R. v. Herritt, 2019 NSPC 62

PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Herritt , 2019 NSPC 62 Date: 20190214 Docket: 8235060, 8277493 Registry: Truro Between: Her Majesty The Queen v. James William Herritt Judge: The Honourable Judge Alain Bégin, Heard: February 14, 2019, in Truro, Nova Scotia Charge: 267(

b) Criminal Code 145(3) Criminal Code Counsel: Thomas Kayter, for the Crown Attorney Patrick MacEwan, for the Defendant By the Court: [ 1 ] This is the sentencing of James Herritt who pleaded guilty to Assault Causing Bodily Harm, indictable, contrary to s. 267 (

b) of the Criminal Code . That carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. That offence took place on June 13, 2018. [ 2 ] Mr. Herritt also pleaded guilty to a Breach of Recognizance,

summary, contrary to s. 145(3) of the Criminal Code . That carries a maximum sentence of 6 months, or a $5,000 fine, or both. That offence took place on or about October 19, 2018. Initial Comments Regarding the Media [ 3 ] It has come to my attention that there has been a backlash against the media for the story that was published online and in print that referred to the sentencing hearing on February 7, 2019. I have taken the opportunity to review the story to see if anything inappropriate was reported.

There was not. [ 4 ] While the facts of this case are troubling, and no doubt talked about sensitive subjects for the victim, I do not see that the media breached any norms as it relates to their reporting of what was stated in this Court on February 7, 2019. [ 5 ] The media is a vital part of the justice system as a whole, and of the criminal justice system in particular. We live in a society that places a high value on the openness of the justice system.

Accordingly, the general rule in Canada is that court proceedings are open to the public and may be reported in full. [ 6 ] The media play a crucial role in informing the public about what goes on in our Courts. The average citizen gains their knowledge of the legal system through the words and images conveyed by the media in news reports about court proceedings. [ 7 ] The media keeps all of the parties involved in the criminal justice system to account.

It is not possible for all members of the public to attend Court, but it is important that they are aware of what is occurring in the Courts. [ 8 ] The media, by keeping the public informed, is a vital link in allowing the public to hold courts to account for their findings of guilt or innocence for the cases that they hear.

They also, through their reporting, hold the Courts to account for the sentences that they render. [ 9 ] The media holds the Crown accountable for the sentencing recommendations that they make, and the positions that they take regarding how charges are dealt with, and the agreements that they make with counsel for the accused. [ 10 ] The same holds true for Defence counsel. The media holds them accountable for the positions that they take. Are their submissions reasonable in light of all of the factors present?

[ 11 ] The courts must be open to public scrutiny and to public criticism of their operation by the public.

The public interest in open court proceedings and in the ability of the media to provide complete reports of what takes place in the courtroom is rooted in the need: • to maintain an effective evidentiary process; • to ensure a judiciary behaves fairly and is sensitive to the values espoused by society; • to promote a shared sense that our courts operate with integrity and dispense justice; and • to provide an ongoing opportunity for the community to learn how the justice system operates and how the law being applied daily in our courts affects them. [ 12 ] Without the media attending in Court, and reporting on what happens within these four walls, that important accountability will disappear.

Unfortunately, that accountability is slowly disappearing with the demise of the local daily papers. [ 13 ] Deterrence is an important principle in sentencing. Unless decisions are reported by the media, the notion of deterrence for the general public is almost meaningless. Members of the general public do not regularly search legal databases to review legal precedents. The role of the media is crucial for getting the word out. [ 14 ] As you will hear in the reasons for my decision on the appropriate sentence for Mr.

Herritt, it is important for both myself, and the general public, to understand the facts behind the charge. What did the Assault Causing Bodily Harm actually entail? [ 15 ] Without the media reporting what the details of that assault were, the public cannot hold the court, and counsel, accountable for the positions taken, and the decisions made. I completely understand that some of the facts reported in the paper and online would be of a sensitive nature for the victim. [ 16 ] Fortunately for the victim, she has a different last name than Mr. Herritt. No one who did not know her name, and her relationship to Mr.

Herritt prior to the reporting, would today be in any better position to know it. Those who knew, know. Those who didn’t, don’t. Nothing in the

article reveals much about her. Her occupation was not mentioned. [ 17 ] The facts of the assault are also important should there ever be a potential future Mrs. Herritt out there. The facts and the truth are important. [ 18 ] I will conclude my comments on this matter by stating that all of the sentencing submissions were held in open court, without the exclusion of the public. This included for the reading of the Victim Impact Statements. The complete sentencing hearing on February 7 th was open to the public, as is today’s hearing. The Facts [ 19 ] This was a violent assault on B.M. by Mr. Herritt.

