peter's Case — Mischief Under $5000 — Submissions

Between
Her Majesty the Queen, and
Peter C.

[2006] O.J. No. 1134

Ontario Court of Justice
Guelph, Ontario
Judge W.G. Mahaffy

Oral Submissions:  9 March 2006
(22 paras.)

¶ 1     W.G. MAHAFFY J. (orally):  Go ahead.

¶ 2     MR. PENNEY:  Your Honour, my first submission is that this sentencing hearing must start with an acknowledgment on Mr. Peter C.'s behalf — and he's asked me to do this — that his behaviour on October 24th, 2004, Your Honour, was wrong. He not only damaged a car, and he's making the car whole, but he caused this woman tremendous stress, as we see in her Victim Impact Statement from November 24, which was written less than 30 days after the incident. And I would ask Your Honour to take into account, of course, that it was written taking into account all of the allegations, including ones on which were dismissed, but Mr. Peter C. acknowledges, and I certainly acknowledge, that her fear at the time would have been real. Here is somebody that should have been staying away from her, he was on release, there is absolutely no reason for him to be causing her any strife, yet damages were caused to her vehicle in a way that was meant for her never to find out. So in a way it was supposed to be unsettling strife. And it is a sword that cuts both ways — he didn't do it while she was in the car, yet at the same time he did it in the manner so that she wouldn't know where the damage was coming from.

¶ 3     And there is nothing, Your Honour that I'm going to say that minimizes, number one, his conduct on that day, the mean spiritness of the conduct of that day, and the real fear that she experienced, and the real anxiety she suffered in the weeks and months afterwards.

¶ 4     And, frankly, as you heard from both Mr. Peter C.'s brother and his father — this is in October when they were presented as sureties for Mr. Peter C. on the third set of charges — his father had nothing but disappointment in his heart. All he could have was expectation. They both indicate in their affidavits that this is someone who needed close supervision from October, so it was a gradual process of Mr. Peter C. standing on his own feet, having destroyed the trust of his father and his brother at the time. So he had to rebuild it over time, and I'm sure it was the same from Ms Lara S.'s point of view — it's now over time. I'm sure that she knows Mr. Peter C. is going to stay away from her, and I suspect if the Victim Impact Statement were dated more recently rather than being sixteen months old, it wouldn't have displayed as much anxiety.

¶ 5     Your Honour it is my submission that sentencing hearings are generally concerned about three things — number one what occurred, and that's been covered. Number two why it has occurred, and number three what has the accused done to understand and overcome the why. And it is my submission to Your Honour that Mr. Peter C. has done everything we can expect of any individual that comes through those two doors and admits a wrong. He's taking every conceivable step from October 2004 to understand why he's being charged, why he committed this act, to gain insight into his behaviour, and to overcome the behaviour — what Dr. Quek calls making both the attitudinal and the behavioral changes necessary to make real change in the individual and to give the individual real insight.

¶ 6     So to that extent, Your Honour, the passage of time has been frankly in everybody's favour because it has given Mr. Peter C. an opportunity to gain insight. You see from the reports, Your Honour — I'm not going to go through them in detail, I'm not going to go through them at all, in fact, because Your Honour has read them — he has attended for 25 sessions, starting from a very early time. It's not something that he ran and did just to get a decent sentencing report.

¶ 7     In terms of the other background, Your Honour, he's 44 years of age. He is employed full time, employed by a company by the name of R***, this is in the materials — he's been there for six years. He has essentially been employed full time as an adult, Your Honour, since about the age of 16 or 17. He has great support in the community, many of them are here today. Restitution has been made in full for the damage that he caused.

¶ 8     I'm asking Your Honour to consider the discharge provisions. In asking Your Honour that I'd like to address why it's in his interest and not contary to the public interest. It is obviously in his interest that he not be convicted. He's 44 years of age, he's never had a record in the past, and he would like to avoid being convicted.

¶ 9     Why is it not contrary to the public interest, Your Honour, to grant him a discharge? These are my submissions on that front. Number one — he has no criminal record. Number two — the circumstances of the offence are not so serious, Your Honour, that they would take the case out of the discharge provisions. I'm not going to go as far as to say it's a simple property offence because it's not. Property was not the motivation, and his actions were admittedly mean spirited. But again, my submission is that the circumstances of the events are not so serious to take it out of the discharge provisions.

¶ 10     I put before Your Honour a number of cases — all domestic situations — where the victim received injuries and there were serious assaults involving choking, and all these individuals received discharges. I'm not suggesting that a discharge is the only option that's available to Your Honour, but I am suggesting and submitting quite forcefully that the circumstance of the offence do not take it out of the discharge provision.

