Digest: R v G.G., 2018 SKQB 169

• Date: June 18, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 169

Docket Number: QB17562 , CRM 185/17 JCS

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-06-18

Judges:

• Gabrielson

Subjects:

• Criminal Law � Sexual Offences � Sexual Interference � Person under 16 � Sentencing

Digest: The accused pled guilty to five counts of sexual touching of victims under the age of 16, contrary to s. 151 of the Criminal Code. The offences were committed while the accused was working as an educational assistance in a primary school located on his reserve. The victims were all eight or nine-year-old girls who attended the school. They told the police that the accused had touched their private parts and/or their buttocks while they were at school or on school trips. Victim impact statements written for them by their parents or other relatives stated that the victims had become withdrawn after the offences occurred. Some no longer wanted to go to school. The psychiatric assessment of the accused, a 25-year-old Aboriginal man, indicated that he suffered from some intellectual disabilities but that he appreciated the nature and quality of his acts and that they were legally or morally wrong. He was diagnosed as having paedophilic sexual problems and his risk of reoffending was high. A psychologist and the author of the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) both assessed his risk of reoffending as low but if he did not receive treatment for his sexual interests and cognitive distortions, his risk would increase. He did not possess any hostility to women or children. He had no prior criminal record and did not abuse substances. In addressing the Gladue factors, the PSR stated that although the accused had not attended residential school, his grandparents had. He said that he had not suffered from racism. The accused expressed remorse. The Crown proceeded by way of indictment and therefore the accused was liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years but for a minimum of one year. The Crown argued that an appropriate sentence was a three-year prison term. Since there were five victims, the accused could be sentenced under s. 718(4)(a) of the Code to five years but by application of the totality principle, the sentence would be reduced to three years. The defence submitted that the mandatory minimum sentence provided in s. 151 was unconstitutional as it violates s. 12 of the Charter. If it was found to be unconstitutional, an appropriate sentence was three to eight months in...