HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - v. -, 2019 NBPC 8

2019NBPC08 Court File Numbers: 05988210-06138210 CANADA PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK CAMPBELLTON PROVINCIAL COURT BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN - and - S.B. SENTENCING BEFORE: Judge Suzanne C. Bernard. AT: Campbellton, New Brunswick DATES OF HEARING: December 5, 2018, February 19, 2019, and June 3, 2019. DATE OF SENTENCING: June 24, 2019. APPEARANCES: For Her Majesty the Queen: Steve McNair, Karen Lee and Shawn Beaulieu. For the Defence: Martin Siscoe. R. v.

S.B. [TRANSLATION] SENTENCING This decision is subject to an order directing that the identity of the victims and information that could identify them shall not be published in any document or broadcast or transmitted in any way pursuant to s. 486.4(1) of the Criminal Code . Introduction [ 1 ] The Court must sentence the accused after he pleaded guilty to sexual assaults against his wife and niece. [ 2 ] Specifically, on December 5, 2018, the accused pleaded guilty to the following charges:

[TRANSLATION] Between the 1st day of January 1998 and the 30th day of November 2015, at or near Saint-Quentin, in the province of New Brunswick, in committing sexual assaults against C.L., did use weapons and cause her bodily harm, contrary to and in violation of s. 272(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada , as amended; Between the 1st day of January 1998 and the 30th day of November 2015, at or near Saint-Quentin, in the province of New Brunswick, did commit sexual assaults against C.L., contrary to and in violation of s. 271 (

a) of the Criminal Code of Canada , as amended; Between the 1st day of May 2006 and the 1st day of September 2006, at or near Whites Brook, in the province of New Brunswick, did for a sexual purpose touch L.B.-M., a child under the age of 14 years, directly with a part of his body, i.e., his hands, thereby committing a criminal act, contrary to and in violation of s. 151 of the Criminal Code of Canada , as amended. [ 3 ] Following his guilty plea, the sentencing hearing was postponed in order to obtain a presentence report and victim impact statements. [ 4 ] On February 19, 2019, after hearing sentencing submissions, I informed the parties that I was concerned about the joint submission.

I offered the parties the option of making further submissions. The matter was therefore adjourned until June 3, 2019. Facts [ 5 ] What follows is a

summary of the facts presented by the prosecution and accepted by the defence at the sentencing hearing: C.L. [ 6 ] S.B. and C.L. were married for about 18 years. They have children. After they separated, C.L. reported that she had experienced sexual assault and violence during their marriage. She said that the accused would force her to drink alcohol and then have non-consensual anal intercourse with her. She would ask him to stop because she was in pain.

She says she sustained injuries such as fissures and bleeding during these relations and could not sit for several days afterwards. [ 7 ] The accused also forced her to masturbate their dog and simulate sexual intercourse with the animal. In addition, S.B. would insert objects such as cucumbers and bananas into her vagina. He would also choke her and prevent her from breathing. He would tell her to suffer when she asked him to stop. The accused also inserted a bottle of personal cream into C.L.’s vagina at the same time as he was penetrating her with his penis.

The prosecution mentions that these acts have left psychological and physical sequelae, namely internal injuries to C.L. L.B.-M. [ 8 ] L.B.-M. is the niece of the accused. She reported three incidents of touching that took place when she was between the ages of 12 and 14 years. All of the incidents took place at her home, where she lived with her parents. [ 9 ] The first incident took place when she was home alone and the accused brought her some groceries. He touched her breast underneath her clothes.

She asked him to stop, which he did. [ 10 ] A second incident took place when the accused went to fix L.B.-M.’s bedroom door. The victim’s parents were in the house.

He touched the victim’s breasts under her clothes. She told him to stop or she would tell. He stopped but told her not to say anything or he would take his own life. Not wanting to be responsible for his suicide, she said nothing. [ 11 ] There was a third and final incident when the accused once again touched her breast under her clothes. The accused gave her some cannabis in exchange for her silence. Circumstances of the Accused [ 12 ] S.B. is 49 years of age and was born in Saint-Quentin.

