Supreme Court

R. v. Keevik, 2004 NWTSC 88
Date: 20041216
Docket: S-1-CR-2004000095; S-1-CR-2004000116

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

IN THE MATTER OF:


HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN


- v -


STANLEY KEEVIK


Transcript of the Reasons for Sentence delivered by The Honourable Justice V.A. Schuler, in Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories, on the 9th day of December, A.D. 2004.


APPEARANCES:

Mr. D. Mahoney:  Counsel for the Crown

Mr. G. Boyd:   Counsel for the Accused


Charges under ss. 264.1(1) C.C, 267(1)(b) C.C., 266 c.c.


THE COURT:   The first thing I think that stands out in this case is the record. It may not be the worst record but it certainly is approaching one of the worst. Since 1985, in other words over the past just about 20 years, Mr. Keevik has just been continually convicted of assault, different kinds of assault -- assault peace officer, common assault, sexual assault, assault causing bodily harm - as well as other offences but obviously it's the assaults that are the most relevant in this case.

It's difficult to know what to do with someone in his situation. I haven't been told whether he's ever sought or been afforded any alcohol counselling but if indeed the problem is that when he isn't working he gets depressed and starts to drink, then the solution to that would seem to be not to drink when he's not working, but over 20 years he doesn't seem to have figured that out.

This assault causing bodily harm of which he's been convicted is in the nature, it's not a spousal assault but it has some similarities to a spousal assault in that this is a woman that he had been dating for approximately a month, whom he punched several times in the face leaving, from the pictures, it certainly appears to be

[Page 1]

pretty extensive bruising and swelling, in particular what appears to be swelling to her face from the photos that I've been given.

It's clear from the victim impact statement that she was very upset by this incident, that it scared her and it's caused her to be afraid. She understandably doesn't want Mr. Keevik coming anywhere near her.

I do take into account that Mr. Keevik has pleaded guilty and that that does indicate remorse on his part and it has saved the victim the trauma and the worry about having to testify in court. That means that she doesn't have to concern herself with that so that is to his credit.

As far as the remand time goes, he was remanded in custody, as I understand it from what counsel has said, because he breached the process he was on. In those circumstances, in my view there really isn't the same reason there is to give credit to remand time as when someone is remanded simply because they aren't able to make bail. In this case it's quite different, he's been remanded in custody because he didn't follow the conditions of his release. So I really don't put any emphasis on the remand time which, in any event, is not very long, it's just approximately

[Page 2]

a month.

I note from the record that Mr. Keevik in 1998 received a sentence of two years less a day for what was a common assault, section 266 of the Criminal Code, and then in 2001 received a two-year sentence for assault causing bodily harm. It seems to me that in the circumstances, considering the record, something more has to be done to try to deter Mr. Keevik, and in this case it seems to me that the main principle has to be specific deterrence because he is just continually assaulting people. Now I don't know whether these other assaults are spousal assaults or whether they're on men or women, but in any event it's quite a lengthy history of assault.

Stand, please, Mr. Keevik.

Mr. Keevik, you're 42 years old. It seems to me that if you want to have any sort of a normal life at your age you have to do something about your drinking if that's what's at the root of this. I'm sure it is depressing to be laid off and not have work but you seem to know that that's what makes you drink and you obviously know that when you drink you get into problems, you assault people. If this continues, at some point you may be looking at the Crown bringing a dangerous offender application and trying to have

[Page 3]

you locked up forever. You're old enough that you should be able to figure this out and it's up to you to make the decision. Nobody else can make you stop drinking. You just have to decide you're going to do it.

In the circumstances, in my view the appropriate sentence considering everything is two and a half years in jail and that's the sentence that I impose.

As the Crown has indicated that there already is a DNA order, I won't make another one.

There will be a firearm prohibition order in the usual terms which will commence today and will expire ten years after Mr. Keevik's release from imprisonment.

In the circumstances, the victim fine surcharge will be waived.

I will direct the clerk to endorse the warrant with a recommendation that Mr. Keevik be given access to alcohol treatment and counselling and also anger management treatment and counselling.

I make that recommendation, Mr. Keevik, but whether it's successful or not it seems to me is entirely up to you. I don't think I can say anything more. There's no point in me lecturing you, you're a mature man. I'm sure you are sorry

[Page 4]

that you've done this but only you can make sure it doesn't happen again.

You can have a seat.

Is there anything else that I haven't dealt with?

MR. MAHONEY:  Your Honour, the Crown will withdraw the 264(1). And I believe you have another indictment before you -

THE COURT:   Well I think because they're on an indictment you have to stay them rather than withdrawn them.

MR. MAHONEY:  Yes, Your Honour, I'll stay the 264.1. I'll also direct a stay on the remaining indictment.

THE COURT:   All right, that's the 266  indictment?

MR. MAHONEY:  Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.

THE COURT:   Anything further?

MR. MAHONEY:  No, Your Honour.

MR. BOYD:   No, Your Honour.

THE COURT CLERK:  Is victim impact statement to be entered as an exhibit?

THE COURT:   I don't think it needs to be marked as an exhibit; it's on the file in any event.

Thank you very much, counsel.

[Page 5]

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

Annette Wright, CSR(A), RPR
Court Reporter

[Page 6]