R. v. Desroches, 2015 BCSC 1287

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Desroches, 2015 BCSC 1287 Date: 20150625 Docket: 162124-3 Registry: Victoria Regina v. Joseph Melvin Desroches Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Bracken Oral Reasons for Sentence Counsel for the Crown: P. Weir and C. Jennings Counsel for the Accused: R. Dieno Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: Victoria, B.C. June 8 - 12, 2015 June 15 - 18, 2015 Place and Date of Judgment: Victoria, B.C. June 25, 2015 [ 1 ] THE COURT: The circumstances of this case are, as in all murder, tragic.

In this particular case, the accused, who has pled guilty to second degree murder, is a man in his early seventies. He led, up until March 18, 2014, an exemplary life. He started with no real advantage in life. Dr. O'Shaughnessy testified that from his history, Mr. Desroches came from a very large family of 20 children. He was the third youngest. He did not gain much of an education. He obtained Grade 6 and at some point, when he was 17 years old, he joined the Canadian military where he worked for the rest of his full-time working life.

After retirement, he found other employment in the Corps of Commissionaires, where he worked on a full-time basis for a while and, in the later part of his retirement, on a part-time basis. [ 2 ] Nothing bad has been said about Mr. Desroches in the course of these submissions or has come to the attention of the court. There was no police involvement with the family. There was no suggestion from the neighbours that anything was seriously wrong. There is nothing outside the four walls of the family residence that drew anyone's attention to Mr. Desroches or to the victim, his wife, Ms.

Desroches. [ 3 ] The circumstances are that Mr. Desroches was married longer than 40 years. I gather it was at times a difficult marriage, although not outwardly so. It appears that whatever the difficulties were, they were internalized by Mr. Desroches, not reacted to, and simply accepted as part of his married life. [ 4 ] He had acquired, in the course of perhaps his military history or military work, a World War II vintage Luger pistol, that is a 9mm pistol. He had kept it. He acquired all of the legal papers that were necessary to own and maintain a pistol such as that.

He kept it locked in accordance with the law that covers firearms in this country. He kept the ammunition separately, and he kept a small firing plate, which is placed on the side of the pistol, without which the pistol will not fire. It can be disassembled, but I gather it was not disassembled, and the disassembly can only be done once the firing plate has been removed. [ 5 ] For whatever reason, Mr. Desroches got up on the morning of March 18, let the dog, a family dog, albeit owned by his son, out into the backyard.

He then went to his workshop, where he unlocked the box the pistol was in, retrieved the ammunition, retrieved the firing plate and, using some degree of manual dexterity, affixed the firing plate to the weapon. He then loaded the weapon with four rounds of 9mm ammunition which he had possessed well prior to this event. He went to the backyard, shot his dog, then went up two flights of stairs to his wife's bedroom where she was sleeping, and he shot her through the chest. [ 6 ] After that Mr.

Desroches went back down to the main living area of the home, engaged the safety on the pistol, and placed it on the fireplace hearth near the front door, picked up the telephone, and called 9-1-1. He followed the police directions once they arrived, and he was arrested without incident. [ 7 ] The history of Mr. Desroches is totally inconsistent with what happened on the morning of March 18th. He has a history of work and consistency. He has a history of responsibility towards not only his work, but to members of his family, in particular to his wife. As Mr.

Dieno says, there appears in the material to be a history of a mutual dependency, in that Mr. Desroches relied on Ms. Desroches for much of the financial management of the home. She relied on him to get around, because she did not drive, and to do other things that assisted around the home. [ 8 ] The police described, and the photos taken by the police clearly confirm, a well-appointed, normal home that was kept in a neat

and tidy way, showing no sign of any dysfunction within the home. [ 9 ] The children are both adults. One lives in Victoria and is well-employed in the financial industry. The other lives in California, the daughter. Neither has wanted to express any public comment; however, his daughter, Kimberly, has communicated with Mr. Weir as Crown counsel, I take it on a confidential basis, but with the idea of assisting Mr. Weir and the Crown, and Mr. Dieno, as well, with at least some insight into the operation of the family. [ 10 ] Mr.

Desroches is described by his daughter as a very calm and simple man, who is a devout Catholic who attended church on a regular basis. He was a responsible employee. He was, outwardly at least, kind and considerate of the victim, his wife.

He had a disadvantaged background, but there is nothing to indicate that there was any abuse in that background, but he carried on in the military for all of his working life from the time he was a teenager. [ 11 ] The relationship between the Desroches' daughter, Kimberly, and the victim, her mother, appears from this material to be somewhat strained, although they were in constant contact and it is obvious, in spite of their difficulties, there was a respect between them. [ 12 ] As Mr. Justice Joyce stated in the case of R. v.