So much so that he was initially charged with trying to kill her. The Attempted Murder charge is not before me today for sentencing, but it does show where the assault would fit on the scale of severity when compared with other assaults causing bodily harm. [ 20 ] B.M. was choked to such a degree that she lost consciousness three separate times over a two- to three-hour timeframe. This occurred in front of her children. She was told that she was going to die and that she would never see her children again. Mr. Herritt tells the oldest child, “Say goodbye to mommy”.

The older child in the weeks after the assault said to B.M., “… killed you.” [ 21 ] B.M. was told that this was going to be a murder-suicide when Mr. Herritt told her, “We are both going to die today.” [ 22 ] The photos entered as Exhibit 1 show the physical injuries to B.M. [ 23 ] As noted in her Victim Impact Statement, B.M. “was sure during the incident that I was going to die and that I was leaving my children.” [ 24 ] The Breach of Recognizance occurred when Mr.

Herritt failed to take the necessary steps to have himself admitted to the hospital and he then effectively went on the lam in what is purported to be a suicide mission. Mr. Herritt’s disappearance prompted a province-wide search for him as the authorities were extremely concerned as to what Mr. Herritt might do to further harm B.M. and her family. The Positions of the Parties: Crown [ 25 ] The Crown submits that the appropriate sentence for Mr. Herritt would be a 2 year sentence, or 2 years-less-a-day, followed by 2 or 3 years’ probation on the Assault Causing Bodily Harm charge.

It is left with the Court to determine the appropriate sentence, to be served consecutively, for the Breach of Recognizance charge. [ 26 ] The Crown states that the appropriate sentence for Mr. Herritt, considering the facts of this case would be in the 3 to 4-year range, but the Crown was seeking a lesser sentence so that a lengthy period of probation can be ordered to properly supervise and treat Mr. Herritt after his release from jail. [ 27 ] The Crown points to the fact that this was an assault on a domestic partner, and to the high gravity of the assault.

The Crown also points to the aggravating factors of the nature and impact of the assault, the emotional impact on the victims and their families, and

the fact that the children were present when the assault occurred. [ 28 ] The Crown points to the guilty plea as a mitigating factor as this removed the need for B.M. to have to testify and re-live the traumatic experience. The Crown also points to Mr. Herritt’s longstanding struggle with PTSD. [ 29 ] However, while acknowledging Mr. Herritt’s long struggle with PTSD, the Crown points out that the assault was not random but was triggered by B.M. advising Mr. Herritt that their relationship was over. [ 30 ] The Crown then points out that Mr. Herritt scored 7 out of 10 on the ODARA Scale.

I note that a score of 7 or more places a man in the highest risk category. 6% of men fall into this category, and 74% of these men meet the criteria for domestic recidivism. Higher scores on the ODARA also indicate that an accused assaulter will commit more assaults, commit them sooner, and cause more injury than an accused with a lower score. [ 31 ] The Crown has also requested a post-sentence Restorative Justice referral that can only proceed with the consent of B.M. This request has been made in consultation with B.M. Defence [ 32 ] Counsel for Mr.

Herritt submits that the appropriate sentence would be a lengthy period of probation after him being given credit for time already served in what can be described as difficult conditions due to Mr. Herritt’s previous employment as a Correctional Officer. [ 33 ] Defence points out that Mr. Herritt is not being sentenced for an attempted murder, but for an assault causing bodily harm. [ 34 ] Defence advises that Mr. Herritt has always expressed remorse to him in their discussions. [ 35 ] Defence also points out that Mr. Herritt has suffered from PTSD for a long time, and that he had sought help for it.

To quote his lawyer, “he was sick at the time of the offence, but not NCR sick.” Defence counsel suggests that this should serve to decrease Mr. Herritt’s moral culpability. [ 36 ] Defence counsel notes that as a result of the offences that Mr. Herritt has lost his family, and he further suffers from the humiliation of having these charges while most of his family is involved in law enforcement. [ 37 ] Defence counsel points out that while Mr.

Herritt was on the lam that he took steps to stay out of Colchester county as was required by his release conditions. [ 38 ] Defence notes that being incarcerated has placed Mr. Herritt where his doctors told him not to be. That his time in prison is giving him flashbacks by hearing the sound of the guards’ keys, the closing of the cell doors, the sound of the radios. Any further jail time going forward will be difficult and perhaps affect Mr. Herritt’s mental health. [ 39 ] Defence notes that with enhanced credit that Mr.

