R. v. Weeks, 2018 BCPC 275

Citation: R. v. Weeks 2018 BCPC 275 Date: 20181031 File Nos: 168890-4-C; 174986-1 Registry: Victoria IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. SEAMUS MARTIN WEEKS REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE C. ROGERS Counsel for the Crown: C. Fisher Counsel for the Accused: C. Considine, Q.C. Place of Hearing: Victoria , B.C. Dates of Hearing: August 27 and August 30, 2018 Date of Sentence: October 31, 2018 INTRODUCTION

[ 1 ] Mr. Weeks has entered guilty pleas to a total of ten counts on two Informations involving 14 victims. The charges include three counts of extortion, one count of luring, one count of possession of child pornography, one count of invitation to sexual touching, three counts of criminal harassment and one count of threatening. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENCE [ 2 ] An agreed statement of facts has been filed in this matter and sets out the circumstances of these offences in detail. [ 3 ] In September 2015, just before the first of these offences commenced, Mr. Weeks contacted a friend from high school online.

He told her that they were going to have sex that night or he would post images of her on a teen sluts porn website. The friend told him that his behaviour constituted child pornography, threatening and cyber bullying and she was calling the police. She did so. Police then spoke to Mr. Weeks and warned him about his conduct. He was told not to repeat this type of behaviour but no further action was taken. [ 4 ] The offences before me commenced on November 12, 2015. The first victim, SC, was 14 years old when Mr. Weeks began communicating with her on social media. He was unknown to her.

She resided in the United States. The conversation started casually and she told him she was 15. He then started asking her for nude photographs. When she denied his request he first pleaded with her but shortly began to call her degrading names. Eventually she complied with his request. His requests for nude photographs progressed to demands for videos of her touching her genital area with her hands and later inserting objects into her vagina. He became more demanding and more abusive. He told her he wanted to make her bleed and told her to insert a sharpened pencil into her genital area.

He had her deliberately hurt herself and when she protested that it hurt too much he said “I hope this hurts you. Mabey itl teach you to talk back or not give me wht I want”. When she told him she didn’t want to comply with his demands, he threatened to post the photos and videos she had sent him online if she didn’t do as he asked. He told her he was going to go to where she lived to sexually assault her. She told him she had cut herself due to his behaviour towards her and that she just wanted him to leave her alone. She told him “I can’t take it anymore” and “I just want to fucking kill myself”.

She told him he ruined her life. None of this stopped Mr. Weeks. [ 5 ] One count of extortion, one count of luring, one count of possession of child pornography and one count of invitation to sexual touching relate to the offences against SC that are found in Counts 1, 2 and 3 on Information 168890-C-4 and Count 1 on Information 174986. [ 6 ] While the investigation proceeded to try and identify SC’s offender, Mr. Weeks made contact with 13 other young females. [ 7 ] The victim MGA knew Mr. Weeks through mutual friends. At an earlier time, she had sent Mr. Weeks naked photos of her at his request.

He kept asking for more and eventually she stopped communicating with him. In January 2016, when she was 16, he contacted her again and referenced the pictures she had sent earlier. He then demanded more pictures and said he would post the earlier photos online if she didn’t comply. She did not comply and told him she would contact the police unless he deleted the previous pictures. He agreed to delete the photos. Several months later he contacted her again using an alias, Brook Simper. He demanded she respond to his messages or he would put naked photos of her online. He called her a slut.

She did not respond. [ 8 ] MB met Mr. Weeks when she was 17 and sent him some intimate images. In January 2016, when she was 19, he started sending her messages saying that he would distribute the images she had sent earlier unless she complied with his demands. He demanded more nude photos. He persisted in contacting her despite her requests that he leave her alone. He contacted her by text message and called her. At one point he threatened to rape her if she did not “get him off” that day. He continued to harass her through to June 2016. At that point a friend of hers, AW, spoke to Mr.

Weeks on the phone, pretending to be MB. He told her that if she wanted her photos deleted she would have to meet him in person. At one point in the conversation, AW asked Mr. Weeks “I don’t get it, what gets you off on listening to me and threatening me that you’re gonna rape me, how does that make you feel, why does that make you feel good?” Mr. Weeks replied, “I don’t know, it just does.” AW told Mr. Weeks how wrong his behaviour was and Mr. Weeks then went into detail about how he would sexually assault her when they met. The conversation was very upsetting to AW.

She described crying when she hung up and feeling helpless, shocked and angry. Arrangements were made for MB to meet with Mr. Weeks. She attended but brought friends for safety. He attended but left when he saw she was not alone. [ 9 ] These events give rise to a charge of criminal harassment and a charge of threatening, Count 5 and 6 on Information 168890-C- 4. [ 10 ] The victim MD knew Mr. Weeks through mutual friends. He contacted her in February 2016, when she was 15, and told her that he would post compromising pictures of her online if she did not send him nude pictures.

She did not respond. [ 11 ] The victim HV received a number of messages from Mr. Weeks using the name Brook Simper in June 2016. He threatened to put compromising photos and a video of her online if she did not do what he wanted. She was a friend of Mr. Weeks but did not know it was him contacting her. She had previously given Mr. Weeks nude images of her because he had begged her to do so. She spoke to Mr. Weeks about the messages she had received and he told her to do as ‘Simper’ wanted. She did not.

Instead she spoke to her father and the school principal and police were contacted. [ 12 ] LC was 18 when she was contacted by Mr. Weeks in June 2016 using the name Brooke Simper. His first message demanded she respond to him or he would put photo-shopped images of her online. His next message called her a slut. She did not respond. [ 13 ] In June 2016, CH was 12 years old. Mr. Weeks contacted her using the name Brook Simper. He demanded she respond or he would put photo-shopped images of her online. When she responded, he demanded a photo, called her a slut, and threatened to post her photo online.

He said he wanted her to call him and moan. He also called her. She contacted police. [ 14 ] MP was 17 years old when ‘Brook Simper’ contacted her in June 2016. He demanded she respond or he would post photo- shopped images of her on social media. He also asked for a recording of her moaning. She told him to stop or she would report him to the police. He continued to threaten her and called her repeatedly. She reported the matter to her school principal and then to police.