He is one of six children in his family and reports having good childhood memories and supportive parents. [ 13 ] In discussing his health, he mentions having suffered from depression and having had suicidal thoughts as he was prohibited from seeing his daughters for some time following these charges. S.B. also mentions a past back injury. [ 14 ] The accused attended school until Grade 6. He indicates that he quit after being subjected to corporal punishment by a teacher. He subsequently worked as a lumberjack with his father.

At the time of the interview for the presentence report, the accused had been unemployed for some time. He confirms that he has never held a job for more than 12 months. [ 15 ] S.B. has a criminal record from 1990 for committing aggravated assault in violation of s. 268(2) of the Criminal Code . Impact on the Victims [ 16 ] Victim C.L. states that the abuse made her feel uncomfortable, stupid, and incompetent because she was not strong enough to stop it. She says she felt alone and isolated, and believed it was all her fault. She reports that she still has nightmares.

She says she has lost all confidence and dignity as a woman. [ 17 ] Victim L.B.-M. states that her lifestyle has completely changed as a result of the abuse and that she will never have a normal life. She reports a loss of confidence. In addition, she says her relationship with her family has changed as everyone continues to talk to the accused. She also wakes up crying or with a start at night. Legal Parameters [ 18 ]

Section 272 of the Criminal Code provides that sexual assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm is punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years. Subsection 271 (

a) of the Criminal Code provides that sexual assault committed against someone 16 years of age or older is punishable by imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years. At the time of the incidents, s. 151 of the Criminal Code provided that every person who, for a sexual purpose, touches a person under the age of 14 years is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years.

Position of the Crown and Defence [ 19 ] The only issue to be decided is whether the Court should go along with the joint submission and impose the sentence recommended by both parties; i.e., three years for each charge, to be served concurrently. Joint Submission [ 20 ] Joint submissions are not uncommon in our criminal justice system. They are made under various circumstances and in

situations like this one, where the risk of proceeding comes with uncertainty for all parties involved. [21] During the exhaustive plea inquiry conducted before accepting the guilty pleas, I warned the accused that I was not obliged togo along with a joint submission. This is consistent with s. 606(1.1) of the Criminal Code, which sets out the rules a judge must followwhen accepting a guilty plea in order to ensure that the accused is fully informed at the material time.

(1.1) A court may accept a plea of guilty only if it is satisfied that the accused

a) is making the plea voluntarily; and

b) understands (

i) that the plea is an admission of the essential elements of the offence, (ii) the nature and consequences of the plea, and (iii) that the court is not bound by any agreement made between the accused and the prosecutor. [22] I believe it is now common ground that a judge should go along with a joint submission unless it is contrary to the publicinterest or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. [23] In R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 , the Supreme Court of Canada reminded every court in the country of theimportance of joint submissions on sentence.

As Moldaver J. wrote: [2] Joint submissions on sentence — that is, when Crown and defence counsel agree to recommend a particular sentence tothe judge, in exchange for the accused entering a plea of guilty — are a subset of resolution discussions.[1] They are both an acceptedand acceptable means of plea resolution. They occur every day in courtrooms across this country and they are vital to the efficientoperation of the criminal justice system. As this Court said in R. v.

Nixon, 2011 SCC 34 , [2011] 2 S.C.R. 566, not only do jointsubmissions “help to resolve the vast majority of criminal cases in Canada”, but “in doing so, [they] contribute to a fair and efficientcriminal justice system” (para. 47). [24] In the same decision, the Supreme Court of Canada discussed the option of rejecting a joint submission.

Moldaver J. outlinedthe issue at para. 4, then at paras. 25 and 51 to 60: [4] The narrow issue before us is whether the trial judge erred in departing from the joint submission proposed by the parties.The broader issue concerns the legal test trial judges should apply in deciding whether it is appropriate in a particular case to depart froma joint submission. […] [25] It is an accepted and entirely desirable practice for Crown and defence counsel to agree to a joint submission on sentencein exchange for a plea of guilty.

Agreements of this nature are commonplace and vitally important to the well-being of our criminaljustice system, as well as our justice system at large. Generally, such agreements are unexceptional and they are readily approved by trialjudges without any difficulty. Occasionally, however, a joint submission may appear to be unduly lenient, or perhaps unduly harsh, andtrial judges are not obliged to go along with them (Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 606(1.1)(b)(iii)). In such cases, trial judgesneed a test against which to measure the acceptability of the joint submission.

