Appeals in Amy Hood case dismissed

Both appeals in the Carolyn Amy Hood case have been dismissed.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal released its decision Thursday in the case of the former school teacher who was convicted of sexual offences against former students.

The appeals were heard in September 2017 during which time the Crown asked to appeal the sentence given to 41-year-old Hood while the defence filed a cross appeal against the conviction.

“Judge (Del) Atwood imposed a 15-month conditional sentence with strict conditions to be followed by two years probation. He was careful and thorough in his analysis. These are serious offences that must be denounced and deterred. At the same time, Ms. Hood suffered from mental illness which does not pardon her, but was a legitimate factor for the judge to consider on sentencing. She has already paid dearly; for example, by losing her teaching career along with the inevitable public humiliation. Her sentence is punitive. It adequately addresses deterrence and denunciation. We would defer it to allow it to stand,” stated the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in its written decision.

Hood was sentenced in December 2016 to a 15-month conditional sentence order that includes 12 months’ house arrest followed by two years’ probation. Hood admitted to two counts of luring, sexual interference and sexual exploitation. The charges were laid in relation to offences involving teenage boys from Feb. 1 to Sept. 30, 2013.

She was teaching Grade 6 at Thorburn Consolidated at the time when it was a Primary to Grade 9 school. The defence argued during an eight-day trial that Hood was not criminally responsible at the time because of a mental disorder, but the court wasn’t convinced by this argument and rendered guilty verdicts on all four charges.

The cross-appeal from the defence said the judge erred by inferring from Hood’s choice not to testify that she adversely affected her case; that the judge’s decision was not supported by the evidence brought before the court; and that the judge erred in his treatment of expert evidence.

The cross-appeal asked that the conviction of guilt be set aside and replaced with a finding that Hood is not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder and a new trial be ordered.

“Most cases that have been engaged with the defence of NCR are where the accused may know what they are doing was legally wrong, but delusion caused them to believe what they did was necessary or justified.” stated the appeal court. “The experts here acknowledged that a person who is affected by BMD can become psychotic, including the presence of delusion. But they were unanimous; there was absolutely no evidence the appellant was at any time psychotic. The only potential delusion was whether the appellant felt she was a teenager or truly believed she was.”

The appeal court pointed out that experts did eventually state that Hood only felt like a teenager and it was not a delusion.

“As a consequence, we find no merit in any of the appellant’s complaints and we dismiss the appeal from conviction,” the court stated.