[ 15 ] HR was 17 when ‘Brook Simper’ contacted her in June 2016 demanding she respond or he would post a photo-shopped image of her online. After a second similar message, she told Mr. Weeks she was underage and that nude photos of her constituted child pornography, were illegal, and she would contact police. He then asked her to call him and moan until he reached climax. He called her but she did not answer.

She contacted police. [ 16 ] KSS was 16 in June 2016 when she received a communication from ‘Brook Simper’ demanding she answer or he would show everyone at a local high school her “tits”. [ 17 ] KD was 26 when she was contacted by ‘Brook Simper’ in June 2016 demanding she do as he said or he would post a photo of “your perky tits onto a teen slut porn blog”.

She reported him to Facebook and the police. [ 18 ] The communications with MD, MGA, HV, LC, CH, MP, HR, KSS and KD are reflected in a single count of criminal harassment, Count 4 on Information 168890-C-4. [ 19 ] AR was 13 years old when she first received a message from ‘Brook Simper’ on June 13, 2016 demanding that she respond or he would put a photo-shopped image of her on social media. He said he was “horny”, wanted her to “talk dirty to him” or record her voice moaning. He told her to “rub her clit”. He then called her. She told him she was only 13.

He responded by saying he would send “a screen shot of u rubbing ur pussy” to all the students at [a local] middle school. AR, with the assistance of her boyfriend, identified Mr. Weeks IP address and provided it to the police. [ 20 ] These events give rise to a Count of extortion, Count 2 on Information 174986. [ 21 ] EL was 18 when she was contacted by ‘Brook Simper’ on June 21, 2016, her last day of high school. He called her a slut and said he had topless photos of her and that if she didn’t answer he would put a photo-shopped image of her on social media. He called her.

He accurately described the type of car she drove and knew what school she went to. She hung up. He called again and asked her to send him a voice recording of her moaning. She was scared and contacted the police. EL had known Mr. Weeks two years earlier and suspected he might be the offender. Two days after her report to the police she saw Mr. Weeks walking near her house, which caused her considerable fear. [ 22 ] These events give rise to a count of criminal harassment, Count 7 on Information 168890-C-4. [ 23 ] On June 22, 2016, Mr. Weeks, posing as Brook Simper, contacted SD, who was 14.

He demanded she answer him or he would “show everyone at [a local high school] your tits”. He called her repeatedly. He said he wanted her to “turn him on”. She made suicidal comments and he told her that she should just do what he wanted to “make her more willing to leave” the planet. She told him her age. He asked her intimate questions. He said he had intimate images of her. When she asked to see the images he asked to meet her in person and said he would show her after she let him kiss her “and stuff.” He then offered her $100 to meet him.

He said if she did not comply he would post a photo of her breasts on the websites of three local high schools. When she did not comply he started calling her a “slut” and offered her $200 to see her “ass in a thong”. He offered to pay her to moan into the phone. She contacted police. [ 24 ] This contact gives rise to a count of extortion, Count 3 on Information 174986. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENDER [ 25 ] At the sentencing hearing I had the benefit of a pre-sentence report, a psychiatric assessment, a risk assessment, and two reports of treatment undertaken by Mr. Weeks after this offence.

I also received two letters of apology from Mr. Weeks and letters of support from his parents and a number of friends. Mr. Weeks orally expressed his remorse to the court. [ 26 ] Mr. Weeks was 18 years old at the time of all of these offences. [ 27 ] Mr. Weeks had a stable upbringing and his parents remain supportive of him. He has a grade 12 education and was attending university in Kamloops when these offences commenced. He did not complete this program but has since been employed full time in a number of different positions. [ 28 ] Since these offences, Mr. Weeks has made considerable rehabilitative efforts.

Mr. Weeks has been engaged in counselling with Mr. McWhinnie since his arrest and, at the time of sentencing, had completed 31 sessions of counselling and, in Mr. McWhinnie’s opinion, had made considerable progress. THE RISK ASSESSMENT [ 29 ] Mr. McWhinnie conducted a risk assessment with Mr. Weeks. He provided two reports to the court that address both risk and the results of counselling with Mr. Weeks. [ 30 ] Mr. McWhinnie was cross-examined in these proceedings. On the basis of that cross-examination, Crown challenges Mr. McWhinnie’s objectivity, given his counselling relationship with Mr. Weeks.

Crown also points to several concerns with his risk assessment. [ 31 ] I share the Crown concerns about Mr. McWhinnie. His expertise in risk assessment was not apparent. I found many of his answers in cross-examination revealed a less than objective approach to his role as an expert. This is undoubtedly the result of his therapeutic relationship with Mr. Weeks. [ 32 ] While I accept that the counselling conducted by Mr. McWhinnie has been to Mr. Weeks’ benefit, and I accept that Mr. Weeks has made rehabilitative progress through counselling, I struggle with some of Mr.

McWhinnie’s conclusions. [ 33 ] With respect to the risk analysis, Mr. McWhinnie clearly mixed information received in counselling sessions with risk

assessment information. He accepted Mr. Weeks answers to questions without any apparent confirmation or even questioning of Mr.Weeks. He entered low scores on some risk assessment items without any apparent foundation, or at least without the ability to expressthat foundation. [34] Mr. McWhinnie proffered a theory that Mr. Weeks’ actions were less morally culpable due to the depersonalization of internetinteractions. But this theory, which Mr. McWhinnie admitted on cross-examination, was based solely on literature and Mr.

Weeks’statement that he didn’t know why he had committed these crimes, disregards the very personal nature of many of Mr. Weeks’ crimes. A number of his victims were friends or acquaintances of his, some of whom he interacted with during his crimes. For example, after heinteracted with HV online using an alias, she spoke to Mr. Weeks, as a friend, about these online communications, not knowing it wasMr. Weeks. He encouraged her to do as ‘Brook Simper’ wanted. He arranged a meeting with MB and actually showed up to themeeting. He made reference in his communications with EL to the car she drove.

None of this is consistent with disassociation. Mr.Weeks clearly knew these were real people who were impacted by his actions. [35] In the result, I find I am unable to accept Mr. McWhinnie’s conclusions regarding Mr. Weeks risk to reoffend. [36] I also have the benefit of a report from Dr. Lopes, completed in January 2018. Dr. Lopes relied upon the risk assessment of Mr.McWhinnie in coming to the conclusion that Mr. Weeks represented an above average risk for future sexual recidivism. He noted thatMr. Weeks has a long way to go to learn from his behaviour and not reoffend. He stated that Mr.