The question is: What test? […] [51] First, trial judges should approach the joint submission on an “as-is” basis. That is to say, the public interest test applieswhether the judge is considering varying the proposed sentence or adding something to it that the parties have not mentioned, forexample, a probation order. If the parties have not asked for a particular order, the trial judge should assume that it was considered andexcluded from the joint submission. However, if counsel have neglected to include a mandatory order, the judge should not hesitate to

inform counsel. The need for certainty in joint submissions cannot justify failing to impose a mandatory order. [52] Second, trial judges should apply the public interest test when they are considering “jumping” or “undercutting” a jointsubmission (DeSousa, per Doherty J.A.). That is not to say that the analysis will be the same in either case. On the contrary, from theaccused’s perspective, “undercutting” does not engage concerns about fair trial rights or undermine confidence in the certainty of pleanegotiations.

In addition, in assessing whether the severity of a joint submission would offend the public interest, trial judges should bemindful of the power imbalance that may exist between the Crown and defence, particularly where the accused is self-represented or incustody at the time of sentencing. These factors may temper the public interest in certainty and justify “undercutting” in limitedcircumstances.

At the same time, where the trial judge is considering “undercutting”, he or she should bear in mind that the community’sconfidence in the administration of justice may suffer if an accused enjoys the benefits of a joint submission without having to serve theagreed-upon sentence (see DeSousa, at paras. 23-24). [53] Third, when faced with a contentious joint submission, trial judges will undoubtedly want to know about thecircumstances leading to the joint submission — and in particular, any benefits obtained by the Crown or concessions made by theaccused.

The greater the benefits obtained by the Crown, and the more concessions made by the accused, the more likely it is that thetrial judge should accept the joint submission, even though it may appear to be unduly lenient. For example, if the joint submission is theproduct of an agreement by the accused to assist the Crown or police, or an evidentiary weakness in the Crown’s case, a very lenientsentence might not be contrary to the public interest.

On the other hand, if the joint submission resulted only from the accused’srealization that conviction was inevitable, the same sentence might cause the public to lose confidence in the criminal justice system. [54] Counsel should, of course, provide the court with a full account of the circumstances of the offender, the offence, and thejoint submission without waiting for a specific request from the trial judge.

As trial judges are obliged to depart only rarely from jointsubmissions, there is a “corollary obligation upon counsel” to ensure that they “amply justify their position on the facts of the case aspresented in open court” (Martin Committee Report, at p. 329). Sentencing — including sentencing based on a joint submission —cannot be done in the dark.

The Crown and the defence must “provide the trial judge not only with the proposed sentence, but with a fulldescription of the facts relevant to the offender and the offence”, in order to give the judge “a proper basis upon which to determinewhether [the joint submission] should be accepted” (DeSousa, at para. 15; see also Sinclair, at para. 14). [55] This is not to say that counsel must inform the trial judge of “their negotiating positions or the substance of theirdiscussions leading to the agreement” (R. v. Tkachuk, 2001 ABCA 243 , 293 A.R. 171, at para. 34).

But counsel must be able toinform the trial judge why the proposed sentence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute or otherwise be contrary tothe public interest. If they do not, they run the risk that the trial judge will reject the joint submission. [56] There may, of course, be cases where it is not possible to put the main considerations underlying a joint submission on thepublic record because of safety or privacy concerns, or the risk of jeopardizing ongoing criminal investigations (see Martin CommitteeReport, at p. 317).

In such cases, counsel must find alternative means of communicating these considerations to the trial judge in order toensure that the judge is apprised of the relevant considerations and that a proper record is created for appeal purposes. [57] A thorough justification of the joint submission also has an important public perception component. Unless counsel putthe considerations underlying the joint submission on the record, “though justice may be done, it may not have the appearance of beingdone; the public may suspect, rightly or wrongly, that an impropriety has occurred” (C. C. Ruby, G. J. Chan and N. R.

