Supreme Court

             R. v. Ugyuk, 2006 NWTSC 11


                                                S-1-CR2005000043

             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES



             IN THE MATTER OF:





                             HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN





                                  - vs. -





                                 PETER UGYUK



             _________________________________________________________

             Transcript of the Reasons for Sentence by The Honourable

             Justice V.A. Schuler, at Yellowknife in the Northwest

             Territories, on February 23rd A.D., 2006.

             _________________________________________________________

             APPEARANCES:



             Mr. J. MacFarlane:                 Counsel for the Crown

             Mr. M. Hansen:                     Counsel for the Accused



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

                Charge under s. 266 (x2) Criminal Code of Canada





 1     In terms of sentence, Mr. Ugyuk, at the commencement of his jury trial, pleaded guilty to Counts 3 and 5 in the Indictment, both being charges of assaulting the victim. He was found not guilty by the jury of the other charges in the Indictment so I will say no more about them and I do not take them into account, obviously, in sentencing him for the assaults.

2     For the record, then, there will be convictions on Counts 3 and 5 in the Indictment.

3     The background of the offences is that Mr. Ugyuk and the victim were in a personal intimate relationship, one that I think on the evidence is probably best described as a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship rather than a spousal one.

4     The circumstances are set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts and they are as follows:

5     Dealing first with Count 5 relating to the offence on December 24th, 2004, this offence occurred against a background of drinking and Mr. Ugyuk becoming jealous and angry at the victim and assaulting her. He slapped her, hit her numerous times, and he tried to choke her. She received bruises from the assault but she did not seek medical attention. Mr. Ugyuk apologized after the assault.

6     The second incident was January 30th, 2005 and it is the basis for Count 3 in the Indictment. It involves a similar background. Mr. Ugyuk and the victim were drinking.

7     Mr. Ugyuk became angry and jealous and then engaged in slapping, hitting and punching her and pulling her hair. On that occasion she did go to the hospital the next day and the photographs that were taken of her have been made an exhibit on this sentencing and they indicate that she had very pronounced black eyes and bruising especially to her upper arms.

8     Mr. Ugyuk is 35 years old. My recollection is that the victim was approximately the same age. He is from Taloyoak and he moved to Yellowknife in 2004 which is when he became involved in the relationship with the victim who happened to be from his home community.

9     It would appear from what has been said, and it was also I think quite evident from the evidence at the trial, that they both consumed alcohol to excess and that there was some use of crack cocaine. Unfortunately I must say that this strikes me as another very sad result or sad story resulting from, at least in part, the prevalence of cocaine in this community. There is Mr. Ugyuk, he had a job, he had work, but he became involved in that lifestyle that certainly wasn't going to help him.

10     Mr. Ugyuk's family background was described by his counsel. It is clear that there were issues of alcohol and violence in his family background and that there have been issues for him because of what seemed to be a very high number of deaths in his family.

11     Mr. Ugyuk turned himself in to the police after the January 30th, 2005 assault and he acknowledged to the police at that time that he had assaulted the victim.

12     Mr. Ugyuk does have a criminal record. The record is troubling because it does contain five prior convictions for assault, two of which are spousal assaults apparently on victims other than the victim in the present case. There is a nine year gap in the record from 1994 to 2003 so that since 1994 his only conviction has been a spousal assault in October of 2003. I do note however as well that it would appear that he had only just finished completing the sentence that he was given in 2003 before the assaults in the present case took place.

13     I have reviewed the Victim Impact Statement, and it's clear from the Victim Impact Statement that the victim is understandably afraid of Mr. Ugyuk and doesn't want anything to do with him anymore.

14     The Crown in this case is seeking a global sentence of between 10 and 14 months while the defence seeks a global sentence of between seven and 11 months so they are not that far apart. Both Crown and defence agree that a year's probation with a condition that Mr. Ugyuk have no contact with the victim would be appropriate.

15     In terms of mitigating and aggravating factors in this case, although the victim and Mr. Ugyuk were as I indicated not in a spousal relationship, they were in an intimate relationship, a relationship of boyfriend and girlfriend, there was therefore in my view an element of trust or reliance as between them. Certainly the victim would have been entitled to expect that Mr. Ugyuk would treat her with respect and not abuse and assault her and when I say "abuse", I mean assault. I am not referring to any of the other charges. In my view, the relationship in this case is an aggravating factor because there is an element of trust to it, and this can be labelled as a case of domestic abuse.

16     The fact that Mr. Ugyuk pleaded guilty is a mitigating factor. Considering that the assault charges were on the same Indictment as the other charges and that they were all part of the same series of events that were alleged, I do give him credit for the guilty pleas even though they were not entered until the day of the jury trial.

17     There is no time in custody to be taken into account. Counsel are agreed on that because any time in custody is in relation to some unrelated matters.

18     In this case, the principles of sentencing are primarily denunciation of the offences, denunciation of this type of conduct, and deterrence of others and obviously that is because this type of abuse in a relationship is far too prevalent. This type of situation, the drinking, jealousy and anger and then the failure in this case of the accused to control himself, are situations that are far too prevalent. And based on his record, it would appear that Mr. Ugyuk has had a problem with controlling his emotions and anger management for some time. Deterring Mr. Ugyuk himself is obviously important and he has to learn in some way not to turn to violence when he gets jealous and angry. It's not the alcohol, it's not the cocaine, it's not what the victim in this case did that caused these assaults, it's Mr. Ugyuk's failure to control his own behaviour. That's the only cause of what happened here.

19     Even though there are two separate events involved, I do take into account the totality of the sentence to be imposed.

20     Please stand, Mr. Ugyuk.

21     On Count 3 in the Indictment, which is the count relating to January 30th, 2005, which on the evidence is the more serious of the two assaults, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of eight months. On Count 5 in the Indictment, which is the December 24th assault, I sentence you to four months consecutive which is a total term then of 12 months.

22     That will be followed by probation for a period of one year with the statutory conditions and a condition that you not communicate directly or indirectly with Hannah Paniloo.

23     You may sit down.

24     In light of the fact that the Crown is not asking for either a DNA order or a firearm prohibition order, both of which are discretionary and not mandatory in this case, I am not going to make those orders. It also seems to me in the circumstances, since there was no firearm used in the comission of the offences and Mr. Ugyuk does not have a record for use of firearms in a prohibited manner, there's no need for a firearm prohibition order. With respect to the DNA order, his last two assaults, by that I mean the recent assaults, the ones before me and the 2003 spousal assault, obviously involve people that he was well-known to so in the circumstances it doesn't seem to me that a DNA order is necessary in any event.

25     The Victim Surcharge will be waived in the circumstances.

26     Now, is there anything that I have overlooked, counsel?

27     MR. HANSEN: I don't believe so.

28     MR. MacFARLANE: I was asked, or I was reminded, I apologize, if following the expiration of the appeal period for these matters if the exhibits can be returned.

29     THE COURT: Returned to the --

30     MR. MacFARLANE: -- to the Crown's office.

31     THE COURT: Is there any objection to that?

32     MR. HANSEN: No objection.

33     THE COURT: Then at the expiration of the appeal period or at the conclusion of any appeal proceedings that may be taken, the exhibits will be returned to the Crown's office.

34     THE CLERK:             Thank you.

35     THE COURT:             Thank you, counsel.







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






                                        ____________________________

                                     Lois Hewitt, CSR(A), RPR, CRR
                                       Court Reporter