Man fac­ing dan­ger­ous of­fender hear­ing loses bid to have case stayed

Vancouver Sun - - CITY - KEITH FRASER kfraser@post­ twit­ kei­thrfraser

A Rich­mond man who is fac­ing a dan­ger­ous of­fender hear­ing af­ter be­ing con­victed in a sex­ual as­sault case has lost a bid to have the case thrown out due to de­lays in sen­tenc­ing.

On Aug. 15, 2016, B.C. Supreme Court Jus­tice Paul Pearl­man found Novid Dad­mand guilty of sex­u­ally as­sault­ing five women, four of them by de­ceiv­ing them into be­liev­ing he was a mod­el­ling agent and that they were au­di­tion­ing for a po­si­tion as a model.

Two of the vic­tims were un­con­scious when Dad­mand sex­u­ally as­saulted them, at­tacks that were cap­tured on video record­ings seized by po­lice from the ac­cused.

Fol­low­ing his con­vic­tion, the Crown sought to have him de­clared a dan­ger­ous of­fender and pos­si­bly face an in­def­i­nite jail sen­tence. Af­ter the Crown had car­ried out the steps to ap­ply for the dan­ger­ous of­fender des­ig­na­tion, a nine-week hear­ing was set to be­gin Sept. 25.

But Dad­mand’s lawyers said that the de­lay was un­rea­son­able and ap­plied for a stay of pro­ceed­ings and an or­der quash­ing the con­vic­tions.

The Crown re­sponded by ar­gu­ing that dan­ger­ous of­fender pro­ceed­ings, in which a court-ap­pointed assess­ment of the ac­cused must be done and the ap­proval of the at­tor­ney gen­eral ob­tained to go ahead, were in­her­ently more com­plex and lengthy than con­ven­tional sen­tence hear­ings.

Prose­cu­tors Don Mon­trichard and Kristin Bryson also ar­gued that any prej­u­dice to Dad­mand while he awaited sen­tenc­ing was out­weighed by so­ci­ety’s in­ter­est in en­sur­ing an ap­pro­pri­ate sen­tence is handed down.

In a rul­ing re­leased Fri­day, the judge noted that a re­cent Supreme Court of Canada rul­ing on the is­sue of trial de­lay, in which lim­its were im­posed on the time it takes from charges to be laid un­til a ver­dict, had de­clined to con­sider whether the lim­its ap­plied to de­lays in sen­tenc­ing. He said no bind­ing ap­pel­late au­thor­ity pro­vided guid­ance.

The judge found the to­tal de­lay from the ver­dict to the an­tic­i­pated date of de­ci­sion on sen­tenc­ing to be 16 months, a pe­riod that was long enough for him to be re­quired to con­duct an in­quiry.

He found that al­though some of the de­lay was at­trib­ut­able to the Crown, the pros­e­cu­tion had also made ef­forts to min­i­mize any de­lays and dili­gently sought the at­tor­ney gen­eral’s con­sent.

Pearl­man said that Dad­mand, who claimed he’d been as­saulted while he was held in a pre-trial fa­cil­ity, had suf­fered some prej­u­dice through his ex­tended in­car­cer­a­tion.

But he also noted that with re­spect to his fair trial rights, Dad­mand’s rights had not been im­paired and there was no sug­ges­tion that de­lays in sen­tenc­ing im­paired his abil­ity to call wit­nesses at the sen­tenc­ing hear­ing.

While Dad­mand has suf­fered some prej­u­dice, the prej­u­dice is not sub­stan­tial, said the judge.

“In any event, the prej­u­dice to Mr. Dad­mand is out­weighed by so­ci­ety’s in­ter­est in en­sur­ing that the court has full and ac­cu­rate in­for­ma­tion in or­der to de­ter­mine whether or not a sen­tence of de­ten­tion in a pen­i­ten­tiary for an in­def­i­nite pe­riod is war­ranted in this case,” said Pearl­man.

“Weigh­ing all these fac­tors, I con­clude that in the cir­cum­stances of this case, the de­lay of 16 months be­tween ver­dict and the an­tic­i­pated de­ci­sion on sen­tenc­ing is not un­rea­son­able,” the judge added.

Novid Dad­mand


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.