No wonder victims fall silent: Court’s decision in rape case could set dangerous precedent
Advertisement
Read this article for free:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
To continue reading, please subscribe:
Monthly Digital Subscription
$19 $0 for the first 4 weeks*
- Enjoy unlimited reading on winnipegfreepress.com
- Read the E-Edition, our digital replica newspaper
- Access News Break, our award-winning app
- Play interactive puzzles
*No charge for 4 weeks then billed as $19 every four weeks (new subscribers and qualified returning subscribers only). Cancel anytime.
Read unlimited articles for free today:
or
Already have an account? Log in here »
Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 04/10/2015 (3097 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.
It appears to be one of the most puzzling decisions to come from a Manitoba judge in years.
And it could set a dangerous precedent when it comes to how our courts deal with convicted sex offenders and their victims, who are often reluctant to come forward.
You could almost hear the collective gasp coming from the Crown’s office last week when Queen’s Bench Justice Colleen Suche handed down just two years of probation, and no jail, in an extreme case of abuse.
Justice officials had sought a six-year prison sentence for the 35-year-old Sagkeeng First Nation man, who burned his female partner’s tailbone with a lighter, tied her to a crib with their baby inside and then sodomized her.
The Crown cited the Manitoba Court of Appeal’s previous edict of at least a three-year starting point for major sexual assaults. They then went up from there based on a number of factors, including no acknowledgment of wrongdoing from the accused, the fact he put the victim through a trial and the specific facts of the attack.
“Unbelievable,” a veteran prosecutor told the Free Press upon hearing Suche’s decision to impose a suspended sentence.
“Incredible,” said another, noting how defence lawyers in the province are no doubt salivating at the thought of being able to wave around this judgment at future sentencing hearings.
Suche cited two main factors in her ruling, both of which should raise alarm bells and will likely be key grounds of the Crown’s expected appeal — in addition to the fact this sentence appears to be well below the established range for this type of crime.
Firstly, Suche noted the extreme passage of time and delay in bringing the case to court. The assault with a weapon, forcible confinement and sexual assault happened in 2004, but wasn’t reported to police by the victim until 2010.
She then failed to show up to court at the 2012 preliminary hearing, forcing the Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. The charge was reinstated within the one-year deadline, and the victim did take the stand at the 2013 preliminary hearing and the 2014 trial. Sentencing was then put over until last week.
It’s true the accused, who can’t be named to protect the identify of the victim, is now being sentenced for something that happened more than a decade ago. And that he didn’t directly cause the judicial delay by deliberately dragging his case out through requested remands or changes of counsel, as some offenders do.
But that shouldn’t in any way mitigate the depravity of what Suche herself found he did to the victim.
We know many victims of sexual abuse either can’t, or won’t, disclose what is happening to them at the time it is happening. This is especially true in position-of-trust situations (such as hockey-coach-turned-predator Graham James) and complex domestic relationships such as this one, where there are young children involved.
Often that silence is directly because of the behaviour of their rapists, who leave victims terrified about potential consequences to themselves or others if they speak up.
And so we should be applauding this particular victim for mustering the courage — seemingly after many years and a few aborted attempts — to face her attacker in court. Instead, last week’s decision seems to indirectly punish her and reward her rapist, for the delay.
What kind of message does that send to other victims out there, who find themselves in equally challenging situations? Speak now, or forever hold your secret because it’s probably not going to be worth it?
The other troubling aspect of Suche’s rationale has to do with her saying “There’s no evidence before me this was part of a cycle of violence of intimidation.” She went on to describe this rape as a “spontaneous” act in the course of a lengthy domestic relationship “that had been very difficult and tense,” and noted the crime only took a few minutes to occur.
Again, this seems to be a slap in the face to victims. Are we now indirectly rewarding a rapist for committing their crime quickly? And as for saying there’s no evidence of a cycle of violence or intimidation, I think some common sense is required here.
As one veteran lawyer said last week, it’s hard to believe something as brutal as this could occur out of the blue and without any prior buildup. And I’m sure this victim felt plenty violated and intimidated when she kept details of the attack to herself for six years, then couldn’t appear at the first preliminary hearing.
There was more than enough here to justify a lengthy stint in a federal penitentiary. Instead, the man walked out of court last week with his freedom intact, facing nothing but a few conditions such as anger management and a nightly curfew.
Given the end result — especially if it’s allowed to stand — it’s easy to see why some victims choose to remain silent.
Mike McIntyre
Sports reporter
Mike McIntyre grew up wanting to be a professional wrestler. But when that dream fizzled, he put all his brawn into becoming a professional writer.