to the boy. Shortly after that the boy began going to Mr. McNutt’s home to drink with him there. [ 51 ] The first sexual incident happened about 3 months after the boy met Mr. McNutt. He woke up naked in Mr. McNutt’s home. Michael McNutt told him that he had been so drunk he threw up on his clothes and Mr.

McNutt had to wash them. About a week later he woke up again naked, in Michael McNutt’s residence with Mr. McNutt performing oral sex on him. Over the next two years Mr. McNutt performed oral sex on the boy multiple times until 1984. As with some of the others, sometimes friends of the boy would be present when this happened. Michael McNutt would ask the boy and his friends to engage in sexual activities together. [ 52 ] (Count 24) Another victim met Michael McNutt through another adult male when he was about 11 years old.

He and his friends used to go to that person’s trailer where they would “engage” in sexual activities with him. He would promise them alcohol, drugs and a dirt bike. That man introduced the boy to Michael McNutt. He and some friends went to a hotel with Michael McNutt. They drank alcohol there. On the second occasion they met, the boy went to Michael McNutt’s apartment with some friends. Mr. McNutt was buying pizza for people who had helped in move in. When he arrived, Mr. McNutt asked him to sign a consent form for anything that happened there.

The boy and his friends signed the form, drank alcohol, watched porn movies and looked at porn magazines. After that second occasion Michael McNutt began to hang out with the boy and his friends over the years 1984 and 1985. Mr. McNutt would provide them with alcohol, cigarettes and other things. Over that time Michael McNutt performed oral sex on the boy multiple times. During some of those occasions the boy’s friends were present and Michael McNutt would perform sexual activities on them and encouraged them to perform sexual acts on each other. [ 53 ] I have to pause at this point.

The magnitude of what happened to each of these men should not be lost or lessened by being part

of a long list. [ 54 ] One of the victim impact statements summarized what many experienced. It was not read in court, but it is important that those words be spoken. When I was sexually abused by Michael McNutt as a prepubescent buy, it left me with a feeling that is hard to put in words. I thought I was going insane. I had no sense of myself and my place in the world. It left me feeling extremely alone, numb and detached from reality. I never played hockey again. School became about enduring crippling anxiety and life seemed to lose all joy. A child has no compass with which to navigate such turmoil.

I was not emotionally mature enough to comprehend what had happened, and my role in the abuse. I just felt shame and guilt, like I was a bad person with a terrible secret. I struggled with this silently, every day, especially the next school year as I was back in his classroom with him as my teacher and homeroom where he had full authority over me and my grades. For the next forty years, that scared, guilty, ashamed child has been locked inside of me. I did what most abused children do. I locked him and his terrible secret up in a very dark place inside of me.

I hid away from life and was terrified that somehow someone would realize he is there, and my secret would be revealed. I tried very hard to pretend that I was OK and normal and just pushed this scared little boy out of my life as much as possible. He would reappear through the years mostly in situations where I had to trust someone. He would re-emerge and fill me with dread because he was scared to get hurt again. I have lived with this scared little boy in the shadows of my psyche for decades. He has permeated all areas of my life.

All my relationships, personal and professional have been tainted by his presence. I have hated him, shamed him denied him and even blamed him. He is just a frightened, sad lonely little boy. Your Honour, today I want to welcome that little boy into this court with open arms. I want to embrace him fully. I want to tell him it wasn’t his fault. I want to tell him that he is a good, lovely little boy. I want to tell him that he does deserve happiness and a good life. I want to welcome him home, to the light. I want him to know that we have heard him, believe him and now will work to make it up to him.

Most of all Your Honour I want to tell him that I love him very much. [ 55 ] That boy felt alone. He was not alone. And is not alone. There were others like him. There are others like him even today. There are children now enduring that pain and adults enduring the pain of abuse that took place years ago. That cannot be allowed to go unnoticed. [ 56 ] There are questions that will likely be on the minds of many. How could this happen? How can a man, holding various positions of authority, abuse 34 unrelated children and adolescents, undetected, over a period of about two decades?

Michael McNutt [ 57 ] Sentencing an offender involves dealing with the tension between free will and determinism. Paedophiles do not choose to have the sexual urges that they have. People do not decide to be addicted to alcohol or drugs. At the same time, those people can make choices and are responsible for the choices that they make. [ 58 ] Sentencing also engages the tension between who a person was and who a person is. People change over the course of their lives. Some change in very profound ways. The person being sentenced may be very different in many ways from the person who committed the crimes.

