Court of Appeal orders new trial in case of sex offender’s library access

The issue of a convicted pedophile’s library access — or, more specifically, whether he breached conditions by going there — will return to provincial court for another trial.

Having received a six-year prison term in 2004 for sexually touching a five-year-old, Robert Keith Allaby was also handed a lifetime prohibition order restricting his access to children or places frequented by kids, including parks, playgrounds, swimming pools and community centres.

Allaby had his parole revoked in March 2010 when he walked through a Vancouver community centre to access a library. The National Parole Board responded by imposing a parole condition specifically restricting Allaby from entering libraries. While his parole with its specific library clause was over by the time Allaby moved to Regina in 2014, the prohibition order restricting him from attending community centres remained.

Allaby landed back in custody after he repeatedly went to the Regina Public Library between February and April 2015, accused of breaching both the prohibition order and a similarly worded probation order.

Allaby took the allegation to trial, arguing he didn’t knowingly enter a community centre when he attended the library. The case came down to the definition of “community centre” and whether Allaby believed he was doing anything wrong and Regina Provincial Court Judge Murray Hinds eventually finding in Allaby’s favour.

The Crown appealed the decision, with a panel of Saskatchewan Court of Appeal judges hearing arguments on the matter in November. The province’s highest court returned with a decision this week, ordering the new trial requested by the Crown.

“The term community centre as it applies to orders protecting children must be given an expansive meaning,” wrote Justice Ralph Ottenbreit, who penned the decision. “As a matter of common sense, children partake in social, recreational or educational activities at various locations including places that are open to the public or community and where the children are invited to attend for such activities. Places hosting such activities need not be explicitly designated community centres.”

Ottenbreit said the definition of a community centre would, at a minimum, “include places where children are present or can be reasonably expected to be present to participate in social, recreational or educational activities or any one of them,” with circumstances of each case dictating whether a facility falls within that definition.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge also erred in finding Allaby not guilty because of what was said to be his mistaken belief the library was not a community centre.

“Mr. Allaby was not mistaken about what he had done,” Ottenbreit wrote. “He was clearly aware that he was bound by two court orders that prohibited him from attending a community centre where children under 16 years and 14 years of age respectively were either present or could reasonably be expected to be present. He deliberately chose to go to the RPL.”

But as there was some evidence at trial Allaby’s error resulted from an “officially induced error” — that is, the way his order was interpreted in Vancouver — the appeal court agreed with the Crown a new trial was merited to determine whether that error might be a defence to the charge.

Justices Gary Lane and Neal Caldwell made the decision unanimous.