rj^mmmmmmoBS BmMmvwmiTTnniTT^ I N THF SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST T E R R I T O R ] f-IS B E T W E E N HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and CLAYTON CAPOT-BLANC
THE ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGEHcNT OF THE ff̂ I ,,.v M ^^^ pSil ^
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C TALL IS, :«5-rJ
---UPON COMMENCING AT 2:35 P.M. THE COURT: In this particular case I am going to deliver judgement in the form cf Oral Rea:;ens.. The accused has pleaded guilty. He was charged that he did on or about the 19th day of November A.D. 1377, at or near the Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk in the Northwest Territories, unlawfully cause bodily harm to Katheri-ne Ettaqiak, conttary to Section 245(2) of the Criminal Code of Casiada. ^ In this particular cas:e the accused is 20 y2?,rz cf age. The prosecution relied upon and emphasized three
previous conviclions that are set forth in detail in Exhibit SI
iky B^ \ l \
^
~mi Indeed, these convictions are of significance because the first one on July the 25th, 1975 deals with an indictable offence, although the facts and circumstances are admittedly different. It is however, significant that that assault was on his mother. He was treated with a great deal of leniency since the Court imposed a fine of only $50.00. The conviction of February the 9th, 1978, which carried with it a sentence of three months jail, involved an offence on or about September 26th, 1977 on the person of Agnes E11 a g i a k. Apparently, she was assaulted by the accused at around 7:00 A.M. in the morning. He was angry for no apparent reason and had kicked and pushed her. The fright that she sustained on that occasion is illustrated by reason of the fact that she jumped through the bathroom window to escape. It is also dibbturbing to note that he tried to kick rier in the face. I Shortly after that incident, he was charged, and although he was not convicted until February the 9th, 1978 I think the charge should have put him on notice that this type of conduct, if he did do it, was certainly not acceptable and was a breach of the Criminal Law. The second offence on February the 9th, 1978 involved a conviction under Section 245(1) of the Code, and it carried with it a sentence cf five months consecutive. This incident took place on or about October the 19th, 1977, and the victim was a young lady by the name of Irene Felix.
The circumstances of that assault have been outlined and it is noteworthy once again that the attack was upon a young woman. This particular charge that took place on November the 19th, once again involved a young woman. I agree with learned Counsel for the Crown that there is a pattern of history of assaults on female persons. That is of some significance. It seems to me that once the accused was charged with the second offence, namely an assault on Irene Felix, the fact that he was charged should forcefully have brough home to him that this type of conduct (if he had done it) was unacceptable. Notwi tlistandi ng that, we have the incident on November the 19th. I have no doubt that the victim and the accused were under the influence of liquor. This is not in any way challenged or denied. I
Once again, I would repeat what I have said on many
previous occasions, and that is that intoxication or impairment by liquor may be an explanation but it is not an excuse. Furthermore, the fact that a girl is under the influence of liquor does not give a person a greater licence to abuse her in any way. In this particular case. I am treating it as one of physical abuse rather than sexual abuse. In many ways, the conduct that is described on this occasion is even more reprehensible than what happened on earlier occasions.
^"Zt Learned Counsel for the Defence has directed my attention to the authorities dealing with general factors involved in sentencing, and I do not think that I need Lo repeat them in this particular case. Furthermore, my mine has been directed to the importance of taking into account the cumulative effect of any sentence that may be imposed. I should add in fairness, that Mr. Bayly, Counsel for the Prosecution has indicated that the Crown is not seeking the maximum sentcnc; but was seeking a sentence in terms of months. In this particular case I also recognize the fact that where you have a youthful first offender it is desirable to avoid imposing a lengthy jail term. I refer to Albe>"t5 Court of Appeal Judgement in the Queen vs Beacon and Modney, 31C.C.C(2d)56 must be read with substantial caution when you attempt to apply it to this particular [ case because we have the previous convictions, and what you might call the previous pattern or history of assaults en female persons. This particular course of conduct is not acceptable in any community, whether it is Tuktoyaktuk, Inuvik, Yellowknife or any other part of Canada. Under the circumstances, I have to give effect to a balancing of interests tiiat is involved here and in particular, it seems to me that some weight must now be given to deterrent aspect as well as to the welfare of the accused and of society. When I use tne term "deterrent", I am not only thinking of this accused but also of others
rjart mmsm who might be so minded to act in an unbecoming fashion as the accused did. Balancing all these factors as best I can and trying to vindicate the law so as not to crush the accused and destroy any possibility of future rehabilitation I think an appropriate sentence in this case would be ten months concu,rent. I therefore sentence the accused to ten months in prison. In this particular case, I am going to have a trans-ript of my remarks sent to the Superintendent of the Corre-.tional Centre. I strongly recommend that during the course of his stay ot the Centre arrangements be made as soon as possible to hd/o a psychiatric examination of this accused by Dr. MacKo/ or some other qualified person. If this person is in need of psychiatric or other counsc.]]Tng^ the sentence will be of sufficient length to enablt} the people embark on a course of treatment. If it is fovnd that no treatment is required I would express the hope ^hat the accused recognize that this is simply not a propf' vvay to carry on. If liquor is his problem then he is going to have to grapple with that himself. There are agencies, of course, who will assist if he hr: a genuine desire to quit d -"i n k i ng . Is there anything further to be done on this matter, such -•<,s the disposition of exhibits? MR. BAYLY: I would ask for the usual Order although I haven't checK^d to see what they are.
THE COURT: Were there any exhibits? MR. 6ELDREICH: No, sir. Not that I am aware of. THE COURT: What are Exhibits 1, 2 and 3? MR. BAYLY:.. They are photographs and documents from the looks of things. My Lord. THE COURT: All right, there will be no Order with respect to exhibits. And that concludes this matter. --- CONCLUDED AT 2:55 P.M.
C. F. Ta ? l 1 l I i •; •-J . b . L ,
I