Supreme Court

R. v. McLeod, 2003 NWTSC 43
Date: 20030814
Docket: S-1-CR-2003000022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

IN THE MATTER OF:


HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN


- v -


DONALD CORIBETT MCLEOD


Transcript of the Oral Reasons for Sentence by The Honourable Justice J. E. Richard, sitting in Inuvik, in the Northwest Territories, on the 18th day of July, A.D.., 2003.


APPEARANCES:

Ms. C. Carrasco:  Counsel for the Crown

Mr. J. MacFarlane:  Counsel for the Defence


THE COURT:   The offender before the Court, Donald Corbett McLeod, has been convicted by a jury of serious crimes of violence. He is a man of 32 years of age who has a history of crimes of violence. He has a lengthy criminal record which, by my count, includes 11 previous and separate crimes of violence, for each of which he has received a jail term.

He was released from jail on January 13th of this year, and on February 6th to 8th, just three weeks later, he committed the crimes for which he is being sentenced this morning.

This is a sad case. It is difficult for a person not to be affected by the tragic circumstances of this case. We have a victim, Clara Frost, 28 years of age, who, by her own admission is an alcoholic and who leads a very self-destructive life-style. She is a very vulnerable person, and she is obviously ill with mental or emotional problems. She has, in recent years, suffered greatly from an abusive relationship with Mr. McLeod. She has been unable or unwilling to extricate herself from this abusive relationship.

On February 8th of this year, however, she did reach out to someone when she went to her sister's house. Clara Frost may not realize it, but she is fortunate to have a sister like Greta Sittichinli, because it seems that Greta Sittichinli was able to give Clara sufficient encouragement and support to

[Page 1]

enable Clara, on that occasion, to go to the police and tell them of the violence that she was being subjected to. In my view, it is not an overstatement to say that Greta Sittichinli may have saved her sister's life; and yet the victim, Clara Frost, comes to court reluctantly and in a defiant way and says that nothing happened to her.

Then we have the offender, Donald McLeod. He too is a sick individual and obviously suffers from a different kind of mental illness. I am told that he had an unfortunate upbringing, and in his early years was raised in a home environment that was dominated by alcohol abuse and domestic violence. He presents as an uncaring person and a cruel person. It appears to me, as a lay person, that he is incapable of feeling respect for other human beings. He displays a clear disregard for the personal feelings and integrity of others. I also detect a certain immaturity, notwithstanding his age. He is in denial, does not accept responsibility for his own conduct. In his response to the present charges, he would have us believe that he is the victim and Clara Frost is the abuser.

In any event, it is indeed a sad case, and it is today the Court's responsibility to impose an appropriate sentence for the present crimes that Mr. McLeod has committed.

[Page 2]

The main purpose of the sentencing process is to provide for a safe and peaceful community, to protect the people in the community, and to promote respect for the law or the rules of society. A particular sentence can have a variety of objectives, and here the objectives include denunciation and deterrence, but principally the objective is to separate Donald McLeod from society for the protection of the members of society; that is, Clara Frost and others.

In the present case, Mr. McLeod's criminal record is obviously an aggravating circumstance, and I will focus here primarily on the violent crimes that appear on his record.

In 1987, while still a youth in the eyes of the law, he was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to six months custody.

In April, 1991, he was convicted of assault, sentenced to two months custody. On the same date he was convicted of two other assaults and given 30 days for each of those assaults.

In February, 1993, convicted of assault again, sentenced to three months imprisonment. On the same date, assault causing bodily harm, six months consecutive.

In April, 1994, he was convicted of manslaughter, sentenced to two years less one day.

In September, 1996, assault causing bodily harm,

[Page 3]

nine months imprisonment.

On August 27th, 2001, he was convicted of assault and also assault causing bodily harm. The victim in both cases, I am told, was Clara Frost. Also on that date, he was convicted of breach of an undertaking, and that breach related to a non-contact provision with respect to Clara Frost.

The assault conviction in August of 2001, I am told, arose from an incident on May 25th, 2001, and the assault consisted of Mr. McLeod kicking Ms. Frost in the vaginal area, and on her arms and legs. The assault causing bodily harm conviction in August of 2001 arose from an incident on August 2nd, 2001, when apparently Mr. McLeod threw Ms. Frost off of some stairs, resulting in her suffering a fractured heel.

