Digest: R v Potter, 2018 SKPC 60

• Date: November 09, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKPC 60

Docket Number: 44665768 , PC18062

Court: Provincial Court

Date: 2018-11-09

Judges:

• Gray

Subjects:

• Criminal Law � Assault � Sexual Assault
• Criminal Law � Dangerous Offender Application
• Criminal Law -Sentencing � Dangerous Offender � Indeterminate Sentence

Digest: The accused pled guilty to two Criminal Code offences: sexual assault on a person under the age of 16 years, contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code, and exposing his genitals to the same person under 16 years of age, contrary to s. 173(2). The complainant was nine years old when he met the accused. The complainant said the accused masturbated in front of him. Additionally, the accused touched the complainant�s genitals once and attempted to masturbate him. The accused admitted that he took six naked pictures of the complainant. He indicated that he knew the actions were illegal, but he did not see them as harmful. The accused was 40 years old at the hearing. He was removed from his mother�s home at a young age and adopted. His birth mother drank heavily during pregnancy and the accused was affected. The accused was considered to be of average intelligence. He was removed from his adoptive family at about the age of 12 due to reports of him sexual offending against young children in the neighbourhood. In 1993, he was convicted of three counts of sexual assault against residents in a group home he was living in. He was sentenced to 15 months� secure custody. The accused had frequent subsequent charges and sentences. Many of the charges related to breaches of court orders. He eventually started to receive federal incarceration time for his offences. The offence that was most recent to the sexual assault relating to the dangerous offender application was a charge in 2005 when the accused rode his bike past a school ground. The accused�s probation officer indicated that he was a high risk to re-offend, which was increased by the accused�s increased use of marijuana. The probation officer doubted that the accused had internalized information from group treatment even though he could repeat the information. The accused�s institutional parole officer at a federal institution was concerned about his risk level because he told her he would re-offend if he was released. Dr. T., the doctor appointed to assess the accused, was concerned that the accused had an inability to self-manage his risk to sexually offend even with community...