Weeks shows very poor insight. Heconcluded, however, and I accept, that “Mr. Weeks’ risk can be managed in the community if he is prepared to abide by [a] strict set ofrules and conditions.” He makes recommendations as to what those conditions should be.

CROWN AND DEFENCE POSITIONS [37] The Crown takes the position that the appropriate sentence for these offences is a global sentence of three years. [38] Defence counsel suggests a sentence of 90 days intermittent, followed by a 21 month less a day conditional sentence order,followed by three years’ probation. [39] At the time that these offences occurred there were mandatory minimum sentences for the offences of luring (six months),possession of child pornography (six months) and invitation to sexual touching (90 days). The defence has filed Notice of a Charterchallenge to those mandatory minimum sentences.

Counsel agree, as per the guidance in R. v. Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13, that I shoulddetermine the appropriate sentence as if there were no mandatory minimum sentence. Only if the sentence I determine appropriate isless than the mandatory minimum will it be necessary for the Charter challenge to be heard. [40] Defence also advised that he intends to challenge the constitutionality of s. 718.3(7)(

a) of the Criminal Code, which mandatesthat the sentence for possession of child pornography (Count 2) must be consecutive to the sentence for luring and invitation to sexualtouching (Counts 1 and 3) because all three of these offences involve the same victim. Although Lloyd does not speak directly to thissort of challenge, the same logic applies. If the sentence I would impose is such that the mandatory consecutive provisions do not impactits length, it will not be necessary for the Charter challenge to be heard. PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVES OF SENTENCE [41]

Section 718 of the Criminal Code sets out the purpose and objectives of sentencing. It is clear that the primary objectives Imust consider in sentencing Mr. Weeks for these crimes are denunciation and deterrence. [42]

Section 718.01 states that, if the offence involves the abuse of a person under eighteen, denunciation and deterrence are theprimary sentencing considerations. [43] In R. v. Aimee, 2010 BCSC 1463, the court quoted with favour the comments of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Folino(2005), (ON CA), 77 OR (3d) 641, on the seriousness of the offence of child luring: . . . the offence of child luring must be dealt with seriously by the courts. The social policy underlying the enactment of this offence isclear. Many Canadian families have home computers with Internet access.

Children are frequent users of the Internet. Children, asvulnerable members of our society, must be safeguarded against predators who abuse the Internet to lure children into situations wherethey can be sexually exploited and abused. In most circumstances involving the offence of child luring, the sentencing goals ofdenunciation and deterrence will require a sentence of institutional incarceration. [paragraph 69] [44] In R. v. McLean, 2016 SKCA 93, the court stated that denunciation and deterrence are the dominant objectives in sentencing forextortion.

The court in that case also commented on the importance of denunciation and deterrence in crimes involving the exploitationof children, stating: The focus of the sentencing hearing for persons who have exploited children must be on the harm caused to the child by the offender’sconduct and the life-altering consequences that flow from it.

Although other sentencing objectives are always in play, the objectives ofdenunciation, deterrence and the need to separate sexual predators from society take the forefront. [paragraph 27] [45] It is worth noting that the offender in the McLean case was 18 years old at the time of his offences. [46] In R. v. McFarlane, 2018 MBCA 48, the Manitoba Court of Appeal commented on the serious of this type of extortion: In terms of proportionality, the gravity of the extortion offence was serious. Extortion is punishable by up to life imprisonment.

Forgood reason, extortionists have been treated harshly by the courts for centuries. It is also important to appreciate that sextortion is a formof sexual violence even though it occurs though the medium of the internet. As with physical abuse, a victim’s freedom of choice overhis or her sexual integrity is violated. The long-term psychological harm to a victim as was seen here, closely resembles what happens ina case of physical sexual assault . . . . Finally, it is difficult to hold such offenders accountable because the crime is remotely committed

and the nature of the internet provides predators with a degree of anonymity . . . . [paragraph 19] [ 47 ] In R. v. Lacasse , 2015 SCC 64 , the Supreme Court of Canada commented on the importance of the objectives of deterrence and denunciation in sentencing for offences committed by otherwise ordinarily law-abiding citizens. [ 48 ] Counsel for Mr. Weeks, in his argument, suggested that the principles of denunciation and general deterrence were less important in this case as a result of Mr. Weeks’ young age and his significant rehabilitative efforts.

While his young age and efforts at rehabilitation are mitigating factors, and mean that rehabilitation must also be considered, they do not minimize the importance of denunciation and general deterrence as sentencing objectives for these offences. PROPORTIONALITY [ 49 ]

Section 718.1 requires the court to consider the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [ 50 ] The circumstances of these offences are very serious. [ 51 ] Gravity is informed by the maximum sentences for a crime. Mr. Weeks has entered guilty pleas to three counts of extortion. Extortion carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. [ 52 ] In R. v. Miller , 2016 SKCA 32 , the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal commented on the gravity of the offence of luring: One cannot overstate the seriousness of luring as an offence.

There is sometimes a belief that anonymity merits no consequences and, therefore, any persuasive techniques are acceptable. The manipulation of vulnerable young people through the anonymity of the Internet is a serious societal problem.

Such manipulation will often take place in the safety of the victim's home and in the privacy of their own room. [paragraph 23] [ 53 ] In McLean , the court commented on the gravity of a luring offence that involves extortion, stating that “it represents a substantial jump from the use of cajoling and manipulation or a strong demand as part of luring behaviour and elevates the behaviour to a demand enforced by a threat”. [paragraph 32] [ 54 ] In Mackie , 2014 ABCA 221 , the Alberta Court of Appeal commented on the gravity of sexual crimes committed against children using the internet: We have come to understand the full magnitude of the impact such crimes have on children and that some have even resorted to suicide to find relief from online tormentors.

In fact, one of the victims here reported having thoughts of suicide to escape the appellant. This and the other victim impact statements provided in this case are poignant reminders of the trauma and suffering caused by these crimes. Society cannot tolerate such offences and we are determined to do what we can to protect children from cyberbullying and exploitation. In cases such as that before us, we must resort to imprisonment, emphasizing the sentencing objectives of protection, punishment and deterrence. [paragraphs 17 and 18] [ 55 ] In R. v.