¶ 11     The third reason it's not contrary to the public interest, Your Honour, is that Mr. Peter C. is sincerely remorseful for his conduct and he has been remorseful for some time. Although this is a plea on the morning of the trial, Mr. Peter C. has always been ready to accept responsibility and to enter a plea on the basis that it has been entered this morning. I'd ask Your Honour to consider giving him credit for an early demonstration of remorse.

¶ 12     The fourth reason, Your Honour, is that full restitution has been made. Obviously, we cannot go back and take away the anxiety that Ms Lara S. suffered immediately after this through the month of November and I'm sure into December and probably affected her Christmas of 2004 as well. All that Peter C. can say to that is that he is remorseful. But we have made full restitution for the property.

¶ 13     And he has demonstrated, Your Honour, as well, in terms of making himself whole and addressing the wrong, he has demonstrated to himself, to the community, to Ms Lara S. and to the Court that he can stay away from her, and that, when this situation comes up again, he's going to cope with it in a much different way.

¶ 14     The fifth reason, Your Honour, that it's not contrary to the public interest is that Mr. Peter C. has demonstrated a commitment to himself, his family, Ms Lara S., and to the community at large, that he's prepared to do what is necessary to understand and overcome the why of what occurred. This commitment, Your Honour, primarily he has made to himself. He has attended 25 sessions and he has accomplished in my submission what we hope all accused persons can accomplish when they find themselves in this type of situation.

¶ 15     The sixth reason, Your Honour, is that Mr. Peter C. is an exemplary individual in so many other ways — in frankly every other aspect of his life other than the behaviour that brings him here before the court. Your Honour has extensive letters and materials before you demonstrating that as a father he's been a committed and loving father, Your Honour, that gave completely of himself. Your Honour might have noticed reading the material that all of his brothers have pursued post-secondary education and have professional careers. He had both the joy and the burden of having children at a very young age himself, and, as Dr. Bloom indicates, he readily gave up his life as a teenager to take on the responsibilities of a parent. So he's accustomed to stepping to the plate and accounting for his own behaviour. He got married very young, both he and the mother of the child — they got married, Your Honour, they stayed together for about twelve to thirteen years, but unfortunately the mother decided that she didn't want part of the family any more and essentially faded out of the family in terms of responsibility about the time the kids were aged 12 and 13, and he then took on the role as a single parent. And I would ask Your Honour to consider the accomplishments of both his son and his daughter which are in the materials as well. There are letters from them in terms of assessing him as a father — someone who has a responsibility to human beings he brings into the world. I'd ask Your Honour to consider his exemplary behaviour as a brother and as a friend and as an employee and as a son.

¶ 16     As a seventh consideration, Your Honour, and the last one, I'd ask Your Honour to consider deterrence and the fact that deterrence has been achieved in this particular case. I'm not going to suggest, Your Honour, that general deterrence is unimportant in a case like this. Frankly I believe deterrence is important in all criminal matters.

¶ 17     I'd ask Your Honour to consider what the Ontario Court of Appeal says in Meneses, which is that the whole process of arrest, apprehension, and Court process also serves as a deterrent effect. And in this case, it wasn't speedy for Mr. Peter C. He's been in the system essentially for 20 months.

¶ 18     And I'd also ask Your Honour to take into account in assessing the deterrence that's been achieved in this particular case not only the three days of pretrial custody but also his six months of house arrest. He was placed on a very strict house arrest, Your Honour, from October 2004 right up until April — over six months. The bail was varied by the Crown in Milton to allow him to take a course in January, but otherwise he was not allowed out of his house unless he was with his surety or unless he was going directly to and from employment. So I'd ask Your Honour to consider — and that was as a result of this bail, Your Honour, that essentially he served under house-arrest conditions that are stricter in my submission than most conditional sentences. So in addition to the three-days pretrial custody he essentially had a six-month conditional sentence.

¶ 19     I'm not asking for any special credit for anything beyond April 2005. He has behaved himself, but that's no more than any law-abiding citizen does in Guelph or anywhere else in our community.

¶ 20     So subject to any questions Your Honour might have, those would be my submissions. The other positive thing I should say, Your Honour, in terms of his employment is that he is employed full time as a machinist and he is also now a computer and numerical control programmer. It is a course, in fact, that he took in January when the bail was varied.

¶ 21     So subject to any questions Your Honour might have, or my friend might have, or subject to Your Honour wanting to hear from anyone else in the body of the Court, those would be my submissions on behalf of Mr. Peter C. Thank you so much for hearing me out.

¶ 22     THE COURT:  Thank you. I'm obliged for your help, and that of the Crown.

BACK TO PETER'S CASE
READ THE SENTENCE BY THE JUDGE