Supreme Court

              R. v. Raddi, 2006 NWTSC 18            S-1-CR-2005000057

                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

                IN THE MATTER OF:







                                 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN



                                         - v -



                                       TONY RADDI







              Transcript of the Reasons for Sentence (Oral) delivered by

              The Honourable Deputy Justice V. Ouellette, in Tuktoyaktuk,

              in the Northwest Territories, on the 14th day of March,

              A.D. 2006.





              APPEARANCES:

              Mr. D. Gates:          Counsel on behalf of the Crown

              Mr. J. Brydon:         Counsel on behalf of the Accused

                       -------------------------------------

                               Charge under s. 271 C.C.



                       Ban on Publication of Complainant/Witness
                      Pursuant to Section 486 of the Criminal Code




1     THE COURT: I find sentencing to be one of most difficult parts of this job actually. In doing that, I have to take into account the provisions of the Criminal Code and the provisions of Sections 718 and 718.2. It is always a balance - trying to balance general deterrence, personal deterrence, and denunciation generally.

2     I do think that there are some aggravating circumstances, but there are also some mitigating circumstances in this case.

3     The aggravating circumstances: Unfortunately, I think Mr. Raddi probably is aware now, and Mr. Brydon was very fair in saying, that when he drinks too much and drinks to excess he does things he should not do. This is another one of those examples where self-control and self-inhibitions are just gone because of alcohol consumption. People do things that they should not do and they are wrong, and they affect other people in very bad ways, as has happened to Allison Raddi in this case. But one also has to look at, as I call it, the big picture.

4     I do accept, Mr. Gates, the range that has been outlined by the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, and I am sitting as a justice of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. With that range of two years to three years, I do note in reviewing the case - and maybe I read it a little too quickly - but we were dealing with in that case the invitation of an older gentleman, 42, of this 15-year-old girl to his

5     18-year-old son's birthday party, suggesting to her when she is intoxicated to go into the bedroom and sleep, and he then took advantage of her. It was also found that he was intoxicated also. But the facts in that case were I think a little more aggravating than they are in this case in that sense when you are talking about a 15-year-old girl, and you are also talking what seems to be potentially a more planned and deliberate act.

6     I am satisfied, and maybe I am overstepping, but I did take the opportunity to read the statement which was provided to Constable Vallee, and I think Mr. Brydon hit the nail on the head when he said it has taken Mr. Raddi some time to come to his journey. Because in there, right at the end is where he tells Constable Vallee: "You know, I accept it because if she said I did it, then I must have done it." I think that is the most telling thing that I have read today, is that I do not think he actually remembers the incident although he is accepting it and he is doing that with his guilty plea. So I think that is a factor to take into account.

7     Mr. Gates, you are right, you cannot give too much credit when somebody enters a guilty plea at the beginning of the jury selection but there still has to be some credit given. I think in a community such as Tuktoyaktuk where everybody knows everybody and when people get their notices to serve on the jury, they know who the accused is, they know who the alleged victim is, and they also know what the alleged crime is. I think that in a lot of ways where you can avoid having a community divide itself on deciding whether or not Mr. Raddi would have been found guilty or not I think is a factor that he has to be given credit for, that he did not put the community through that and, more importantly, he did not put Allison Raddi, his sister, in such an awkward and difficult position to divide the family. So I do give him probably more credit than you would, Mr. Gates, for that guilty plea because I think it is important as a healing process also for him and for the family.

8     As far as his record, I would have been withyou all the way, Mr. Gates, if he had sought a conditional sentence in light of the subsequent breaches because that would have shown that he was not very amenable to following conditions, so that probably would not have happened even if requested.

9     As far as the other offences, I am maybe going too far. If I am hearing from Mr. Brydon correctly, the assaults and the assaults causing are alcohol-related in some way in his previous record. But the most jail he has done is five months. So that tells me that the assault causing was serious enough but maybe it was not at the real bad end of the spectrum. That also would have disqualified him for a conditional sentence.

10     I am sure Mr. Raddi knows that jail is not a piece of cake. It is very difficult. It is probably even more difficult on somebody who comes from a community such as Tuktoyaktuk going into a more general environment. The difficulties that he has with alcohol.

11     I am satisfied that, taking into account all of the sentencing factors under the Criminal Code, that the appropriate sentence is two years in jail.