Sharpe , 2001 SCC 2 , the Supreme Court of Canada made it clear that the mere existence of child pornography is inherently harmful to children and to society, given the long term and very serious consequences of the trauma suffered by children in its creation. [ 56 ] I find that, despite his young age and lack of sophistication, Mr. Weeks moral culpability for these crimes is high. He was warned by the police about the inappropriateness of the same behaviour shortly before he started contacting SC. He was further warned of the illegality and negative impacts of his actions by several of his victims. [ 57 ] Mr.

Weeks moral culpability is also enhanced by the fact that he chose younger victims knowing they would be more likely to comply with his demands. [ 58 ] It is clear that Mr. Weeks knew his actions were illegal and upsetting to his victims, yet he persisted, stopping only when arrested. AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS [ 59 ]

Section 718.2 (

a) of the Criminal Code requires me to consider any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender in determining the appropriate sentence. Aggravating Factors [ 60 ]

Section 718.2(

a) sets out a number of statutory aggravating factors, two of which apply here. First,

section 718.2(a)(ii.1) states that “evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years” is deemed an aggravating circumstances. Second,

section 718.2(a)(iii.1) states that “evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim” is deemed an aggravating circumstance. [ 61 ] A victim impact statement from DB is included as part of Exhibit 1 in these proceedings. In it, DB describes the impact on her from this crime, which included emotional, physical and economic impact, as well as creating fears for security. [ 62 ] The writer of the pre-sentence report spoke to a number of the other victims. All those contacted reported being very frightened at the time of the offences.

The mother of KSS reported that, as a result of the offense, her daughter withdrew from family and friends. MB reported that it aggravated her anxiety, made her feel helpless, and that some of the things Mr. Weeks said to her still stick with her. EL reported deterioration in her academic performance and an impact on her ability to maintain employment, as well as a deterioration of her physical and emotional well-being.

[ 63 ] Other aggravating factors with respect to this matter are: 1. these offences involved 14 victims and were committed over many months; 2. Mr. Weeks targeted younger girls as he believed they would be more likely to comply with his demands; 3. Mr. Weeks abused relationships in which he had been entrusted with images of women he knew by later threatening to expose these images if his demands were not followed; 4. Mr. Weeks had been warned by the police about the inappropriateness of his behaviour shortly before these offences commenced; 5. Mr.

Weeks was advised by several of his victims of the illegality of his actions, yet he persisted; 6. Mr. Weeks was told by several of his victims that his behaviour was having a significant negative impact on them, yet he persisted; 7. Mr. Weeks demanded acts of SC that he knew caused her physical pain; 8. Mr. Weeks did not voluntarily stop his criminal activity. Interactions only ended when victims stopped responding. When this occurred he targeted a different victim. This behaviour continued until the arrest of Mr. Weeks in late June 2016; 9. Mr.

Weeks made arrangements to meet with MB, with earlier stated plans to sexually assault her when they met. He showed up to the arranged meeting; 10. Mr. Weeks demonstrated callousness towards his victims. For example, when SD made suicidal comments in relation to his demands, he told her she should do what he wanted “to make her more willing to leave” the planet. He told SC his goal was to make her bleed twice a week.

When she told him that she had cut herself as a result of his behaviour, he told her to “suck it up princess and take off ur shirt”; and 11. these acts took place when the victims were in their own homes, a place that should have been one of safety. Mitigating Factors [ 64 ] The following mitigating factors apply to this matter: 1. Mr. Weeks is a young man.

All of these offences occurred while he was 18; 2. he entered guilty pleas; 3. he has no criminal record; 4. he has family support; 5. he is employed; 6. he accepts responsibility for his behaviour and is remorseful; 7. he has made considerable rehabilitative efforts, engaging in counselling since shortly after his arrest, with plans to continue. Through this counselling he has gained some insight into his offending, and; 8. he has been on bail for over two years under restrictive conditions. [ 65 ] I wish to comment briefly on the impact of the time that Mr. Weeks has been on bail.

It is clear that time spent on restrictive bail conditions can act as a mitigating factor on sentence. [ 66 ] In R. v. Cuthbert , 2007 BCCA 585 , the British Columbia Court of Appeal, despite finding that Mr. Cuthbert’s terms of bail included a curfew and a significant area restriction, found that the sentencing judge had not erred by declining to give him any credit for the time spent on bail. The court noted that the conditions he was subject to in the community were far removed from what he would have experienced in custody. [ 67 ] In R. v.

Locke , 2012 BCCA 320 , the court held that “ time spent under stringent bail conditions may not be credited in the same manner as pre-trial custody, although it may be treated as a mitigating factor or in the context of sentencing objectives when imposing sentence.” [paragraph 3] In R. v. Plowman , 2015 BCCA 423 , paragraph 28 , the court held that it is a matter of discretion “whether restrictive bail conditions should be treated as a mitigating factor”. [ 68 ] With respect to Mr.

Weeks, while I accept the circumstances of his bail as mitigating, I find that their impact is lessened by the fact that the length of time spent on bail was almost solely the result of Mr. Weeks’ delay of these proceedings so he could obtain treatment prior to sentencing. Further, while his bail conditions were restrictive, he was able to continue to work, to attend counselling, and to be at large for several hours each day. As in Cuthbert , these conditions are far from what he would have experienced had he been held in custody. THE AUTHORITIES [ 69 ]

Section 718.2 (

b) of the Criminal Code directs that sentences “should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for

similar offences committed in similar circumstances”. [70] Sentencing is a highly individualized process and the facts of one case will never exactly mirror the facts of another. Nonetheless, cases provide guidance on both the applicable principles and the general range of acceptable sentence. [71] The Crown has provided me with 12 cases and the defence has provided me with 13 cases to assist me in formulating anappropriate sentence for Mr. Weeks. I have reviewed them all but do not intend to refer to them all.

Luring [72] The Crown takes the position that the appropriate sentence for the luring of SC is one year. Defence takes the position that theappropriate sentence for the luring of SC is a 12 month conditional sentence order. [73] In Aimee, the British Columbia Supreme Court sentenced the offender for luring and sexual interference of two victims. TheCourt found, after review of a number of cases, that the range of sentence for luring is 12 months to two years.