Herritt should get credit for 345 days served. [ 40 ] With regards to the need for deterrence, Defence counsel notes that there are not many persons in Mr. Herritt’s situation that would need to be sent a message of deterrence. Defence counsel also points to the case law presented to the Court and suggests that parity with those cases would result in a sentence of time served plus probation. [ 41 ] Defence states that the Court in determining Mr. Herritt’s sentence should focus on his rehabilitation.

The Law [ 42 ] As confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, sentencing judges are required to look at s. 718 of the Criminal Code as noted in the case of R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6 , at paragraphs 39 to 45 as follows: [39] …Judges are now directed in s. 718 to consider the fundamental purpose of sentencing as that of contributing, along with crime prevention measures, to “respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society”.

This purpose is met by the imposition of “just sanctions” that reflect the usual array of sentencing objectives, as set out in the same provision: denunciation, general and specific deterrence, separation of offenders, rehabilitation, reparation, and a recent addition: the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender and acknowledgement of the harm caused to the victim and to the community. …………………… [42] For one, it requires that a sentence not exceed what is just and appropriate, given the moral blameworthiness of the offender and the gravity of the offence.

In this sense, the principle serves a limiting or restraining function.

However, the rights-based, protective angle of proportionality is counter-balanced by its alignment with the “just deserts” philosophy of sentencing, which seeks to ensure that offenders are held responsible for their actions and that the sentence properly reflects and condemns their role in the offence and the harm they caused….Whatever the rationale for proportionality, however, the degree of censure required to express society’s condemnation of the offence is always limited by the principle that an offender’s sentence must be equivalent to his or her moral culpability, and not greater than it.

The two perspectives on proportionality thus converge in a sentence that both speaks out against the offence and punishes the offender no more than is necessary. [ 43 ] The language in ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Code is sufficiently general to ensure that sentencing judges enjoy a broad discretion to craft

a sentence that is tailored to the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the offender. The determination of a “fit” sentence is, subject to some specific statutory rules, an individualized process that requires the judge to weigh the objectives of sentencing in a manner that best reflects the circumstances of the case….No one sentencing objective trumps the others and it falls to the sentencing judge to determine which objective or objectives merit the greatest weight, given the particulars of the case.

The relative importance of any mitigating or aggravating factors will then push the sentence up or down the scale of appropriate sentences for similar offences. The judge’s discretion to decide on the particular blend of sentencing goals and the relevant aggravating or mitigating factors ensures that each case is decided on its facts, subject to the overarching guidelines and principles in the Code and in the case law. [ 44 ] The wide discretion granted to sentencing judges has limits.

It is fettered in part by the case law that has set down, in some circumstances, general ranges of sentences for particular offences, to encourage greater consistency between sentencing decisions in accordance with the principle of parity enshrined in the Code . But it must be remembered that, while courts should pay heed to these ranges, they are guidelines rather than hard and fast rules. A judge can order a sentence outside that range as long as it is in accordance with the principles and objectives of sentencing.

Thus, a sentence falling outside the regular range of appropriate sentences is not necessarily unfit. Regard must be had to all the circumstances of the offence and the offender, and to the needs of the community in which the offence occurred. [43]

Section 718 of the Criminal Code explains the purpose and principles of sentencing: Purpose 718 The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect society and to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (

a) to denounce unlawful conduct and the harm done to victims or to the community that is caused by unlawful conduct; (

b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (

c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (

d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (

e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (

f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims or to the community. [44]

Section 718.1 states that “A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.” [ 45 ] In R. v. Hamilton, (2004) 186 CCC (3d) (ON CA), the Court stated that proportionality is a fundamental principle of sentencing. It takes into account the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. In other words, the severity of a sanction for a crime should reflect the seriousness of the criminal conduct. A disproportionate sanction can never be a just sanction.

Aggravating and mitigating factors, and the principles of parity, totality and restraint are also important principles that must be engaged in the sentencing process. [ 46 ] The Criminal Code views imprisonment as a sentence of last resort. An offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances and all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered. [ 47 ]

Section 718.2 states the other principles that the sentencing court is mandated to take into consideration, which for the purpose of this case are: Other sentencing principles 718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: (

a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing: ……….. (ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender’s spouse or common-law partner, ………… (iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation, shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances; (

b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;

(

c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh; (

d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and (

e) all available sanctions, other than imprisonment, that are reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with the harm done tovictims or to the community should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginaloffenders. [48] With regard to the overall sentencing process I note the words of Chief Justice Lamer in R. v.