Next, we have a conviction in September 23rd of 2002, breach of an undertaking. Again, I am told that this breach related to a non-contact with Clara Frost provision in his undertaking. He received a sentence of two months.

Next, on October 24th, 2002, he was convicted of assault, sentenced to four months imprisonment. Again, the victim was Clara Frost. This assault, I am told, involved cigarette burns to her person. The date of that offence was August 24th of 2002; obviously a date when he had not yet completed his sentence from the August, 2001 convictions.

[Page 4]

On January 13th of this year he was released from jail and returned to Inuvik. Approximately three weeks later, on February 6th to 8th, he committed the crimes for which he is being sentenced this morning. Again, I note from the dates that he was, technically speaking, still serving his October sentence when he committed these crimes.

Clara Frost and Mr. McLeod had apparently had a common-law relationship since 1997, and one child was born of that relationship. The child was in foster care at the time of these events.

Clara Frost stated that she did not want Mr. McLeod to resume cohabitation with her on his release from jail and his return to Inuvik in January of this year. She says, however, that he forced his way into her home, uninvited, and again started to control her life.

Over the two- to three-day period, before she went to the police on the evening of February 8, she stated that she was subjected to continual assaults. She said he hit her, kicked her, punched her, and burned her with cigarettes. She had bruises all over her body and also cigarette burns. She said he forced her to have sex when she did not want to.

I am satisfied, on the whole of her second videotaped statement to Constable Martin on February 8th, that there was more than one instance of forced

[Page 5]

sexual intercourse. She said that she let him have sex with her because she did not want to get pounded again. She said there were times when he would not allow her to go to sleep, times when he would not allow her to sit down, times when he would not allow her to eat. He would accuse her of being with other men and call her names. She said that he would spit in her face. She said that he would threaten her every day, and that he told her that if he ever had to go back to jail that he would kill her. She told the police, on the evening of February 8th, that she left her house that day because she could not put up with it anymore, because she was getting burnt and kicked and punched.

The jury convicted Mr. McLeod of assault and using a weapon, cigarettes, in the commission of the assault contrary to Section 267 of the Criminal Code. The jury also convicted him of sexual assault contrary to Section 271. Each of these crimes carries a maximum sentence of ten years imprisonment in a federal penitentiary.

There are aggravating features here, as I have mentioned. In particular, the previous pattern of violence, the reoffending immediately after release from jail, the continuation of the violence over a two- to three-day period, and the commission of crime against a very vulnerable person in her own home.

[Page 6]

There are no mitigating circumstances. Mr. McLeod displays no remorse for what he has done, but instead contemptuous disregard for the feelings and integrity of another human being. Mr. McLeod does have pretrial custody of five and a half months, and is given credit for that in the determination of the length of the penitentiary term to be imposed.

Please stand, Mr. McLeod. Donald Corbett McLeod, for the crimes that you have committed, on Count 1, assault with a weapon, the sentence of the Court is you serve a term of imprisonment of two and a half years. On Count 2, sexual assault, the sentence is four years imprisonment concurrent to the sentence on Count 1.

In addition, there will be a firearms prohibition order under Section 109 for a period of ten years. I grant the DNA order sought by the Crown. In the circumstances there will be no victim fine surcharge. I make no recommendation as to where Mr. McLeod should serve his term of imprisonment. I leave that in the discretion of the federal penitentiary officials. You may sit.

Is there anything else on this case, counsel?

MS. CARRASCO:  Yes, Sir. If there could be an order for the release of the exhibits after the appeal period has expired.

THE COURT:   Agreed?

[Page 7]

MR. MACFARLANE:  No position, Sir.

THE COURT:   That order is granted. Before we close court I want to commend each of Crown counsel, Ms. Carrasco, and defence counsel, Mr. MacFarlane, for their individual conduct of this very difficult case. Thank you. We will close court.


Certified to be a true and accurate transcript, pursuant to Rules 723 and 724 of the Supreme Court Rules

Joel Bowker
Court Reporter

[Page 8]