A sentence of less than12 months was held to be appropriate where there were particularly mitigating factors such as mental health concerns and engagement intreatment. Both of the cases reviewed in this decision where sentences below 12 months were imposed involved a single count of luringwhere the communications had been with an undercover officer. In one case, a sentence of six months jail plus three years’ probationwas imposed (R. v. Jarvis (2006), (ON CA), 211 CCC (3d) 20 (OntCA)) and in the other, an 18 month conditionalsentence plus three years’ probation (R. v. Folino (2005), (ON CA), 203 OAC 258 (OntCA)).

Mr. Aimee was 29with no prior record and was sentenced to a global sentence of three years for communicating with a 14 and a 16 year old over theinternet, and then having sex with them when they visited his residence. For the luring offences he was sentenced to 16 months jail. [74] In R. v. Morrison, 2017 ONCA 582, the 69 year old offender had sexually explicit conversations with a police officer who heldhimself out to be a 14 year old girl. He was convicted after trial on the basis that he did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the age ofthe person with whom he was communicating.

The sentencing judge found that the one year mandatory minimum sentence that wouldhave applied to this offence was unconstitutional and imposed a sentence of four months’ imprisonment plus one year probation. TheCourt of Appeal upheld both the finding of unconstitutionality and the sentence.

In doing so, the court noted that the range ofseriousness of luring offences is very wide and this offender’s moral blameworthiness was lessened by the fact that, although he did nottake the necessary steps to determine the age of the person he was communicating with, he did not deliberately set out to lure a child. [75] This case has been heard on appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada and the decision is pending. [76] I have been provided with two additional luring cases where sentences below 12 months were imposed and one where aconditional sentence was imposed. [77] In R. v.

Schroeder, 2012 ABPC 241, the Alberta Provincial Court imposed a 21 month less a day conditional sentence, plus ayear of probation, for luring. This sentence was consecutive to a 90 day intermittent sentence imposed for possession of childpornography. The offender communicated, over nine days, with a police officer whom he believed to be a 14 year old girl. [78] However, in R. v. Paradee, 2013 ABCA 41, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned a conditional sentence imposed for luringand substituted a 12 month jail sentence. The offender in that case was a 41 year old.

He posed as a 20 year old and communicated for afew months with a 15 year old. Their conversations became sexual in nature and the offender had the victim expose herself andmasturbate for him on approximately 10 occasions. In overturning the sentence, the appeal court found that the sentencing courtoveremphasized rehabilitation. The court in Paradee made reference to the decision in Folino, where the Ontario Court of Appeal heldthat conditional sentences will be appropriate for child luring “only in the rarest of cases”. [79] In R. v.

Randall, 2018 ONCJ 470, the court struck down the mandatory six month sentence for luring (prosecuted summarily)and imposed a 90 day intermittent sentence, followed by three years’ probation for a single count of luring. Again, the circumstancesinvolved communication with a police officer posing as a child. [80] I have also been provided with a number of cases where sentences of 12 months or more were imposed. [81] The upper end of the range is demonstrated in the cases of Mackie and Miller, where global sentences of 11 and 10 yearsrespectively were imposed for a number of offences including luring.

In Mackie, the offender, over a four year period, contacted 21children between 11 and 16. He cajoled the children to provide photos of themselves in their underwear and threatened to distribute ifthey did not provide more revealing photos. He shared some of the photos provided and published some online. The offender was 21when the offences started and had no criminal record. He entered guilty pleas to six counts of luring, most involving multiple victims. He was sentenced to two, three and four years for the luring offences. The circumstances of Mr.

Mackie and the facts of his luringbehaviour have considerable similarities to those of Mr. Weeks, although Mr. Weeks faces just one count of luring. [82] The sentences for luring in Miller were three years: those counts involved multiple victims and more aggravating circumstances. [83] I found the most similar circumstances of both the offence and the offender in McLean. Mr. McLean was sentenced to twoyears less a day for 11 offences involving four victims aged 12 to 14. For each of four luring counts he was sentenced to two years less aday concurrent.

The circumstances of his luring behaviour had similarities to that of Mr. Weeks towards SC, although Mr. McLean didnot engage in the same sort of callous behaviour as Mr. Weeks. Like Mr. Weeks, Mr. McLean persuaded his victims to provide him withnude images. He persuaded two of his victims to insert objects into their vagina and send him pictures. When the victims indicated theydid not want to send more photos, he alternated between begging and anger. He threatened two of the victims that he would show theirphotos to others. Mr. McLean was 18 years old at the time of offending and had no criminal record.

He was described as naive andimmature. He was remorseful and had insight obtained through counselling. He was employed and hoped to go to university. Extortion

[ 84 ] Mr. Weeks has entered guilty pleas to three counts of extortion on three victims. The Crown takes the position that the appropriate sentence for the extortion of SC is one year concurrent to the sentence imposed on the other offences involving SC, and for the extortion of AR and SD, one year on each, concurrent to each other but consecutive to the sentence imposed for the extortion of SC. [ 85 ] Mr.

Weeks takes the position that the appropriate sentence for the extortion is a suspended sentence with three years’ probation. [ 86 ] I have already referred to the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in Mackie in my review of the sentencing precedents for luring. Mr. Mackie was also convicted of 10 counts of extortion for threatening to distribute naked photographs of his victims in order to acquire more revealing photographs or videos. Six month sentences were imposed for each count, with three of the sentences concurrent (those where the extortion was less successful), on the basis of totality.

A total sentence of three and a half years for extortion was imposed consecutively to the sentences for luring. [ 87 ] The offender in McLean was also convicted of one count of extortion for his actions in threatening to distribute naked photographs of a victim if she did not send him more photographs. A one year sentence was imposed concurrent to the sentence imposed for luring the same victim. The facts of the extortion are similar to that of Mr. Weeks. [ 88 ] In McFarlane , the Manitoba Court of Appeal increased the 12 month sentence imposed by the sentencing judge for extortion to 15 months.

The then 19 year old offender had surreptitiously video-taped the then 17 year old victim, who was a friend of his sister, undressing and showering. Five years later he contacted her under an alias and showed her images from the video. He threatened to publish the photos if she didn’t provide him with a nude photo of her. She did not comply. The Court of Appeal found that the appropriate sentence for this extortion would be two years but reduced it on the basis of totality. The offender had no record, was employed, and entered a guilty plea. Possession of Child Pornography [ 89 ] Mr.