12     Mr. Raddi, could you please stand. I sentence you to two years in jail.

13     I am putting on the record, and I would ask that it be endorsed, Madam Clerk, that if at all possible your sentence, Mr. Raddi, will be served in a correctional facility in the north, specifically the North Slave Correctional Centre, if possible; and if not possible, Fort Smith, which I understand now from Mr. Brydon is a satellite.

14     Can I just ask you, Mr. Raddi, another question about the hunting. What do you hunt?

15     THE ACCUSED: Never hunt in the last couple years.

16     THE COURT: Okay. You haven't?

17     THE ACCUSED: For the last couple of years I haven't.

18     THE COURT: What do you usually hunt though?

19     THE ACCUSED: In the springtime, geese.

20     THE COURT: What kind of animal?

21     THE ACCUSED: Caribou.

22     THE COURT: Okay. When you hunt that caribou, who gets to eat it?

23     THE ACCUSED: Family. Family.

24     THE COURT: Okay. And obviously a gun is necessary for hunting caribou.

25     THE ACCUSED: Yes.

26     THE COURT: Thank you. Please be seated.

27     In all of these circumstances, I am also satisfied that it is appropriate to grant the exemption that is allowed for under

28     section 113 of the Criminal Code in relation to firearms prohibition.

29     I think when you are dealing with an individual such as Mr. Raddi living off the land as he does, I think the hardship would far exceed the benefit of prohibiting you in this case. I think it is important that when he finishes serving his time that he provide for his family and his daughter, specifically his daughter, and that he be allowed to provide for his daughter.

30     There will be the mandatory DNA. I forget the section, Madam Clerk.

31     I am also satisfied that there not need be a probation order that follows this. I have looked at the probation order which was just granted in January 2006 and it has all of what I believe to be the necessary conditions. More specifically, it is the last condition that I think is the best one for you, Mr. Raddi, is that you are going to take all the counselling that you are directed by a probation officer in the area of alcohol use as well as other counselling that is deemed necessary.

32     Mr. Raddi, this is what you need. You have to figure out a way to stay away from alcohol because bad things happen and you are paying a big price by going to jail for two years now because of drinking too much and doing things that you should not do when you are drunk.

33     Mr. Gates, have I forgotten anything?

34     MR. GATES: Victim surcharge.

35     THE COURT: Waived.

36     MR. GATES: Crown is not seeking it, sir.

37     THE COURT: It's waived.

38     I don't think -- Mr. Brydon, am I forgetting anything?

39     MR. BRYDON: I think we've gone down the list. The SOIRA order I take it you're not making?

40     THE COURT: No, I agree with Mr. Gates, I'm not sure it even applies in this case. Madam Clerk, am I forgetting anything?

41     THE COURT CLERK: The length of the firearms prohibition?

42     MR. BRYDON: It's a ten-year prohibition.

43     THE COURT: That's right. But with the exemption to apply.

44     THE COURT CLERK: Yes, Your Honour.

45     THE COURT: Yes, section 109 provides for the minimum ten year on this offence.

46     All right. Mr. Brydon, is this the only copy of the probation order that your client has?

47     MR. BRYDON: Yes. Perhaps --

48     THE COURT: I would like it to become an exhibit in this, along with the case that was cited by Mr. Gates. I think that should be Exhibit 2. The record is Exhibit 1, Madam Clerk. The case will be Exhibit 2. And I'd like the probation order to be Exhibit 3.

49     EXHIBIT S-2: CASE LAW - R. v. KOLAUSOK

50     MR. BRYDON: I'm just asking the police, they say they can make a photocopy of it.

51     THE COURT: I think it should be part of the sentencing package. I do that because you're right when you talk about precedent, but I think each case is dealt with on its own facts and merits. When the whole picture is before us, I think there is no real negative effect on precedent setting.

52     All right, so the probation order which is dated January 18th, 2006 will become Exhibit 3 on sentence.

53     EXHIBIT S-3: PROBATION ORDER DATED 18 JAN 2006

54     THE COURT: Is there anything further?

55     MR. BRYDON: Not that I can speak of.

56     THE COURT: Are there any exhibits, Madam Clerk, from the preliminary inquiry?

57     THE COURT CLERK: I don't think so, no.

58     MR. BRYDON: There were no exhibits at the preliminary inquiry.

59     MR. GATES: No exhibits, sir.

60     THE COURT: Nothing further?

61     MR. GATES: No, thank you very much, My Lord.

62     THE COURT: We're adjourned. Thank you.
                         ..............................



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



                                       ______________________________
                                       Annette Wright, RPR, CSR(A)
                                       Court Reporter