B.C. appeal court more than doubles two-year sentence for incest, child porn

VANCOUVER — A man who sexually assaulted his younger halfsister for years, starting when she was seven, had his sentence more than doubled to five years after the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled a lower court’s two-year sentence was “demonstrably unfit.”

The man, whose identity is called G.J.M. in the ruling to protect the identity of the victim, who was called D.T., was sentenced to two-years-less-aday plus three years’ probation by a B.C. Supreme Court judge, according to the Appeal Court ruling.

He pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual interference and one count of possession of child pornography for the offences that spanned 6½ years, until D.T. was age 13, the decision says.

The Crown, which had asked for an eight-year prison term during sentencing, on appeal asked for a five-year sentence for the sexual interference and a six-month consecutive sentence for the child porn charge for G.J.M.’s videotaping of the abuse, the ruling said.

“I agree with the Crown that the judge committed errors in principle and imposed a demonstrably unfit sentence,” wrote Justice Gail Dickson on behalf of Justice Anne MacKenzie and Justice Patrice Abrioux, who agreed with the ruling.

Dickson imposed a term of 4½ years for the sexual interference counts and a six-month consecutive sentence for the porn conviction.

Dickson noted the Supreme Court of Canada in 2020 “sent a clear message: sentencing judges must do more than simply state that sexual offences against children are serious, they must impose sentences” to support the crime’s gravity.

She said that mandate “responds to society’s deepened understanding of the far-reaching damage caused by sexual violence to children” and that the harm they suffer is the “centre of the discussion.”

G.J.M. is 11 years older than D.T. and began abusing her when he was 18, and the abuse happened at least twice a month at the beginning, less frequently later, said D.T.

She reported it to her family and police in 2020 and G.J.M. admitted the abuse in a statement to police, “although he minimized its degree and duration,” the ruling said.

The lower court judge said based on a psychologist’s report she would consider that G.J.M.’s moral culpability is reduced by the sexual abuse and neglect he experienced as a child in the Philippines, where he lived with relatives when his mother immigrated to Canada without him, from age eight to 13. And she said another factor was his “longstanding and untreated depression.”

She also noted G.J.M., who is not a Canadian citizen, will likely be deported to the Philippines, which would negatively impact his future, and he lost his relationships with family members and his girlfriend who left him after the abuse became known.

But she also said aggravating factors in sentencing were that he was related to D.T., he was in a position of trust, D.T. was significantly affected, as well as the duration, frequency and location — the family home — of the offences.

But the Supreme Court judge relied on mitigating factors that G.J.M. was young, didn’t have a record, pleaded guilty and therefore spared D.T. from testifying, co-operated with the investigation, complied with bail conditions, didn’t re-offend, and showed remorse and fully accepted responsibility for the abuse.

He acknowledged D.T. would be scarred for life. His “remorse and self-loathing led to an almost fatal attempt at suicide,” the lower court judge noted.

But she also noted since he wasn’t a parent or grandparent, he was on the “lower end” of the spectrum of trust relationships.

She found G.J.M.’s “moral blameworthiness” was “partly diminished” by his difficult childhood and depression.

The lower court judge called the Crown’s suggestion of an eight-year sentence “unduly harsh.” Defence had requested a two-year conditional sentence order, or house arrest, plus probation.

Dickson wrote the judge made “several errors in principle,” including in finding G.J.M.’s moral blameworthiness was diminished by his long-term depression, the placement of him on the lower end of the trust spectrum and how the sentence would disrupt his family.