Weeks is charged with one count of possession of child pornography in relation to the victim SC. The Crown submits that the appropriate sentence on this count is one year consecutive to the luring count involving SC. The defence submits that the appropriate sentence is a nine month conditional sentence consecutive to the conditional sentence suggested for the luring count involving SC. [ 90 ] Mr. Weeks’ offence involved him first asking SC for revealing photos of herself, but then demanding she take pictures and video of herself doing specific sexual acts and send them to him.

He required her face be seen in some of the images. [ 91 ] The range of sentences for child pornography is broad. Although Mr. Weeks has entered a plea to only one count of possession of child pornography, the facts of his offence are more aggravated than many of those that resulted in sentences at the lower end of the range, in that the harm to the victim was not indirect harm as a result of passive viewing of images created by someone else, but direct harm to SC as a result of his demands that she create the pornographic images and provide them to him. [ 92 ] In R. v.

Swaby , 2017 BCSC 2020 , the British Columbia Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Provincial Court striking down the 90 day mandatory minimum sentence for possession of child pornography. A four month conditional sentence order was imposed, followed by two years’ probation. Over a two and a half month period Mr. Swaby downloaded 400 video files meeting the definition of child pornography. Mr. Swaby was 23 years old, entered a guilty plea, and had no criminal record.

He had significant cognitive impairment as well as significant mental health issues that resulted in decreased moral blameworthiness for his conduct. [ 93 ] In McLean , the offender was sentenced to two years less a day for possession of child pornography for his possession of the images he extorted from his four victims in circumstances similar to those of Mr. Weeks. [ 94 ] In McFarlane , the offender was sentenced to six months for distribution of child pornography for sending the video he took of the victim undressing and showering to the victim and her sister.

The sentence for this offence was imposed concurrently to the sentence for extortion. Invitation to Sexual Touching [ 95 ] Mr. Weeks entered a guilty plea to one count of invitation to sexual touching for his actions in demanding SC touch herself sexually, including acts that she complained caused her pain. The Crown seeks a sentence of six months concurrent to the luring of SC. Defence counsel suggests a sentence of 90 days intermittent. [ 96 ] In Mackie , the offender was also sentenced for invitation to sexual touching for having two of his victims touch themselves for him.

He was sentenced to six months, concurrent to other sentences. Criminal Harassment and Threatening [ 97 ] Mr. Weeks has entered guilty pleas to three counts of criminal harassment involving 11 victims and one count of uttering threats. The Crown seeks a sentence of six months for the offence naming nine victims and three months for the other offences. Mr. Weeks seeks a 21 month less a day conditional sentence for all of these offences, concurrent to one another.

TOTALITY AND CONSECUTIVE VERSUS CONCURRENT SENTENCES [ 98 ] The British Columbia Court of Appeal has stated that consecutive sentences are appropriate “not only in relation to wholly unconnected incidents but also in circumstances where the offences are committed against multiple victims in close proximity”. [ R. v. Berry , 2014 BCCA 7 , paragraph 53] [ 99 ] In McLean , the court stated:

Generally speaking, and subject to the totality principle, multiple offences against multiple victims may result in the lengthening of the overall sentence. In the case of sexual offences on multiple victims, it may be more appropriate to impose consecutive sentences. Some courts have commented that to treat cases with multiple victims in close time proximity as a singular event would allow the offender to commit crimes "cheaper by the dozen" ( R. v. Maliki , 2005 BCCA 495 , 201 CCC (3d) 524 ; R. v. Berry , 2014 BCCA 7 , 349 BCAC 76 ) or result in a "free ride" error ( R. v.

P.K. , 2012 MBCA 69 , 286 CCC (3d) 112 ). [ 100 ] In imposing a sentence on Mr. Weeks, I must keep these principles in mind, while ensuring that the overall sentence imposed is not unduly long or harsh. EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES [ 101 ] Recently, the British Columbia Court of Appeal provided guidance on the principles of deterrence and denunciation in relation to non-jail sentences in the case of R. v. Voong , 2015 BCCA 285 .

Although that case dealt with the circumstances in which a court can impose a suspended sentence for drug trafficking, the finding that a suspended sentence can achieve a deterrent and denunciatory effect is more broadly applicable. [ 102 ] It is clear that the stigma of being a convicted sexual offender, together with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act requirements, will have a significant impact on Mr. Weeks.

I find that all of these impacts will also have some general deterrent and denunciatory effect. [ 103 ] The court in Voong held that, in exceptional circumstances, a suspended sentence might be imposed for drug traffickers.

Exceptional circumstances in the context of a drug trafficker were described as follows: Exceptional circumstances may include a combination of no criminal record, significant and objectively identifiable steps towards rehabilitation for the drug addict, gainful employment, remorse and acknowledgement of the harm done to society as a result of the offences, as opposed to harm done to the offender as a result of being caught. This is a non-exhaustive list, but at the end of the day, there must be circumstances that are above and beyond the norm to justify a non-custodial sentence.

There must be something that would lead a sentencing judge to conclude that the offender had truly turned his or her life around, and that the protection of the public was subsequently better served by a non-custodial sentence. However, Parliament, while not removing a non-custodial sentence for this type of offence, has concluded that CSO sentences are not available.

Thus it will be the rare case where the standard of exceptional circumstances is met. [ 104 ] While I accept that suspended sentences can have denunciatory and deterrent impact and I accept that the principles in Voong apply to all types of cases, I find this is not one of those rare cases where, even if there were no mandatory minimum sentences, a suspended sentence would be proportionate to the high moral responsibility of this offender for any of these grave offences.

I further find that a suspended sentence would not, in all the circumstances of these offences and this offender, adequately address the primary objectives of denunciation and deterrence. CONDITIONAL SENTENCE ORDERS [ 105 ]

Section 742.1 provides that conditional sentences are available in circumstances where a jail sentence is warranted, there is no mandatory minimum sentence, the appropriate sentence is less than two years, and service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the community. [ 106 ] I am satisfied, with respect to Mr. Weeks that, absent the issue of mandatory minimums, these pre-conditions have been met. [ 107 ]

Section 742.1 goes on to provide a number of further conditions, two of which are applicable here. First, conditional sentences are not available for offences prosecuted by way of indictment where the maximum term of imprisonment is 14 years or life. This excludes the extortion offences before me from consideration for a conditional sentence order as they carry a maximum penalty of life.