But they are the same person. [ 59 ] Those tensions are particularly relevant when considering the circumstances of Michael McNutt. [ 60 ] Mr. McNutt is now 67 years old. When he was an adolescent, he was sexually abused. The first incident happened when he was about 14 years old and involved a “playground leader” who was in his late teens. The second incident happened when he was about 15 years old and involved a stranger walking through a park. Both sexual assaults involved the person performing oral sex on Mr. McNutt.

The victims in this case have carried the weight of what was done to them through their lives and it is not surprising that Michael McNutt has had struggles as well. [ 61 ] Since the time when these offences took place Mr. McNutt has sought out psychological help for what has been described as his sexual deviancy. At that time, he was going through bouts of anxiety and was trying to deal with his own sexual identity. He could not, at that time, properly separate his own experiences of abuse as an adolescent from his own sense of sexuality.

The conflict about his own sexuality and the inability at the time to reach out for professional help pushed him toward substance abuse. He became a chronic alcoholic and lived in a haze of intoxication. [ 62 ] He was convicted in 1994 of sexual assault on a 15 year old boy in 1987. He took the boy to a hotel, got him drunk and sexually assaulted him while the boy was sleeping. It is entirely consistent with the pattern of behaviour that emerges in this case. He was given a suspended sentence and ordered to serve three years of probation.

He was, in 1994, already in the process of reaching out for professional help. [ 63 ] Mr. McNutt was able to more fully acknowledge his sexual “difficulties” and received specialized treatment to deal with his risk. A report from Dr. Brad Kelln in 2013 said that the treatment “ has resulted in a vastly different individual who no longer lives in a state of perpetual risk- a managed, improved state he claims he has maintained for close to 20 years.” Michael McNutt before then was wrestling with demons. His own sexual abuse as an adolescent, his paedophilia, his struggle with his own sexual identity and substance

abuse combined to be a very powerful force. [64] Michael McNutt was, when he committed these offences, an adult. He was not suffering from any condition that prevented himfrom understanding the nature and consequences of his actions. He knew, at the time, that his sexual abuse of children and adolescentswas both morally and legally wrong. But he did it anyway. And he made sure that he was not caught. His personal circumstances providesomething by way of an explanation, but they do not operate as an excuse. [65] At 67, Michael McNutt is in very many ways a different person that he was 30 years ago and more.

He has a supportive family.He is heavily involved in his church. There are several people who think and speak highly of the person who Michael McNutt is today.He has maintained sobriety for the last 30 years. He has not been charged with committing any criminal acts in the last 30 years. He hasa low risk of re-offending.

In other words, if a person did not know the train of destruction for which he is responsible thirty years ago,they would assume that Michael McNutt was a decent and respectable person. [66] Michael McNutt at 67 is required to pay the high price of the crimes committed by Michael McNutt of 27 or 37. The sad realityis that the consequences of his behaviour remain with the victims. And he must face the consequences of that behaviour as well. MichaelMcNutt is a changed person, but he is the same person.

His past has come back to haunt him as his past has haunted the victims in thismatter for decades. [67] It would a travesty of justice if a person could avoid justice by evading justice. Mr. McNutt has lived for decades, perhaps infear of being caught, but in the community, without any penal consequences. He has worked to make himself a better person and that, inits own way, is and ought to be its own reward. It has enabled him to live in the shadow of what he has done but has helped him to avoidcontinuation of his crimes. [68] Mr. McNutt is perhaps technically a “first offender”.

The crimes for which he is being sentenced took place before those forwhich he was sentenced in the 1990’s. It is a phrase that makes no sense in the context of what he has done. The first time he abused achild sexually was a first offence. Doing that over the course of 19 years without being caught is not a continuation of a first offence. Itis certainly not a situation in which he had to be caught and sentenced to fully know how wrong his actions were. Covid-19 [69] Mr. McNutt suffers from a number of conditions. Dr. Gillian Hamilton is his family doctor.