C.A.M., (SCC),[1996] SCJ No 28, at paras 91 & 92: 91. …The determination of a just and appropriate sentence is a delicate art which attempts to balance carefully the societal goals ofsentencing against the moral blameworthiness of the offender and the circumstances of the offence, while at all times taking into accountthe needs and current conditions of and in the community.

The discretion of the sentencing judge should thus not be interfered withlightly. 92. …It has been repeatedly stressed that there is no such thing as a uniform sentence for a particular crime…Sentencing is an inherentlyindividualized process and the search for a single appropriate sentence for a similar offender and a similar crime will frequently be afruitless exercise of academic abstraction.

As well, sentences for a particular offence should be expected to vary to some degree acrossvarious communities and regions of this country as the ‘just and appropriate’ mix of accepted sentencing goals will depend on the needsand current conditions of and in the particular community where the crime occurred.” [49] In a rational system of sentencing the respective importance of prevention, deterrence, retribution and rehabilitation will varyaccording to the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the offender. There is no easy test that a judge can apply in weighing thesefactors.

Much will depend on the judgment and wisdom of sentencing judges whom Parliament has vested with considerable discretionin making these determinations pursuant to s. 718.3. [50] The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13, confirmed that a provincial court judge’s determination of theappropriate sentence is entitled to deference.

The Supreme Court also stated in Lloyd that appellate courts cannot alter a trial judge’ssentence unless it is demonstrably unfit, and that an appellate court may not intervene simply because it would have weighed the relevantfactors considered by the sentencing judge differently. [51] Denunciation is the communication of society’s condemnation of the offender’s conduct. A sentence with a denunciatoryelement represents a symbolic, collective statement that the offender’s conduct should be punished for encroaching on our society’sbasic code of values as enshrined within our substantial criminal law.

Society, through the courts, must show its abhorrence of particulartypes of crime, and the only way in which the court can show this is by the sentences that they pass. [52] In R. v. EMW, 2011 NSCA 87, our Court of Appeal affirmed the words of Judge Campbell when discussing the differencebetween retribution and vengeance, at para 18: Retribution is punishment. It is objective, measured and reasoned. Vengeance and anger have no place in sentencing. When reason andobjectivity give way to expressions of righteous indignation or revenge, a sentence is no longer an expression of a system of values.

Ithas then become an emotional act and not a rational one. It is then not measured or restrained. Justice can be and sometimes should behard. It must, however, be thoughtfully so. It is important to treat the offender in a way that reflects his level of culpability. Simply put,the punishment, and punishment it is, should fit the crime and the person who committed it. [53] As also noted by our Court of Appeal in R. v.

EMW, rehabilitation is a much greater consideration for a sentencing judge whenthe offender has accepted responsibility. [54] A court must exercise caution in placing too much weight on deterrence when choosing a sentence, especially incarceration. This caution arises from empirical research which suggests that the deterrent effect of incarceration is uncertain. [55] I am mindful of the principles of sentencing as outlined in R. v.

Grady, (1973) (NS CA), 5 NSR (2d) 264(NSAC), where the court confirmed that the primary focus was on the protection of the public and how best to achieve that whetherthrough deterrence or rehabilitation, or both. Protection of the public includes both protection of society from the particular offender aswell as protection of society from this particular type of offence. [56] The same court in R. v. Fifield, [1978] NSJ 42, stated at para 11, “We must constantly remind ourselves that sentencing to be aneffective societal instrument must be flexible and imaginative.

We must guard against using…the cookie cutter approach.” Victim Impact Statements [57] The Victim Impact Statements by B.M. and her mother are marked as Exhibits and they were both read to the Court by theirauthors. Nothing in those statements comes as a surprise to any of us. [58] Clearly, such a violent attack by an accused on his domestic partner, in front of her children, would have the impacts describedby these victims. The statements encapsulate the “significant impact” noted in s. 718.2(iii.1). Pre-Sentence Report [59] I have read the Pre-Sentence Report dated January 18, 2019.

As noted the last time we were in Court, I am very disappointedthat Mr. Herritt would not have signed the necessary consents for the Probation office to obtain further information from Mr. Herritt’s

care providers. I heard the explanation by Defence counsel that Mr. Herritt had contacted his office seeking clarification as to whetherhe should consent to such disclosure and that his lawyer did not get back to him in time for such consents to occur. [60] When I look at the endorsements on the Information, I note that Mr. Herritt entered his guilty plea on December 14, 2018. Mr.Herritt would have had plenty of time to follow-up with his lawyer if he wanted to fully cooperate with the preparation of his Pre-Sentence Report.