Second, the court must be satisfied that a conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing. [ 108 ] The leading case on the application of the purpose and principles of sentencing to conditional sentence orders is the Supreme Court of Canada case of R. v. Proulx , 2000 SCC 5 . The court held that conditional sentences can provide a significant amount of deterrence and denunciation.

With respect to deterrence, the court stated, at paragraph 106: As a general matter, the more serious the offence and the greater the need for denunciation, the longer and more onerous the conditional sentence should be.

However, there may be certain circumstances in which the need for denunciation is so pressing that incarceration will be the only suitable way in which to express society's condemnation of the offender's conduct. [ 109 ] With respect to deterrence, the court had this to say, at paragraph 107: Incarceration, which is ordinarily a harsher sanction, may provide more deterrence than a conditional sentence. Judges should be wary, however, of placing too much weight on deterrence when choosing between a conditional sentence and incarceration: see Wismayer , supra, at p. 36.

The empirical evidence suggests that the deterrent effect of incarceration is uncertain: see generally Sentencing Reform: A Canadian Approach, supra, at pp. 136-37. Moreover, a conditional sentence can provide significant deterrence if sufficiently punitive conditions are imposed and the public is made aware of the severity of these sentences. . . . Nevertheless, there may be circumstances in which the need for deterrence will warrant incarceration.

This will depend in part on whether the offence is one in which the effects of incarceration are likely to have a real deterrent effect, as well as on the circumstances of the community in which the offences were committed. [ 110 ] I have been provided with three cases where conditional sentences were imposed. In R. v. Chen , 2017 BCSC 1689 , a conditional sentence was imposed on a 69 year old piano teacher who sexually touched five of his students over a 17 year period. I find the circumstances of this offence and this offender so different from the case before me that this case is not of much assistance.

In Swaby , a

four month conditional sentence was upheld in a

summary conviction appeal for possession of child pornography. As I have already noted, the moral culpability of this offender was significantly compromised given his cognitive and mental health challenges. Further, his offences are different in nature and, in my opinion, less grave that the offences committed by Mr. Weeks. In Schroeder , the Alberta Provincial Court imposed a conditional sentence for luring. In that case the offence was considerably less grave than that of Mr. Weeks. None of these cases provide support for the imposition of a conditional sentence order for the offences committed by Mr.

Weeks. [ 111 ] I find that, in the circumstances of this offence and this offender, a conditional sentence would not adequately address the primary objectives of denunciation and deterrence in relation to the offences of luring, possession of child pornography, invitation to sexual touching or extortion. I further find that a conditional sentence would not be proportionate to the moral responsibility of Mr. Weeks for these grave offences. CONCLUSION [ 112 ] Having considered the guiding principles in the Criminal Code , the circumstances of this offence and of Mr.

Weeks, the aggravating and mitigating factors, I conclude that a jail sentence is necessary to meet the principles of sentence. The sentence I impose must, however, be the least restrictive sentence appropriate, and must not lose sight of Mr. Weeks’ young age and future prospects. [ 113 ] As I have already stated, I find that a conditional sentence would not satisfy the principles and purposes of sentencing as set out in the Criminal Code for the offences of luring, possession of child pornography, invitation to sexual touching or extortion . [ 114 ] In R. v.

Middleton , 2009 SCC 21 , the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the validity of a sentence that combines a jail sentence with a conditional sentence, so long as the total sentence does not exceed two years less a day and so long as the principles of sentencing are met. I have concluded that, in combination with the sentences of imprisonment that I am going to impose for the more serious of these offences, a consecutive conditional sentence order can, given in particular Mr.

Weeks’ youth and prospects for rehabilitation, as well as the less aggravated nature of the remaining counts, meet the principles of sentence in relation to the criminal harassment and threatening counts. [ 115 ] The sentences will be as follows. [ 116 ] On Information 168890-C-4: Count 1, luring of SC: one year jail; Count 2, child pornography in relation to SC: six months jail consecutive to Count 1; Count 3, invitation to sexual touching of SC: six months jail concurrent to Count 1; Counts 4, 5, 6 and 7, criminal harassment of MGA, MD, HV, LC, CH, MP, HR, KSS and KD; criminal harassment of MB; threatening of AW and MB to harm MB; and criminal harassment of EL: six months less one day conditional sentence on each count, all concurrent to each other but consecutive to the sentences imposed on Counts 1 and 2. [ 117 ] My determination that the sentence for Count 2 should be consecutive to the sentence for Count 1 is based on my conclusion that a consecutive sentence is necessary to proportionality and not based on the requirement for a consecutive sentence in s. 718.3.

Regardless, the imposition of consecutive sentences for these two counts will not impact the overall length of the sentence, given the sentences I have determined are appropriate for the extortion offences. [ 118 ] It would also be appropriate that the sentences for Counts 5 and 7 be consecutive to the other counts on this Information.

I have, however, imposed concurrent sentences in the interest of ensuring that the total sentence is proportionate. [ 119 ] On Information 174986: Count 1, extortion of SC: one year jail; Counts 2 and 3, extortion of AR and SD: six months jail on each, concurrent to one another but consecutive to the sentence on Count 1. [ 120 ] Although it would be most appropriate that the sentences on each of these counts be consecutive, I have imposed concurrent sentences on Counts 2 and 3 on the basis of totality. [ 121 ] The sentences on the two Informations will run concurrently to one another. [ 122 ] As a result, the total sentence will be one of 18 months jail, followed by a six months less a day conditional sentence. [ 123 ] The jail sentences will be followed by a three year period of probation.

The probation order is formulated primarily to address Mr. Weeks’ rehabilitative needs. [ 124 ] The conditions of the conditional sentence will be as follows: 3001 You must keep the peace and be of good behaviour. You must appear before the court when required to do so by the court. You must notify the court or your conditional sentence supervisor in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the court or supervisor of any change in employment or occupation. You must remain in British Columbia unless you have prior written permission from the Court or your conditional sentence supervisor to

leave the province. 3002 You must have no contact or communication, directly or indirectly, with SC, MGA, MD, HV, LC, CH, MP, HR, KSS, KD, MB, AW, EL, AR or SD. 3005 You must not be within 100 meters of any residence, school or workplace of SC, MGA, MD, HV, LC, CH, MP, HR, KSS, KD, MB, AW, EL, AR or SD. 3104 You must report in person to the conditional sentence supervisor at 836 Courtney Street within two business days after your release from custody, unless you have obtained, prior to your release, written permission from the conditional sentence supervisor to report elsewhere or within a different time frame.