She described those health concernsthat make him particularly vulnerable should he contact Covid-19 while incarcerated. He has COPD and is a lung cancer survivor. If hecontracts the virus while in jail the consequences for him as a 67 year old with comorbidities relating to his lungs, could be lethal. It hasbeen argued on Mr. McNutt’s behalf that his sentence should be reduced to account for the collateral consequences of potentiallycontracting Covid-19. Collateral consequences may be considered when sentencing an offender. Those consequences address the personal circumstances of theindividual being sentenced.

While the risk of infection may be higher in the institutional setting, though the is no evidence to support thatassertion, the current pandemic does not justify a general reduction of the sentence to account for that potential in all cases. There may becircumstances in which it might tip the balance in favour of a noncustodial sentence as opposed to a relatively brief period ofincarceration. Given the length of sentence involved here, even a reduction for those collateral consequences would not have a practical effect on theoutcome. Guilty Plea [70] Mr.

McNutt’s guilty pleas in this matter have spared his victims from participating in what would be likely to be a very long andcomplex trial. Those guilty pleas were made without a joint recommendation on sentence. It is, as Justice Green said in R. v. Stuckless,(2016) 2016 ONCJ 338 , O.J.

No.3030, “worthy of consideration as a strong and meaningful mitigating factor.” Guilty pleaswithout a joint recommendation speak to real remorse, the acceptance of responsibility and the desire to save the victims from the harmof testifying. [71] An early guilty plea is more of a mitigating factor than one entered at the last moment. Mr. McNutt expressed his interest inentering pleas at a very early stage. [72] There is no Canadian case that sets a percentage reduction for the entering of guilty pleas.

The practise in England and NewZealand appears to be that sentences are reduced on a sliding scale from a recommended one-third when the plea is entered at the firstopportunity to a recommended one -quarter after a trial date has been set. That is in the context of a sentencing formula. [73] In Canada, a guilty plea is a factor to be considered. It is not a discounting of the otherwise appropriate length of sentence. It isto be considered within the broader context of the case and having regard to the other aggravating and mitigating factors.

It is animportant and significant factor, but it is not part of a formula. [74] Mr. McNutt spoke briefly yesterday. He knows that there is nothing that he can say that will bring any comfort to these men.He is genuinely sorry. He has not asked for forgiveness because, as he says, he is not sure that he can ever forgive himself. Aggravating Factors

[ 75 ] The victims of Mr. McNutt’s actions were children and adolescents. He used his position of trust to lure them into a position in which he could abuse them and used his position of trust to secure their silence for many years. A pattern of behaviour can be seen. He lured boys using his position as a teacher or coach, plied them with alcohol, cigarettes and other favours and sexually abused them. Sometimes he appeared as a father figure, as a tutor or as a mentor.

It is an unspeakable breach of trust against not only the victims, but their families and their community. [ 76 ] In one case abuse happened on school property and in the same case, Mr. McNutt made a threat to the victim that he would “get” his sister. On other occasions the abuse happened on school trips or on sport trips. On some occasions it happened while the boys’ peers were present. [ 77 ] This was not a single act in which a person’s moral judgement was overcome by his impulses. It was not a case of multiple instances taking place over a brief time.

Abuse in these circumstances was not merely a series of actions but became a pattern of behaviour that persisted over 19 years. A generation of boys were his victims. [ 78 ] And there were 34 of them. Some of them were abused multiple times. Sexual Offences as Violent Crimes [ 79 ] In R. v. Friesen 2020 SCC 9 , the Supreme Court of Canada set out the law on sentencing for sexual offences against children. The Manitoba Court of Appeal described it as having “pressed the reset button”. R. v. KNDW , 2020 MBCA 52 .

The strong message explicitly sent by the court was that sexual offences against children are violent crimes. They exploit the vulnerability of children and cause profound harm to them, their families and their communities. “Sentences for these crimes must increase.” Friesen , at para. 5 . [ 80 ] In the judgement the court addresses the past judicial treatment of these offences and takes an approach that clearly and directly focuses on the wrongfulness of the actions and the harmfulness of sexually abusing children.

The “new direction” set by the court was to give better effect to Parliament’s repeated message that sentences pertaining to sexual violence must increase. [ 81 ] The court noted that the degree of responsibility of the offender is especially heightened and highly blameworthy where an offender recognizes children’s vulnerability and intentionally exploits it to achieve their selfish desires.

