R. v. Alderman Date:, 2015 BCPC 221

Citation: R. v. Alderman Date: 20150528 2015 BCPC 0221 File No: 61049-2C Registry: Chilliwack IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. MATTHEW DAVID ALDERMAN ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE S. POINT Counsel for the Crown: P. Blessin Counsel for the Accused: J. Gustafson Place of Hearing: Chilliwack , B.C. Dates of Hearing: November 27, December 15, 2014 January 5, February 2, May 28, 2015 Date of Sentence: May 28, 2015

[ 1 ] THE COURT: This is my sentencing decision in regard to Mr. Alderman's conviction regarding attempt murder and aggravated assault. The trial was heard October 9th, 2014. The facts in this case have already been stated in my reasons for decision. [ 2 ] I have read the pre-sentence report prepared by Probation Officer Laurie Bay dated, I believe, on November 24th, 2014, a psychiatric assessment report prepared by Dr. Witold Widajewicz dated February 13th, 2013, and the psychiatric assessment prepared by Dr.

LaTorre dated August 15th, 2013. [ 3 ] Sentencing is not a science, rather subjective calculation that a judge makes based on the principles of sentencing, the appropriate case law, and the pre-sentence report prepared before sentencing. REGARDING THE ATTEMPT MURDER CONVICTION: [ 4 ] The Crown submits that the appropriate range for attempt murder was determined to be seven to 12 years and Crown references Mr. Justice Joyce's decision in R. v.

McFarlen , 2009 BCSC 1201 at para. 55 . [ 5 ] The defence submits however that the appropriate range is six years to eight years, citing cases that he submits more accurately parallel the facts of this case. [ 6 ] I agree that many of the Crown's authorities have aggravating factors that do not exist in the case at bar, namely, no weapon was used; this is not a domestic assault involving a spouse; the level of violence is fairly lower than many of the cases; but the possibility of death in my view was very high. [ 7 ] In this case, although the victim was not stabbed repeatedly or struck by a weapon or confined, she was attacked in what can be described as during somewhat normal activity and clearly unprovoked.

She was clearly afraid of having to confront Mr. Alderman about her desire to have him leave her home. She no longer felt safe with him being present. She had her cell phone in hand to call police should that be needed. [ 8 ] It was this act of asking him to leave her home and attempting to dial 9-1-1 that triggered the violent response from Mr. Alderman. [ 9 ] In a family dispute case where anger and conflict are often present with high emotional contact or broken promises, cheating spouses, or long unpaid child support payments, this is the background of often violent altercations between family members.

In this case, the victim had no history of family events. She was merely providing a room to someone who was temporarily without a home. [ 10 ] In this circumstance, Mr. Alderman's response is in my view even more frightening and callous. This is not the first time he has responded in a violent way to what he perceived as a slight on his sensibilities. His brother called him a faggot according to the information provided to Dr. LaTorre and his response was to stab him in the back with a knife. When his sister asked him to leave her home, he responded by trashing her personal property.

He said that she provoked him in this action. It is disturbing that Mr. Alderman seems to lack insight into his behaviour. [ 11 ] Dr. LaTorre in his report asked Mr. Alderman why he committed this offence and I quote: He said when he arrived home from work, the victim was ready for an argument. In the course of the argument, the victim picked up the phone to call the police and have him removed and "I disagreed with that and I intended to deflect the person's rage against me with decreasing success.

That set me off." He said he thought that he has being removed illegally and "this person had a convincing threat and would execute that threat against me." I asked him if he now believed that what he did was appropriate to the situation. He says it was. He said that if the victim had not threatened him the violence would not have happened. He said once the victim threatened him it was a physical process that occurred. He described the victim's mental assault and said "She was the aggressor and the intimidator in the argument." [ 12 ] Dr.

LaTorre continues: Overall, there was no sense of genuine guilt, shame, or remorse. He demonstrated no empathy and did not appreciate at all the potential psychological harm, let alone any physical harm he caused the victim. In fact, he appears to blame the victim for the offence, describing as the aggressor and intimidator who caused the violence by threatening him. He spoke of the index offence as a physical process, as though he had no control. Essentially, he asserted no personal responsibility. Mr.

