Crown’s appeal of pedophile’s sentence dismissed

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has ruled that a Saskatoon judge did not commit any errors in applying the law when he declined to impose an indefinite prison sentence on a sex offender with a long history of abusing children under his care, including his own daughters.

“Sam” (his name can’t be published in order to protect the identities of his victims) pleaded guilty in Saskatoon Court of Queen’s Bench to eight sexual and child pornography related offences against his daughters, who were 10 and 11 years old when the abuse began.

The judge declared him a dangerous offender and sentenced him to 11 years and three months in prison — reduced to eight years with credit for time already spent in custody — followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The 51-year-old’s history of sex offences against children reaches back almost three decades, the appeal court judges noted in their Dec. 5 written decision.

His first victims were children he babysat — a 12-year-old boy and a seven- or eight-year old girl — and abused over a “prolonged period of time,” the judges noted. Sam was convicted in August 1989 of two counts of sexual assault in connection with those crimes. Rather than jail time, he was sentenced to a year on probation.

In 2002, he was convicted of sexual interference and sexual assaults in connection with a four-year period of abuse against his stepdaughter, who was 10 years old when the abuse began. Sam was sentenced to five years in prison.

He participated in three sex offender treatment programs during his time behind bars, and during his third program was found to have “several hand-drawn pornographic pictures of a girl” in his possession, the judges noted.

Sam was set free on statutory release after serving two-thirds of the five-year sentence. However, his release was later revoked after he violated his release conditions by spending time with his estranged spouse and young daughters.

These daughters were the victims of his third round of crimes, which lasted for three years, starting in January 2012, when he was 44. The abuse included Sam taking photos of his daughters while sexually assaulting them. Child pornography was also found on his computer.

Dr. Shabehram Lohrasbe, a forensic psychiatrist who examined Sam after the Crown applied to have him declared a dangerous offender, found that although he accepted legal responsibility, “this was juxtaposed with self-deception about his moral and psychological responsibility for them,” the judges noted.

“He placed partial blame for his offending on his victims.”

Lohrasbe said it cannot be assumed that further treatment will reduce Sam’s risk of reoffending, but also offered a “more optimistic scenario” in which his risk could become manageable in the community, the judges wrote.

Because Sam is only known to have targeted children in his care or who were family members, it’s “likely that a concrete and coherent risk-management strategy could readily be put in place on (his) reintegration into the community,” according to the psychiatrist. “If he is open, disclosive, and cooperative with those who carry the responsibility of supervising him in the community, it is feasible that the risk he poses can be managed in the community.”

In its appeal, the Crown argued there was no evidence to support anything but an indefinite prison sentence, given the intractable nature of Sam’s pedophilia. However, based on previous case law, “evidence of intractability does not, of necessity, mandate an indeterminate sentence,” the appeal court ruled. “There was evidence the risk posed by (him) to the community would, as a result of aging and with the right structure and monitoring, be reduced to the point where it was manageable.”