Parliament’s decision to prioritize denunciation and deterrence for offences involving children was said by the court to confirm the need for courts to impose more severe sanctions. “Dated precedents” should be treated cautiously. [ 82 ] The court did not set ranges but sent the message that mid-single digit penitentiary terms for sexual offences against children are normal and that upper single digit and double-digit penitentiary terms should be neither unusual nor reserved for rare of exceptional circumstances. [ 83 ] The court set out 6 factors to be considered, among others.

The likelihood to re-offend is a factor that here is in Mr. McNutt’s favour. The abuse of a position of trust is a factor. The duration and frequency of abuse is a factor. Courts should not “discount a sentence simply because numerous incidents of sexual violence are covered by a single charge instead of multiple charges.” Paras. 131- 133. The age of victim is a factor. The degree of physical interference is a factor. The court noted that it is wrong to downgrade the wrongfulness of sexual assault where it does not include penetration or oral sex.

The Supreme Court encourages courts to avoid using the terms “caressing” or “fondling”. When an underaged victim is abused it is wrong for a court to consider their participation or de facto consent. They cannot give consent in any way. [ 84 ] The Supreme Court of Canada statements in Friesen apply here. Canadian law has come to stress, in ever more certain terms, how wrong it is to abuse children. The thing is it was always wrong. That is not a revelation that has only just recently come to light.

People in the 1970’s and 1980’s knew, without question, that it was wrong for adults to sexually abuse or molest children and adolescents. Michael McNutt knew that it was wrong. He knew that if he were caught there would be consequences. [ 85 ] What we have come to know is how serious and long lasting the consequences of sexual abuse are for the victims of the crimes. Sentences must reflect that. Sentencing Mr. McNutt while pretending in some way to not know that would be wrong.

It would amount to applying misconceptions and prejudices from decades ago to a court proceeding happening in 2020. [ 86 ] It is not applying a modern mandatory minimum sentence to an “historical” sexual assault. The child victims of sexual abuse that happened 30 years ago suffered as much as the child victims of sexual abuse today. Discounting a sentence to account for the fallacies and misconceptions of thirty years ago would be wrong.

Sentence for Each Offence [ 87 ] In many other jurisdictions courts determine an appropriate global sentence and then apportion individual sentences and whether they are consecutive or concurrent. In Nova Scotia a sentencing judge must determine the appropriate sentence for each offence, then determine whether those sentences are to be imposed consecutively or concurrently and only then, where consecutive sentences are imposed apply the totality principle to determine whether the aggregate sentence exceeds what is just and appropriate. [ 88 ] There are 35 offences, with 34 victims, on which Mr.

McNutt is to be sentenced. Each one represents an individual whose life was changed by it. They are referred to here by the number of the count. The are categorized by the type of abuse that took place.

Category A are singular incidents of sexual touching over clothes, or exposure. Category B are touching genitals and/or penis, and/or attempted masturbation. Category C are singular incidents of oral sex upon the boys. Category D are multiple times, multiple locations of oral sex upon the youth. There are any number of other classification schemes that might be applied. And any classification runs the risk of being perceived as minimizing the significance of what has happened in individual cases. But given the number of charges involved it is a practical necessity. [ 89 ] There are three kinds of charges. Gross indecency was found in

section 157 of the Criminal Code . It was repealed in 1988. Indecent assault on a male was set out in

section 156. It was repealed in 1983. Sexual assault was found in

section 246.1. It came into force in 1983 and replaced the other sexual offences. In 1988

section 246.1 was renumbered to be

section 271. It is important to note that Mr. McNutt was not charged with offences that make illegal any act that would be legal under the law today. [ 90 ] While past precedents have to be considered carefully in light of the direction from the Supreme Court of Canada, they do provide some guidance.