It is not unusual for the Court to receive an Addendum from Probation Services to include information received afterthe preparation of the main report. [61] When I consider the claims in the Pre-Sentence Report by Mr. Herritt of various mental health diagnoses, I only accept thediagnosis of PTSD as that is clearly detailed in the s.672 assessment. The other mental health issues claimed by Mr. Herritt cannot beaccepted if they are solely presented by Mr. Herritt. [62] In the Pre-Sentence Report Mr. Herritt claims at page 6 that he does not recall the events leading up to the assault.

I have readthe 88-page s.672 assessment dated August 19, 2018, so I do not accept that Mr. Herritt has no recollection of the assault. The s. 672assessment was prepared immediately after the assault, and it is very detailed. More detailed than most s. 672 assessments that wereceive. Pages 9 to 12 of the assessment make findings that are highly indicative of Mr. Herritt feigning or malingering. [63] At page 9 of the assessment Dr. Brunet notes a “lack of genuineness” in Mr. Herritt’s demeanour and noted his symptoms as“atypical.” At page 10 of the report Dr. Brunet noted that Mr.

Herritt “has claimed a lack of memory to an unlikely extent.” [64] At page 11 of the assessment Dr. Brunet states, “Also of concern was Mr. Herritt’s apparent expectation that he was eithergoing to be not criminally responsible or that he would be going to mental health court. His references to being sick, not feeling well,wanting help and the rote manner by which he recited his symptoms was exceptional in my experience and not at all consistent withsomeone whose recent behaviour appears to have been related to psychosis.” [65] At page 62 of the assessment a referral to Dr.

Kellin states that, “Apart from an exaggeration, or malingering, of psychiatricsymptoms – there is no good explanation for such an elevated score in someone with Mr. Herritt’s history.” Dr. Kellin also states on thesame page “The current combination of psychological testing also does not support an entirely truthful presentation from Mr. Herritt andis most consistent with someone either exaggerating serious symptoms or even malingering.” [66] Page 62 of the assessment says that Mr. Herritt’s claims are unreliable and inconsistent with testing and reality. [67] In plain English, Mr.

Herritt is a bad faker. [68] The difficulty that this puts this Court in is that a determination of moral culpability has to be made. Defence counsel suggestssevere PTSD affecting Mr. Herritt’s behaviour on the day of the assault, and there is therefore a decreased moral culpability by Mr.Herritt. However, the extensive, and detailed, s. 672 assessment prepared in the 2 months following the violent assault presents adifferent picture. [69] I refer to page 12 of the assessment where Dr. Brunet states “This report has already noted that Mr.

Herritt has been diagnosedwith PTSD; the PTSD is not focused on in this assessment because its direct relevance to the offences, if any, is unclear, particularlygiven that Mr. Herritt reports amnesia for the offences and comments made by him to the victim during the offence are not PTSDrelated.” [70] This Court cannot ignore the comments in the s. 672 assessment in regard to Mr. Herritt’s sentencing when his lawyer refers tohis PTSD as affecting, or diminishing, Mr. Herritt’s moral culpability or moral blameworthiness.

Aggravating Factors [71] The aggravating factors are that this was an assault on a domestic partner that lasted between 2 and 3 hours. It is furtheraggravating that this attack took place in front of her children. [72] The breach of recognizance is aggravating when one considers that it was committed by a person who was involved with lawenforcement, or corrections, for most of his working life. Mr. Herritt should have understood the need to respect court orders. Mitigating Factors [73] It is mitigating that Mr.

Herritt pleaded guilty and removed the need for B.M. to testify and re-live this deeply traumaticexperience. [74] Mr. Herritt’s pre-existing PTSD is mitigating, to the extent that it had any effect on his committing the offence. Range of Sentence [75] The range of sentence is as contained in the case law presented by counsel. I have reviewed the cases presented and inparticular R. v. Russell, [2014] NSJ No. 89, R. v. McBride, 2003 NSSC 204 , [2003] NSJ No. 508, R. v. Julian, [2006] NSJNo. 545, R. v. Knockwood, [2009] NSJ No. 448, R. v. Gagne, 2014 NSSC 453, and R. v.