D.W.M. , 2005 BCSC 1061 , murder under any circumstances is a horrible crime, but as Mr. Justice Joyce went on to point out, the law recognizes varying degrees of responsibility and circumstances that surround the crime. In this case, the circumstances, although serious, are such that there is nothing in Mr. Desroches' background to indicate that a longer than minimum mandatory period of parole eligibility should be imposed. I accept that submission from both counsel, not just as a submission of counsel that they agree with, but one that I agree with as well. [ 13 ] The decision of R. v.

Waraich , 2008 BCSC 919 , is another example, as is D.W.M. , of situations where the minimum mandatory period of parole eligibility was imposed. [ 14 ] In this case, it is obvious from what Mr. Dieno says that the accused and his wife had very different backgrounds. They maintained a long relationship that was at least outwardly calm. There was no history of abusive behaviour by Mr. Desroches in the course of the relationship, and there was no evidence or indication of any violence by him towards her or, for that matter, towards anyone else. [ 15 ] Mr.

Dieno states that he had no motivation as that term is normally understood, and had no prior thoughts of wanting to see his wife dead. He also points out that he does not understand why the dog was shot, because he had demonstrated affection and felt affection for the dog. [ 16 ] Obviously these events have not been explained. They are not understood, perhaps, by Mr. Desroches himself. Dr. O'Shaughnessy prepared a report, as did Dr. Lohrasbe, both well-respected psychiatrists in this province, and the reports have been tendered. Mr.

Dieno has recommended that those reports be made available to the Corrections system, so that some assistance might be given to Mr. Desroches in the course of his imprisonment. I have no difficulty with that and I will recommend it, provided that Mr. Desroches is not objecting to having either report released to others. [ 17 ] In these circumstances, the law has but one sentence and that is a mandatory life sentence, but there is a variable with respect to the minimum period of parole eligibility. The minimum period is, as counsel have pointed out, 10 years. The maximum period of parole ineligibility is 25 years.

In this case, it is my view that the minimum mandatory period of ineligibility should be imposed and I will do so. [ 18 ] Mr. Desroches has not indicated any desire to speak to the court. He has done so through counsel and expressed some views, but I will again ask him if he wishes to say anything before I pass sentence. [ 19 ] Mr.

Desroches, would you stand please? [ 20 ] THE ACCUSED: No, My Lord. [ 21 ] THE COURT: Thank you. [ 22 ] Then, with that, I will impose a sentence of life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for a period of 10 years. [ 23 ] You will be prohibited from owning any firearm, ammunition, or explosives for life under s. 109. [ 24 ] There will be a direction and an order that you provide a sample of DNA pursuant to s. 487.051(1). That will be done in custody. [ 25 ] There will be a forfeiture order in the terms that have been presented to me as a draft order. Certain items of personal character will be returned.

The key items with respect to this matter, the firearm, the accoutrements, and associated issues with the firearm and other items that were seized by the police in the course of their investigation, will be forfeited to the Attorney General of Canada to be dealt with in accordance with his direction. [ 26 ] That, I believe, is all I need to do. [ 27 ] MR. WEIR: Just two things, My Lord. Just you indicated that the psychological reports have been tendered.

I don't believe they actually were tendered, but I will give effect, of course, to Your Lordship's wishes and -- [ 28 ] THE COURT: That is my recommendation. [ 29 ] MR. WEIR: -- and make them available.

[ 30 ] THE COURT: I think Mr. Dieno should indicate in writing that Mr. Desroches has no objection -- [ 31 ] MR. WEIR: Yes. [ 32 ] THE COURT: -- to those reports being made public, as they are very private. [ 33 ] MR. DIENO: Yes, I can do that, My Lord. Mr. Desroches does want those to accompany him to the federal system. [ 34 ] MR. WEIR: Right, as opposed to being -- I think Your Lordship said made public. I think that they -- they haven't been tendered. They will be filed with the appropriate correctional authorities. [ 35 ] THE COURT: Yes, thank you. [ 36 ] MR.

WEIR: And second of all, My Lord, I am wondering, given that it is not filed as an exhibit, if I might have that email returned, unless Your Lordship wishes to keep it for whatever reason. [ 37 ] THE COURT: Normally I would direct that at least it be sealed and retained on the court file, but because the position of counsel is in accord with my view, there is nothing contentious about the sentence, so I will pass it back without it being filed. [ 38 ] My thanks to counsel and that concludes matters. [ 39 ] MR. WEIR: Thank you. “J. K. Bracken, J.” The Honourable Mr. Justice Bracken