‘How does this make sense?’
Public reaction swift after court finds Stephen Hopkins doesn’t meet criteria for dangerous offender designation
Public reaction to the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Stephen Hopkins came swiftly Friday afternoon — swiftly, angrily and confusedly.
The court found Hopkins doesn’t meet the criteria to be declared a dangerous offender and given an indeterminate sentence. It did designate him a long-term offender, sentencing him to 6 ½ years in prison followed by a five-year supervision order for breaking into a St. John’s home in September 2020 and sexually assaulting a teenage girl inside.
With credit for the time he has spent in custody on remand, Hopkins has 422 days left to serve.
At the time he attacked the teenager, Hopkins, now 33, was already a registered sex offender and had been out of jail for two months after serving a sentence for sexually assaulting two women on a city walking trail.
Justice Peter O’flaherty delivered his decision but has yet to provide his reasons for it, saying he will file them in writing in the coming days.
“This has been a complex, challenging and emotive case,” O’flaherty said. “Mr. Hopkins, I hope that you will receive the treatment and counselling you require to change the trajectory of your life. You are still a young man. Good luck.”
Prosecutor Richard Deveau had argued for Hopkins to be declared a dangerous offender, based on his past behaviour and a report from forensic psychiatrist Dr. Jasbir Gill, who assessed Hopkins and determined he met the legal test.
Hopkins didn’t accept that his actions were criminal, Gill said, and he told her that he would engage sexually with a female if she invited him to, and if she refused after that, he would continue anyway.
“He felt society should not look upon his behaviour as something inappropriate, and he felt that society should stop impeding on his pursuit of sexual satisfaction,” Gill testified.
Deveau argued Hopkins’ refusal to recognize the law around consent was “the most concerning part” of the evidence.
“He’s basically telling us that’s what he’s going to do in the future,” he argued.
Hopkins, who self-represented in court, did not oppose the Crown’s application for dangerous offender designation. Nor did lawyer John Brooks, who was appointed amicus curiae to provide Hopkins with impartial legal information and advice.
Brooks agreed Hopkins met the criteria for the designation overall, but suggested O’flaherty could consider Gill’s statements that Hopkins’ risk to the community might be managed with several interventions, with which he has so far not been willing to comply.
“It’s the amicus’ view that she was not throwing out all hope for Mr. Hopkins,” Brooks said. “She presented a treatment program that may – may – manage his risk. Is that sufficient to determine there’s a reasonable expectation that it could be managed? She didn’t say it was probable, but she said possible.”
For the court to deem someone a dangerous offender, it must be satisfied that one of several situations applies. Among them: that the person has committed a serious personal injury offence and is at risk to reoffend, based on a pattern of behaviour; the person has committed a pattern of aggressive behaviour with indifference to the consequences; or the person has committed a sexual assault and shown a failure to control their sexual impulses, with potential to harm others.
Serial rapist Sofyan Boalag of St. John’s was declared a dangerous offender in 2017 and remains in custody. Ontario serial rapist and murderer Paul Bernardo, convicted in 1995, is also a designated dangerous offender.
“This is one of the most drastic sentences that can be imposed under Canadian law,” O’flaherty said Friday.
If the court didn’t find Hopkins met the criteria for dangerous offender status, the Crown argued for long-term offender designation, with a 10-year jail sentence and the maximum 10-year long-term supervision order once he’s released.
Long-term offender designation can be applied to an offender receiving a federal sentence who poses a substantial risk of reoffending and causing serious harm, but there is a reasonable possibility that the risk can be controlled in the community.
Along with the long-term supervision order, O’flaherty ordered that Hopkins must abide by the rules of the Sex Offender Registration Act, must submit a DNA sample to a police database, is prohibited from possessing weapons, and is banned from contacting the complainant while he’s in custody.
Community members were quick to express their outrage at Friday’s decision online and in emails to The Telegram.
“How does this make sense?” asked one reader. “Justice was not served here in any way, for anyone.”
“Let me get this straight: he has refused treatment up to now, doesn’t think he did anything wrong, and says he’s going to do it again, but is not found to meet the test for a dangerous offender? Who possibly would fit it better than this?” wrote another.
Violence Prevention Avalon East, a local alliance of agencies focused on ending violence in homes and communities, expressed a similar concern in a written statement.
“The Crown, the courtappointed psychiatric assessments, and even Hopkins himself have made it very clear that he will reoffend. This is not an ‘if,’ but a ‘when,’” the statement reads. “While we always hope for rehabilitation, we have to accept that some people in our society are inherently dangerous and refuse intervention.”
The organization wonders what message the court’s decision will send to the young woman Hopkins assaulted and others who have experienced violence.
“Our legal system is currently at a crossroads,” its statement reads. “Our organization is witnessing the fallout of judicial mishandling of victims and their families.”