Voyeur caught at Sud­bury sports park

The Sudbury Star - - NEWS - HAROLD CARMICHAEL [email protected]­media.com Twit­ter: @HaroldCarmichae

A man con­victed of voyeurism and or­dered to stay away from chil­dren breached that con­di­tion when he went to a sports field in Sud­bury in May 2017.

The man, who can­not be iden­ti­fied due to a pub­li­ca­tion ban, will be sen­tenced af­ter a judge re­ceives a pre-sen­tence re­port.

The now 47-year-old man, who used to re­side in Greater Sud­bury, but now lives in the Sud­bury East area, pleaded guilty Thursday to breach of pro­ba­tion in the On­tario Court of Jus­tice.

De­fence lawyer De­nis Michel, who asked for the pre-sen­tence re­port, in­di­cated the court needs to be aware of a lot of new in­for­ma­tion about the man since he was last in court.

The man had been or­dered by the courts to stay away from a pub­lic park or area where chil­dren un­der the age of 16 would be present un­less ac­com­pa­nied by a su­per­vi­sory per­son. How­ever, on May 1, 2017, he went to the James Jerome Sports com­plex.

“He ac­knowl­edges he was on pro­ba­tion at the time and date at James Jerome Park,” Michel told the court.

In March of 2016, the man was fac­ing charges of mak­ing child pornog­ra­phy, voyeurism and breach of bail. He pleaded guilty to voyeurism and breach­ing his bail.

In re­sponse, Jus­tice Ran­dall La­lande is­sued a one-year house ar­rest sen­tence, or­dered the man to pro­vide a sam­ple to the na­tional DNA data­bank and or­dered that the man be listed on the na­tional sex of­fend­ers’ reg­istry for 10 years.

As a con­se­quence, the Crown with­drew five other charges, in­clud­ing one count of ac­cess­ing child pornog­ra­phy and two counts of breach of bail. The three bail breaches were al­leged to have oc­curred in late Au­gust 2015.

The man was charged in Oc­to­ber 2013, but was then se­ri­ously hurt when he was struck by a mo­tor ve­hi­cle. He was then found unit to stand trial on March 17, 2014. The case was then turned over to the On­tario Re­view Board for fu­ture re-ex­am­i­na­tion to de­ter­mine if there was any change in the man’s con­di­tion.

“It was a def­i­nitely a shock,” some­one who knows the ac­cused through his work with kids, told the news­pa­per.

Noemi Pa­que­tte, the man’s lawyer in late 2013 and early 2014, told the court in mid-De­cem­ber, 2013 he was get­ting bet­ter, but did not rec­og­nize loved ones.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.