Hasan,Sentencing (8th ed. 2012), at p. 73). [58] Fourth, if the trial judge is not satisfied with the sentence proposed by counsel, “fundamental fairness dictates that anopportunity be afforded to counsel to make further submissions in an attempt to address the . . . judge’s concerns before the sentence isimposed” (G.W.C., at para. 26).

The judge should notify counsel that he or she has concerns, and invite further submissions on thoseconcerns, including the possibility of allowing the accused to withdraw his or her guilty plea, as the trial judge did in this case. [59] Fifth, if the trial judge’s concerns about the joint submission are not alleviated, the judge may allow the accused to applyto withdraw his or her guilty plea. The circumstances in which a plea may be withdrawn need not be settled here.

However, by way ofexample, withdrawal may be permitted where counsel have made a fundamental error about the legality of the proposed jointsubmission, for example, where a conditional sentence has been proposed but is unavailable. [60] Finally, trial judges who remain unsatisfied by counsel’s submissions should provide clear and cogent reasons fordeparting from the joint submission. These reasons will help explain to the parties why the proposed sentence was unacceptable, andmay assist them in the resolution of future cases.

Reasons will also facilitate appellate review. [25] The parties presented no case law to support their joint submission at the sentencing hearing on February 19, 2019. The issuetherefore remains: is the joint submission reasonable in the circumstances? I reviewed some comparable cases based on the foregoing,including a few that were upheld by the Court of Appeal. These decisions are simply a guide. [26] In R.P. v. R., 2013 NBCA 12 , the accused was an uncle to the victim, who was aged between 10 and 14 at the timeof the offences.

The accused performed a variety of sexual acts on the victim, attempting full intercourse unsuccessfully. Following hisguilty plea, the Court of Queen’s Bench had imposed a sentence of 45 months, which was appealed. The New Brunswick Court ofAppeal upheld the lower court’s decision on sentencing, emphasizing the seriousness of sexual crimes against children and the impactthis acknowledgement has had on sentences for offenders convicted of such crimes. [27] In C.B.H. v. R., 2008 NBCA 76 , C.B.H. was found guilty of assault and sexual assault on his common-law partner’s

daughter, who was four years of age. He sexually assaulted the little girl during the period of cohabitation with her mother, i.e., a periodof four months. The accused committed the sexual assaults by putting his penis in the child’s mouth, vagina, and buttocks at night whileshe was in her own bed. As the victim described at trial, he also put some sharp objects in her buttocks. In describing the circumstancesof the offence, Sivret J. of the Provincial Court says that the accused violated the integrity of her young body in the worst possiblemanner.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision, i.e., a total sentence of seven years’ imprisonment. [28] In R. v. Johnston, (NB CA), the accused Randall Kevin Johnston was convicted by a jury of causingbodily harm to K.C. while he sexually assaulted her,

an act prohibited by s. 272(1)(

c) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The violent actslasted a period of three months, during their cohabitation. The crime involved a prolonged and vicious sexual assault which included actsof cruelty and sadism rarely featured in cases before the courts of this Province or elsewhere in this country. The trial judge sentenced theaccused to imprisonment for a term of 36 months. The New Brunswick Court of Appeal varied the sentence to imprisonment for a termof six years. [29] During the appearance on June 3, 2019, the prosecution raised two cases in support of the joint submission: R. v.

Welch(1995), (ON CA), 25 O.R. (3d) 665 and R. v. Chaisson (1995) (NB CA), 102 C.C.C. (3d) 564(NBCA). In Chaisson, the accused pleaded guilty to six violent offences and was sentenced to imprisonment for a total term of 45months. Despite the sexual nature of Mr. Chaisson’s offences, he was not convicted of sexual assault, much less sexual assault causingbodily harm. The acts committed against four victims took place over a period of about six hours. In Welch, the accused was convictedof sexual assault causing bodily harm and forcible confinement.

This is a case where the victim testified that the accused tied her to hisbed, beat her with a belt on her breasts and buttocks, penetrated her with his penis and inserted an object into her rectum. The victimsuffered injuries to almost her entire body. The sentence imposed in this case was 34 months and was upheld by the Court of Appeal forOntario. [30] The parties take the view that the joint submission is appropriate as the accused pleaded guilty, sparing the victims fromhaving to testify.

