R v. Claude Allan Thompson, 2016 NSSC 257

SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia Citation: R v. Claude Allan Thompson , 2016 NSSC 257 Date: 2016-08-25 Docket: CRANT No. 410992 Registry: Antigonish Between: Her Majesty The Queen v.

Claude Allan Thompson Restriction on Publication: S. 486.4 Identity of Complainants Judge: The Honourable Justice Suzanne Hood Heard: February 2, 4, 5, 11, 2015, September 14, 2015, January 7, 2016, in Antigonish, Nova Scotia Written Decision: Oral Decision: September 22, 2016 August 25, 2016 Counsel: Cheryl Schurman, for the Crown Christopher Boyd, Esq., for the Defence By the Court: (Orally) [ 1 ] First I want to thank counsel for your submissions and for your very helpful briefs. Before I go further with respect to the sentencing, Mr. Thompson, do you have anything you wish to say to the Court? [ 2 ] MR.

THOMPSON : No. [ 3 ] THE COURT : I will reiterate that there is a Publication Ban in effect. [ 4 ] In the matter of The Queen – versus- Claude Allan Thompson , Mr. Thompson has been convicted of two counts of sexual assault causing bodily harm. He was found not guilty of aggravated sexual assault. [ 5 ] Mr. Thompson is 44 years of age and he had a very difficult upbringing leading to him, eventually, living on the street from about age 13 or 14. He’s had drug and alcohol issues at various times throughout his life and he has a lengthy criminal record.

A psychiatrist in Ontario believes that he is on the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome spectrum and he has HIV, but he’s on the anti-retrovirals at this point and the last testing shows that the HIV is undetectable. He also has Hepatitis C and was in a motor vehicle accident, I believe, it was last Fall. [ 6 ] Mr. Thompson worked in Ontario and he worked here until his motor vehicle accident and he’s now on income assistance.

He was previously married and there are three children of that marriage and he has joint custody with his ex-wife and access to the children. [ 7 ] He’s presently in a common-law relationship with Elizabeth Kelly and by my calculation it’s been going on for about four and

a half years. [8] The Pre-sentence Report documents Mr. Thompson’s prior history and also his criminal record. I note that 10 of those areconvictions for assault, as Mr. Boyd says, none of them were for sexual assault. [9] There is a Victim Impact Statement from one of the complainants and she talks about the psychological trauma. She has hadconcerns about whether she had in fact contracted HIV. [10] The Criminal Code provisions to which the Crown has pointed out in its very helpful brief are

Section 718 to 718.3. Withoutrepeating all of them, I would agree that they set out the purposes and principles of sentencing and there’s no disagreement by counselthat in a case like this deterrence and denunciation are the paramount principles. [11] So the joint recommendation is for 30 months concurrent for the two offences, a DNA order, and an order pursuant to the SexOffender Information Registration Act. The Crown says that that would be for life and I’ve had no objection to that submission fromcounsel for the defence.

It’s what is required by the Criminal Code. [12] It’s difficult to find authorities that are on point, similar circumstances to this case. Of course, as has been pointed out byCourts many times, sentencing is an individualized process, trying to find a fit sentence for the particular offender and the particularcircumstances of the offence. [13] The Criminal Code maximum for this offence is 14 years, but the authorities that have been cited vary widely. I also note thatthe Crown authorities were for aggravated sexual assault and in some of those cases there were very serious repercussions for some ofthe victims.

Some of them did become HIV-positive. [14] I do note, as Mr. Boyd has pointed out, although the Pre-sentence Report refers to Mr. Thompson not accepting responsibilityfor the offences and showing a lack of remorse, it’s clear that that is not to be considered by the Court as an aggravating factor. I refer tothe Court of Appeal decision in Regina v. Hawkins, 2011 NSCA 7. Mr. Boyd found one authority from Ontario for a sentencing forsexual assault causing bodily harm. It’s the 1995 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Welsh, (ON CA),[1995] O.J. No. 2859.

In that case, the sentence was for 34 months, but there were very serious physical effects on the victim. It’s theonly authority that was provided that is actually an authority on sentencing for sexual assault causing bodily harm. I do note that it’s a20 year old decision but it does give a bit of guidance. Although, as Mr. Boyd has said, he’s not diminishing the psychological effects onthe victims in this case, they are, as I’ve said, not as serious as the effects on some of the victims in some of the authorities cited.

Neitherof these victims contracted HIV and the cases which had been cited focused to a large extent on the risk of transmission and the fact thatsome of these victims actually became HIV-positive and that’s distinguishable from this case. [15] Denunciation and deterrence, as I say, are the principle provisions of the Criminal Code for a case like this. They call for aFederal Sentence and I can see no reason not to accept the joint recommendation that has been put forward by counsel. [16] Mr. Thompson, would you please stand. [17] Mr.

Thompson it is the sentence of this Court that you serve 30 months incarceration in total to be served concurrently for thetwo offences. The Court will grant a DNA order, and a Sex Offender Information Registration Act Order which will be for life. Youmay sit down. Hood, J.