Bryan, 2008 NSCA 119. [76] As noted by counsel, it is nearly impossible to equate one particular assault with another. Each case has it own nuances, anddiffering degrees of culpability. [77] No one will dispute that this was a prolonged, and violent, assault. Decision

[ 78 ] Mr. Herritt, stand up. [ 79 ] I am ordering a DNA order, as well as a s.109 weapons prohibition for a period of 10 years. [ 80 ] You committed a violent assault on your domestic partner, someone that you should have protected, in reaction to her advising you that the relationship was over, and that she was leaving. [ 81 ] I accept the findings of Dr. Brunet that your PTSD had little to do with your violent actions on June 13, 2018.

You chose to commit this violent assault on your domestic partner, in the presence of her children, and this has had a great impact on the oldest child. [ 82 ] This violent behaviour has to be denounced and deterred. [ 83 ] While B.M.’s physical injuries have healed, the emotional harm that you caused her will linger for many years. The same holds true for the oldest child, and B.M.’s family. [ 84 ] They shouldn’t have to fear you going forward, but they will.

And I suspect that fear will continue until you take full responsibility for your actions and not attempt to hide behind some of your mental health issues. [ 85 ] I find that in order to balance punishment, denunciation, deterrence, the protection of the public, and your rehabilitation that the appropriate, and proportional, sentence for the assault causing bodily harm on B.M. is 2 years less one day in jail, or 729 days in jail.

The sentence for the breach of recognizance, given the severity of the consequences arising from that breach, is 60 days consecutive [ 86 ] Your total sentence is 789 days, less the 345 days credit for time served in remand with enhanced credit, leaving a sentence of 444 days in jail. [ 87 ] I fully appreciate the difficulties that further time in jail may present for you considering that you used to be a corrections officer. However, you would have been aware of this very possibility prior to your violently assaulting your domestic partner. This is a risk that you took.

The jails are equipped to deal with these types of issues. They have kept you safe since you have been remanded, and I fully expect that they will continue to do so. I will order that your time be served at the Northeast Nova facility. [ 88 ] Your score of 7 out of 10 on the ODARA Scale, and your reluctance to accept full responsibility for your actions by claiming to have no memory of the event, is a red flag to this Court that you need to monitored, and treated, for your violent tendencies and propensities to ensure that you are not a danger to the public going forward.

To assist you in dealing with these issues, and in your rehabilitation, you will be placed on a period of probation for a period of 3 years upon your release from jail on the following terms: - Keep the peace and be of good behaviour - Appear before the Court when required to do so by the Court - Notify the Court or the Probation Office, in advance, of ay changes of names or address, and promptly notify the Court or the Probation Officer of any changes of employment or occupation. - Report to a Probation Officer at 14 Court Street, Suite #206, Victoria Court, Truro, Nova Scotia within 3 days from the date of expiration of your sentence of imprisonment and thereafter when required and in the manner directed by the Probation Officer. - Remain within the Province of Nova Scotia unless written permission to leave the Province has been obtained from your Probation Officer, in advance. - Do not possess or consume illicit drugs, or prescription drugs or marijuana without a valid prescription. - Undergo and successfully complete any counselling or program regarding anger management as directed by your Probation Officer. - Undergo and successfully complete any counselling or program regrading domestic violence as directed by your Probation Officer. - Undergo and successfully complete any psychiatric, psychological or mental health counselling directed by your Probation Officer. - Do not contact or communicate with, or attempt to contact or communicate with, directly or indirectly, B.M. or her two children, except as permitted by a Court of competent jurisdiction. - Do not go to or enter on the residential property or premises of B.M. - Do not beset, watch, or follow from place to place B.M. - Do not associate with or be in the company of persons known to you to have a criminal record, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act record, Youth Court record, or Youth Justice Court record. - Do not have in your possession any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition and explosive substance; and do not have in your possession any weapon as defined in the Criminal Code , namely anything used or intended for use (

a) in causing death or injury to any person, or (

b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person - Sign all consents required by service providers to release information on your participation in any assessment, counselling or programs to permit the probation service to monitor your progress.

- Report any intimate relationships to your Probation Officer - Provide a copy of your 672 assessment dated August 19, 2018 to you Probation Officer. [ 89 ] I am also ordering that a copy of your s. 672 assessment be provided to your probation officer so that it can be provided to any counsellors who will be providing you with counselling or therapy so that they are fully apprised of the veracity of any claims of memory loss by you. [ 90 ] I am also making a post-sentence Restorative Justice referral that is subject to the consent of B. M. [ 91 ] The outstanding charges are dismissed. [ 92 ] Go with the sheriffs. Alain J. Bégin, JPC