Mid-single digit penitentiary sentences are now the norm for sexual offences against children. [ 91 ] Category A: Count 1. –Two attempts of sexual touching over the clothes. (Gross indecency): 6 months Count 3: While both in bed together, masturbated himself beside the boy. (Gross indecency): 1 year Count 7: – Placed his hand on the boy’s upper thigh over the clothes. (Gross indecency): 6 months Count 17: While sleeping on the couch the boy awoke to Michael McNutt naked and erect making hand movements towards the boy’s belt. (Gross indecency): 1 year Count 32: Exposed himself fully, while fondling his own penis in front of the boy. (Gross indecency): 6 months [ 92 ] Category B: Count 4: While in the same bed, twice grabbed the boy’s genital area. (Indecent assault): 3 years Count 8: While in the same bed, touched the boy’s genitals. (Indecent assault): 3 years Count 9: While in the same bed, touched the boy’s genitals. (Indecent assault): 3 years Count 10: Grabbed the boys crotch over his pants: 2 years Count 11: While on the couch, grabbed the boy’s penis and attempted to masturbate him. (Indecent assault): 3 years Count 13: While the boy was sleeping on the couch, grabbed the boy’s penis. (Indecent assault): 3 years Count 18: The boy awoke to Michael McNutt touching his genitals. (Sexual assault): 3 years Count 19: Touched the boy’s penis with his hands. (Sexual assault): 3 years Count 25: While in bed with the boy touched the boy’s genitals. (Indecent assault): 3 years Count 26: The boy awoke in the middle of the night to Michael McNutt touching his penis. (Indecent assault): 3 years Count 27: While in bed with the boy, touched the boy’s genitals. (Indecent assault): 3 years Count 28: While camping, fondled the boy’s genitals. (Indecent assault): 3 years Count 29: While in bed with the boy, touched the boy’s penis and attempted to masturbate him. (Indecent assault): 3 years Count 31: While in bed with the boy, touched the boy’s penis and attempted to masturbate him. (Indecent assault): 3 years [ 93 ] Category C: Count 2: While in bed, performed oral sex on the boy. (Indecent assault): 4 years Count 12: While at Michael McNutt’s’ apartment, Michael McNutt removed the boy’s’ clothes, rubbed the boy’s penis and performed oral sex on him. (Indecent assault); 4 years Count 30: While at Michael MacNutt’s apartment, Michael McNutt performed oral sex on the boy. (Indecent assault): 4 years Count 33: While at a hotel in Dartmouth, Michael McNutt performed oral sex on the boy. (Sexual assault): 3 years Count 35: While at Michael McNutt’s apartment, Michael McNutt performed oral sex on the boy. (Indecent assault): 4 years

[ 94 ] Category D: Counts 5 & 6: The boy stayed over at Michael McNutt’s apartment on three (3) separate occasions, on each occasion, while in his bed, Michael McNutt would perform oral sex on the boy. (Indecent assault); 3 years and 5 years Count 14: While at Michael McNutt’s apartment, Michael McNutt touched the boy’s penis. On another date he grabbed the boy’s crotch over his clothes.

Also, on another date, he performed oral sex on the boy. (Indecent assault): 5 years Count 15: On more than one occasion Michael McNutt performed oral sex on the boy. (Sexual assault): 6 years Count 16: On one occasion he rubbed the boy’s genitals with his feet and on more than one occasion performed oral sex on the boy. (Sexual assault): 6 years Count 20: On multiple occasions he performed oral sex on the boy. (Sexual assault): 7 years Count 21: On multiple occasions performed oral sex on the boy. (Sexual assault); 7 years Count 22: On one occasion he masturbated the boy, and on multiple occasions performed oral sex on him. (Sexual assault): 7 years Count 23: On multiple occasions, over a two (2) year period, he performed oral sex on the boy. (Indecent assault): 7 years Count 24: On multiple occasions, over a two (2) year period, he performed oral sex on the boy. (Sexual assault): 7 years Count 34: On multiple occasions, over a two (2) year period, Michael McNutt performed oral sex on the boy. (Indecent assault): 6 years [ 95 ] If each instance were considered on its own, those would be fit and appropriate sentences, having regard to the direction given by the Supreme Court of Canada, the aggravating factors involved and taking into account Mr.

McNutt’s own circumstances. Concurrent or Consecutive Sentences [ 96 ] Only offences that share a sufficiently close relationship should attract concurrent sentences. In this situation, each count on the indictment, except Count 5 and Count 6 which name the same person, relate to individual victims. Each count would in and of itself be a serious matter and each count deals with the life of one person. There would be no reason to impose concurrent sentences except for Count 5 and 6, which should be considered to run concurrently.

Totality [ 97 ] Taken together those sentences would amount to a prison term of over 120 years. Even if each individual sentence were to be reduced by 50% the total would exceed 60 years. Even if these individual sentences were reduced by 75%, which would be well below what they would or should attract, the sentence would be more than 30 years. The cases of multiple instances of abuse which attract sentences of 7 years. If those sentences were to be reduced by 75%, that would result in sentences of 21 months.