After that, you must report as directed by your conditional sentence supervisor. 3203 You must reside at a residence approved in advance by your conditional sentence supervisor. You must provide your phone number to your supervisor, and you must not change your residence or your phone number without written permission from your conditional sentence supervisor. 3209 For the first three months of this order, you must remain inside your residence, under house arrest (24 hours per day) . For the duration of this order, you must remain inside your residence between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. each day.

You must present yourself immediately at the door to your residence or answer the phone when any peace officer or conditional sentence supervisor attends at your residence or calls to check your compliance with the house arrest or curfew condition of this order. You may be away from your residence during the house arrest or curfew hours with the written permission of your conditional sentence supervisor. Such permission is to be given only for compelling reasons. You must carry the written permission when you are outside your residence during the house arrest or curfew hours.

You may also be away from your residence during the house arrest or curfew hours: a. While in the course of your employment, or when travelling directly to, or returning directly from, your place of employment. If requested, you must provide a conditional sentence supervisor with details of your employment, including location and hours of work. b. In the event of a medical emergency and then only while at a health care facility, or when traveling directly to, or returning directly from the facility.

If requested, you must provide your conditional sentence supervisor with written confirmation that you went to the facility, signed by a representative of the health care facility to which you went. c. In the immediate presence of Paul Weeks or Wenying Weeks or another person approved in writing by your conditional sentence supervisor. You must carry the written permission with you when you are away from your residence during the house arrest hours. d. While engaged in counselling, or while travelling directly to, or returning directly from a scheduled counselling appointment.

If requested, you must provide a conditional sentence supervisor with details of your counselling. 3304 You must have no contact or communication directly or indirectly with, nor be alone in the presence of, any person you know to be or who reasonably appears to be under the age of 18 years, other than your sister, except: a. With the advance written consent of the Bail Supervisor. b.

In the immediate presence of Paul Weeks or Wenying Weeks or another person approved in advance by your conditional sentence supervisor. 3401 You must not possess or consume alcohol, drugs or any other intoxicating substance, except in accordance with a medical prescription. 3403 You must not enter any liquor store, beer and wine store, bar, pub, lounge, night club, beer garden or any other business from which minors are prohibited at any time by the terms of a liquor licence. 3501 You must attend, participate in and successfully complete any intake, assessment, counselling or program as directed by the conditional sentence supervisor. 3503 You must attend at the direction of your conditional sentence supervisor for a psychiatric intake, assessment, counselling or treatment program through Forensic Psychiatric Services. 3601 You must not own, possess or use any device capable of accessing any computer network including the internet. 3605 You must not possess any pornographic material or access any pornographic material by electronic means. [ 125 ] The probation conditions will be as follows: 2001 You must keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

You must appear before the court when required to do so by the court. You must notify the court or the probation officer in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the court or the probation officer of any change of employment or occupation.

2002 You must have no contact directly or indirectly with SC, MGA, MD, HV, LC, CH, MP, HR, KSS, KD, MB, AW, EL, AR or SD. 2005 You must not attend any residence, school or workplace of SC, MGA, MD, HV, LC, CH, MP, HR, KSS, KD, MB, AW, EL, AR or SD. 2014 You must report in person to a probation officer at 836 Courtney Street, Victoria, BC within two business days after the completion of your conditional sentence, unless you have obtained, prior to its completion, written permission from the probation officer to report elsewhere or within a different time frame.

After that you must report as directed by the probation officer. 2203 You must reside at a residence approved in advance by the probation officer.

You must provide your probation officer with your phone number, and you must not change your residence or your phone number without written permission from your probation officer. 2501 You must attend, participate in and successfully complete any assessment, counselling or program as directed by your probation officer. 2503 Having consented, you must attend at the direction of your probation officer for a psychiatric intake, assessment, counselling or treatment program through Forensic Psychiatric Services. 2602 You must not: 1.

Use any device capable of accessing the internet unless: a. it has the capacity to retain and display the history of the internet use; and b. you consent to inspection of the device by your probation officer or a peace officer. 2. Delete the history of the internet use from the device. 3. Use the internet to contact or to attempt to contact any person you know to be or who reasonably appears or represents him or herself to be under the age of 18 years, except members of your immediate family. 4.

Possess any device capable of storing digital images, unless you consent to inspection of the storage device by your probation officer or a peace officer. Having consented, you must provide the device and any password used to lock the device to your probation officer or peace officer, upon their request, in order for him or her to monitor your compliance with this order. 2605 You must not possess any pornographic material or access any pornographic material by electronic means. ANCILLARY ORDERS [ 126 ] Counts 1, 2 and 3 on each of these Informations are primary designated DNA offences. Pursuant to

section 487.051(1), I make an order in Form 5.03 authorizing the taking of samples of bodily substances from you for the purpose of registration in the DNA National Databank. That sample will be taken from you in custody. [ 127 ] This is an offence that requires registration under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act . Pursuant to

section 490.012, you are required to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for life . [ 128 ] I am also required to make a firearms prohibition order pursuant to s. 109 of the Criminal Code .

That order prohibits you from possessing any firearm, other than a prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, and any crossbow, restricted weapon, ammunition and explosive substance for a period of 10 years, and any prohibited firearm, restricted firearm, prohibited weapon, prohibited device and prohibited ammunition for life. [ 129 ] I also make an order pursuant to s. 743.21 that you are prohibited from communicating, directly or indirectly, with SC, MGA, MD, HV, LC, CH, MP, HR, KSS, KD, MB, AW, EL, AR or SD during the custodial period of your sentence. [ 130 ] There will be victim fine surcharges and I will leave those at the statutory amount and the statutory time to pay. [ 131 ] I have considered making an order under s. 161 but have determined that such an order is not necessary given the time that has passed since these offences and the fact that Mr.

Weeks will be bound by an order that restrict his use of the internet for a further five years by virtue of the conditional sentence and probation conditions. BY THE COURT ________________________________ The Honourable Judge C. Rogers