The prosecution says it would have been very difficult for C.L. to testify as this was a situation of considerable abusewithin a relationship. The prosecution also suggests that a sentence of less than three years for each infraction would minimize thesignificance of each offence. [31] So, is the joint submission contrary to the public interest or would it bring the administration of justice into disrepute ifapproved? In answering this question, I considered what Moldaver J. had to say at paras. 32 to 34 of Anthony-Cook, supra: A.

The Proper Test [32] Under the public interest test, a trial judge should not depart from a joint submission on sentence unless the proposedsentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest. But, what does thisthreshold mean?

Two decisions from the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal are helpful in this regard. [33] In Druken, at para. 29, the court held that a joint submission will bring the administration of justice into disrepute or becontrary to the public interest if, despite the public interest considerations that support imposing it, it is so “markedly out of line with theexpectations of reasonable persons aware of the circumstances of the case that they would view it as a break down in the properfunctioning of the criminal justice system”. And, as stated by the same court in R. v.

B.O.2, 2010 NLCA 19 , at para. 56, when assessing a joint submission, trial judges should “avoid rendering a decision that causes an informed and reasonablepublic to lose confidence in the institution of the courts”. [34] In my view, these powerful statements capture the essence of the public interest test developed by the Martin Committee.They emphasize that a joint submission should not be rejected lightly, a conclusion with which I agree.

Rejection denotes a submissionso unhinged from the circumstances of the offence and the offender that its acceptance would lead reasonable and informed persons,aware of all the relevant circumstances, including the importance of promoting certainty in resolution discussions, to believe that theproper functioning of the justice system had broken down. This is an undeniably high threshold — and for good reason, as I shallexplain. Purposes and Principles of Sentencing [32]

Section 718 of the Criminal Code lists the purposes of sentencing:

a) to denounce 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. [ 33 ]

Section 718.1 of the Criminal Code provides that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. [ 34 ]

Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada provides that a court should increase or decrease a sentence to account for relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances related to the offence or the offender. [ 35 ] Given the nature of the offences in this case, ss. 718.01 and 718.2 (

a) are of particular relevance: 718.01 When a court imposes a sentence for an offence that involved the abuse of a person under the age of eighteen years, it shall give primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct. 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, (

i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor, (ii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused the offender’s spouse or common-law partner, (ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years, (iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a position of trust or authority in relation to the victim, (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, [ 36 ] In determining the appropriate sentence, I must take into consideration any relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances relating to the offence and the accused.

Aggravating Circumstances [ 37 ] Three aggravating circumstances under s. 718.2 are present in this case. With respect to the offence against the victim C.L., the fact that the offender abused his wife is an aggravating circumstance under s. 718.2 (a)(ii). For the offence against the victim L.B.-M., the fact that the offender abused a person between the ages of 12 and 14 years is an aggravating circumstance under s. 718.2 (a)(ii.1).

Another aggravating circumstance under s. 718.2 (a)(iii) is the fact that the offender, in committing the offences, abused his position of trust or authority in relation to the victim, being her uncle. [ 38 ] The victim C.L. was married to the accused for 18 years. She was therefore the victim of sexual assaults and physical violence during their relationship. The abuse in this case involved vaginal and anal intercourse along with physical violence. The acts committed against C.L. were violent and caused her physical and emotional harm.

The accused committed a series of repeated and humiliating sexual assaults against his wife. [ 39 ] As for the victim L.B.-M., I consider the fact that he committed the act on more than one occasion, that he used threats to prevent her from disclosing the act, and that he also provided an illicit substance, namely cannabis, to a minor to ensure her silence, to be an aggravating factor. [ 40 ] I have also received and reviewed the victims’ statements.

I have decided to include here parts of their statements that I find particularly helpful for understanding the psychological and emotional consequences they have suffered.

C.L. [ 41 ] C.L. says this in her victim impact statement: [TRANSLATION] ‘I felt alone, isolated; I didn’t want to be alone with him. I went through this in silence, believing it was my fault…’ … ‘I didn’t like myself; there were days when I had trouble sitting (three days). I had therapy, [but] I was too scared to report it, …I was disgusted with myself; I still take sleeping pills because I have nightmares about him assaulting me again…’ [ 42 ] She says this in closing: [TRANSLATION] ‘I need so much strength and courage and energy to constantly overcome my fear from one day that I’m exhausted.