Alderman appears to see himself as the victim in this matter and he provided a not too veiled threat to engage in further violence specifically to himself if he believes the Court also wrongs him by giving him a sentence he believes too lengthy. [ 13 ] This is for me the most aggravating factor in this case, that is, that Mr. Alderman appears cold and without remorse for his actions. [ 14 ] What is contradictory of this statement however is what he did after trying to take the victim's head off with his bare hands, which was to call 9-1-1. [ 15 ] He then took a knife out of a (indiscernible) in what appears to be

an act of remorse for his behaviour. Mr. Alderman did not try to flee from the scene, and in fact he stayed kneeling next to the victim. He later cooperated with the police investigation. He described what had happened. [ 16 ] It was at the completion of the trial that he appeared to have changed his mind about what ought to be the consequences of his

actions. He dismissed his counsel. In the pre-sentence report he said this about his intention apparently when he was speaking withpolice and I quote: According to the file information, Mr. Alderman initially informed police that the victim, essentially the landlady of the home where hewas rent a room for two months, spoke to him about moving. They argued. She said she would call police and had the phone in her hand.He put his hands around her neck and tried to kill her by popping her head off like a bullet.

When I reviewed the information with him, hesaid that was a "metaphor." He said he practiced mental flogging and this disclosure was his attempt to attack himself and what he did,that is, he was purposely trying to say the most callous thing he could in order to increase his sentence. He said he was essentiallyabusing himself in denying himself of a defence. [17] This statement is consistent with someone who believes he had done something wrong and wants to face the consequences outof a sense of remorse. This inconsistency in what Mr.

Alderman says on the one hand and what he does on the other, is what waspuzzling to me until I read the psychological assessment. He suffers from three mental conditions: borderline personality disorder, anti-social personality disorder, and schizotypal personality disorder and I quote the doctor's comments: "Individuals with borderline personality disorder make frantic efforts to avoid real and imagined abandonment. Anger is often elicitedwhen a caregiver or lover is seen as neglectful, withholding or abandoning. Mr.

Alderman's borderline features are exacerbated by hisanti-social personality disorder that is a pervasive pattern of disregard of the violation of the rights of others that begins in childhood orearly adolescence and continues in adulthood. Such individuals have done some conduct, disordered behavior by age 15 and Mr.Alderman has a history of acting out verbally against teachers and stabbing his brother by that age. Anti-social individuals tend to lackempathy and can be callous. They can be (indiscernible) and verbally facile. They tend to be impulsive and fail to plan ahead.

They tendto be dysphoric and can be irritable and aggressive consequently getting into physical fights. They can be indifferent to or providesuperficial rationalizations for having hurt someone, blame their victims or claiming they deserve their fate. They tend to minimize theharmful consequences of the behaviours." [18] The doctor concludes that because of these ailments Mr. Alderman poses a high risk of future violence of some form. Thedoctor lists several treatment plans that would assist Mr. Alderman in his obvious need to address his serious mental conditions. [19] Mr. Alderman is a young man.

He comes before the Court with only one previous conviction for mischief on is record. Hisbackground information indicates that he was bullied as a child by his older brother. He like many others who come to the attention ofthe justice system comes from a broken home. He has no substance abuse issues which is noteworthy. He has committed himself while incustody these several months to a series of counselling programs that indicates to me that he is interested in changing his life around. [20] Mr.

Gustafson urges the Court to consider a sentence of six years which is the lower end of what he suggests is the appropriaterange for this particular offence, given the circumstances of the offence, and Mr. Alderman's personal history [21] I should note that I am aware that the victim in this case continues to be afraid and concerned for her safety and she rues the daywhen Mr. Alderman will be released from prison. [22] I have concluded that the principles of specific deterrence and the need for protection of the public are primary in this case.

Iagree with defence that because this case can be viewed as less violent than those cases presented by the Crown that a less serioussentence ought to be imposed. [23] Nevertheless, the seriousness of what has happened and because of what I deem to be Mr. Alderman's cold and callous nature,he poses a high risk to commit other violent offences unless treated in a high intensity treatment program. It is my determination that a fitsentence in this case is eight years.

Given that he has already served three years and seven months, that would leave a remainder of fouryears, five months to serve. [24] As for the aggravated assault conviction, I would have thought that the case of R. v. Kienapple, (SCC), [1975]1 S.C.R. 729 would have applied. If I am wrong on that, I would impose a sentence of three years under that offence to be servedconcurrent with the other sentence. [25] MR. BLESSING: The other orders, Your Honour, I think need to be spoken to as well, DNA, firearms and s. 743.21. [26] THE COURT: I am making the order that he provide a sample of his DNA.

I am also making an order that he not possessfirearms for a period of ten years, and that he have no contact directly or indirectly with the named victim in this case pursuant to s.743.21. [27] MR. BLESSIN:

Section 743.21 and I am asking for both her and for Danicka Halliday (phonetic) the other Crown witness thatwe had in this proceedings. [28] THE COURT: What was the first? [29] MR. BLESSIN: Deborah and Danicka Halliday. I can give Madam Clerk the spelling of those. [30] THE COURT: Deborah and Danicka Halliday, yes. All right. (ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)