For cases involving multiple instances of abuse of children and adolescents by a person in authority that would be entirely inadequate. But added together they would result in a period of incarceration of about 30 years.

The real issue in this case is how the moral blameworthiness of Michael McNutt in sexually abusing 34 victims over 19 years can be reflected in the sentence that is to be imposed. [ 98 ] Even if one were to accept that outdated sentencing principles should apply in cases of historical sexual abuse, that Michael McNutt should be given extravagant credit for pleading guilty early in the process, or that his sentences should be reduced for the collateral consequences Covid-19 the total sentence would be at least 30 years. [ 99 ] When the totality principle is applied the court must consider whether those consecutive sentences exceed the overall culpability of the offender.

In this case, Mr. McNutt’s overall culpability is high. There can be no doubt of that. [ 100 ] He should be given credit for what he has done to make himself a different and better person. His own troubling circumstances should be acknowledged and accounted for in his sentencing. His true remorse, beyond mouthing the words of regret, and demonstrated in his early guilty pleas, should play an important role in determining how long he should spend in jail. [ 101 ] As I said at the outset, sentencing should not be done in anger.

Looking at Michael McNutt now, knowing about the sexual impulses against which he had to fight, knowing about his inability to come to terms with his own sexual identity, knowing about his struggles with substance abuse and knowing about his own history as a victim of sexual abuse, one cannot help but see him as a fellow flawed human being. Some may find it in their hearts, perhaps, to have some pity for him now. Others, for their perfectly understandable reasons, may regard him only with contempt. [ 102 ] For Michael McNutt, a sentence is not about rehabilitation.

This sentence does not have its focus on helping him to become, some day, a person who is fit to rejoin society. He has done that. Its focus is not on separating him from society to protect society. There is no reason to think that Michael McNutt now poses much of any risk to anyone. It may not even have much to do with “sending a message” to others contemplating abusing children. It is unlikely that many people, who are now like Michael McNutt was, will think twice about abusing a child because they know that the consequences are severe. [ 103 ] This is about denunciation and retribution.

Serious crimes and have been committed and from them have flowed serious consequences for the victims. It will not restore the victims, their families and loved ones and it will not restore the community. No one, in the long run, will feel better or feel that a weight has been removed from their shoulders. Sexual abuse is a violent crime against children. As a society we have to denounce it, in strong terms. It reflects both our values as a society and what we value as a society.

Allowing people to do this to children, now or 30 years ago, without serious consequences, is to say that we do not find those acts morally reprehensible and we do not value the lives of those most in need of our protection. It is something that must be done.

[ 104 ] This is, in the end, a cold and unpleasant end to just a part of a sad and sordid episode. For too many people this is not the end at all. [ 105 ] A sentence of 15 years as recommended by the Crown, is appropriate. Michael McNutt will be 82 years old when the sentence warrant expires. [ 106 ] I will sign the SOIRA order, the

section 161 order, the DNA order, and the

section 109 firearms order. [ 107 ] The issue then is how a 15 year sentence can be put into effect to reflect the principle of totality. At this point, it is a calculation exercise. Reducing each sentence on each count would show sentences for those offences that do not begin to reflect their seriousness. Ordering some sentences to be served concurrently would have to be done in a way that does not reflect the principles that apply to concurrent sentences.

The circumstances of this case, with 35 counts involving 34 victims, justify engaging in the calculation exercise required to reach a just and reasonable outcome. While these offences would not ordinarily be served concurrently, with the exception of the two involving the same victim, that is being done for the purpose of giving effect to the principle of totality. [ 108 ] Counts 1 ,3, 7, 17, and 32 are to be served concurrent to each other and consecutive to the other sentences.

That means that the total for this group is 1 year. [ 109 ] Counts 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 31 are to be served concurrent to each other and consecutive to other sentences. The total served for this group is 3 years. [ 110 ] Counts 2, 12, 30, 33 and 35 are to be served concurrent to each other and consecutive to other sentences. The total for this group is then 4 years. [ 111 ] Counts 5, 6, 14, 15, 16, 20, 22, 23, 24, and 34 are to be served concurrent to each other and consecutive to other sentences.

The total for this group is 7 years. [ 112 ] The total for the sentences to be served consecutively is 15 years. Campbell, J.