I spent 18 years with S.; as life went on, everything fell apart; I would cry every night. I almost committed suicide because it was the last option I could see, but I knew my children needed me, so I stopped myself from talking about the abuse to try to give the girls a better life.

It’s hard to start a new life when you’re terrified of your ex, and seeing my abuser again every day he comes to pick up my daughter makes me relive all that.’ L.B.-M. [ 43 ] L.B.-M. says this in her victim impact statement: [TRANSLATION] ‘Feelings, Emotions and Reactions: My feelings are that I’m always afraid of this happening to me again. My emotions are that I sometimes wake up crying at night, or I wake up with a start. My reactions are that this has destroyed my life in some ways.

Physical repercussions: discomfort: I have been uncomfortable in my own skin since this happened to me; I don’t feel well sometimes, and because of that, I find that I’m not the mommy I would have liked to be for my daughter.’ Mitigating Circumstances [ 44 ] I am including the guilty plea as a mitigating circumstance. S.B. pleaded guilty. The victims did not have to take the witness stand. [ 45 ] Upon reflection, I find that the aggravating circumstances of this case outweigh the mitigating circumstances.

Conclusion [ 46 ] In the present matter, there are two distinct offences, committed against two victims, with which the Court must grapple in order to arrive at a just and fit sentence for S.B. [ 47 ] In regard to C.L., the sexual assaults were frequent and continued over a lengthy period of time, approximately 18 years. [ 48 ] In regard to L.B.-M., the sexual offence involves three incidents of sexual assault against the victim when she was between 12 and 14 years of age.

As she was a child, the Court’s approach must be guided by s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code , giving primary consideration to the objectives of denunciation and deterrence of such conduct. Our society views the sexual assault of a child as a

repugnant act. [ 49 ] In addition, the offences differ in terms of the facts and therefore naturally attract different sentences. In my view, the law is clear that the offences unique to each victim must attract consecutive sentences. It is therefore necessary to apply the totality principle to ensure that the total sentence does not exceed the overall culpability of S.B. This is consistent with s. 718.2 (

c) of the Criminal Code , which provides that “where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh”. [ 50 ] There is no magic formula or scientific approach in the application of the totality principle. In arriving at a just and fit sentence, I am mindful of the totality principle as well as the jurisprudence previously cited. I have considered the aggravating and mitigating factors as well as ss. 718.01 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code .

I will reduce the overall sentence that I would have otherwise imposed to reflect the totality principle. [ 51 ] Taking into consideration the purposes and principles of sentencing as well as the jurisprudence referred to above, it is my view that reasonable and informed persons, aware of all the relevant circumstances of this case, would view the sentence proposed by the parties as “a break down in the proper functioning of the criminal justice system”. [ 52 ] In my view, an appropriate global sentence which adequately addresses the circumstances specific to S.B. while also respecting the goals of deterrence and denunciation, as well as the principles and purposes of sentencing, is 10 years.

However, I am reducing the sentence to eight years because of the guilty pleas and in accordance with the totality principle. The details of the sentence are as follows: [ 53 ] For the offences against C.L, on the first count, I impose a sentence of six years’ imprisonment to be served consecutively to any other sentence. This sentence will be reduced by a 33-day credit as he has been incarcerated since June 3, 2019. I would have imposed a sentence of eight years on this count.

On the second count, I impose a sentence of six years’ imprisonment, but to be served concurrently. [ 54 ] For the offences against L.B.-M., I impose a sentence of two years’ imprisonment, consecutive to any other sentence. [ 55 ] Furthermore, the following additional orders are imposed: 1) the accused will provide a sample of his DNA as required by s. 487.051 (

a) of the Criminal Code ; 2) the accused will be subject to a mandatory firearms prohibition ordered for 10 years pursuant to s. 109(2) of the Criminal Code ; 3) the accused will comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for life pursuant to s. 490.013(2.1) of the Criminal Code . Dated at Campbellton, New Brunswick, on June 24, 2019. SUZANNE C. BERNARD, Judge of the Provincial Court