Supreme Court
Decision Information
Decision information:
Abstract: Transcript of the reasons for sentence
Decision Content
R. v. Peetooloot, 2007 NWTSC 03
S-1-CR2006000034
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
IN THE MATTER OF:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- vs. -
LEVI PEETOOLOOT
_________________________________________________________
Transcript of the Reasons for Sentence by The Honourable
Justice V.A. Schuler, at Yellowknife in the Northwest
Territories, on January 18th A.D., 2007.
_________________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
Ms. J. Walsh: Counsel for the Crown
Ms. P. Taylor: Counsel for the Accused
----------------------------------------
Charge under s. 266 Criminal Code of Canada
Official Court Reporters
1 THE COURT: Well, let me say first of all
2 that the guilty plea to this assault charge came
3 literally at the very last minute. It came right
4 before counsel were to address the jury. In
5 those circumstances, and I haven't been given a
6 reason why it came so late and I can't really
7 see, there was a preliminary hearing in this
8 case, the evidence could not have come as that
9 much of a surprise to Mr. Peetooloot, so in the
10 circumstances I am not inclined to give the
11 guilty plea really any weight at all. Normally
12 guilty pleas are given weight because they save
13 the victim the trauma of testifying. That's not
14 applicable in this case. Or because they
15 indicate remorse, and the timing of the guilty
16 plea in this case doesn't lend itself to a
17 conclusion that it was entered as a result of
18 remorse.
19 I do take account of the fact that
20 Mr. Peetooloot, when he spoke, indicated that
21 he's sorry.
22 The facts are pretty straightforward in my
23 view.
24 There's absolutely no evidence that
25 Mr. Peetooloot in some way felt that he was the
26 lesser of the two intellect-wise or that he had
27 no option but to assault the victim in this case.
Official Court Reporters 1
1 At its highest, and to use a rather crude term,
2 she was "nagging" him and she was repeatedly
3 asking him about money and he wasn't answering
4 her, but that of course is absolutely no reason
5 to assault her. He could have walked out the
6 door. So I don't even see it as provocation,
7 quite frankly, in any real sense. He was mad, he
8 didn't like the fact that she was asking him
9 about this money, he didn't want to answer what
10 he did with the money, and he had got angry and
11 he assaulted her by throwing her onto the bed and
12 holding her wrists to the extent that she told
13 him that she thought that he was breaking her
14 wrists. He did apparently stop of his own
15 accord. It is not really clear to me on the
16 evidence how long this went on for but it
17 obviously went on long enough that she had this
18 concern that he was breaking her wrists.
19 As far as whether his actions after that
20 could be interpreted as genuine concern for her,
21 on the evidence that the victim gave at the trial
22 she indicated that it was when she mentioned the
23 police that suddenly there was this "drastic", I
24 think was the word that she used, change in his
25 demeanour and he became very nice, so that's the
26 evidence before me. The conclusion or the
27 inference I would draw from that is that he got
Official Court Reporters 2
1 concerned when she mentioned the police and
2 decided to be nice so that she wouldn't call
3 them. I don't conclude that somehow he felt so
4 sorry that he decided that he would be nice to
5 her and I note that she was asked and she did
6 specifically say that at no time did he tell her
7 that he was sorry for what he had done.
8 This was a common-law relationship of some
9 two and a half years so that of course is an
10 aggravating factor because as his spouse, the
11 victim was entitled to be treated with respect
12 and to be kept free from harm and instead
13 Mr. Peetooloot assaulted her.
14 The criminal record is of great concern in
15 this case.
16 In 1993, Mr. Peetooloot was convicted of
17 spousal assault. In 1999, he was convicted of
18 sexual assault. It may have been a sexual
19 assault at the less serious end of the scale
20 simply because the sentence that's recorded was
21 five months and probation for one year although
22 of course I don't know if there was remand time
23 involved in that so I really can't draw any
24 conclusions. But he was convicted of sexual
25 assault in 1999. In 2002, he was convicted of
26 assault causing bodily harm, again a spousal
27 assault, and received two months in jail and
Official Court Reporters 3
1 probation for 18 months. In 2004, he was
2 convicted of a number of offences involving
3 failure to obey Court orders. In May of 2006, he
4 was convicted of failing to appear and, as I
5 understand it, that is the conviction flowing
6 from his failure to appear at his preliminary
7 inquiry in this case. In September 2006, in
8 Nunavut, he was convicted of spousal assault, a
9 failure to comply with a probation order and
10 assaulting a police officer, all of which were
11 offences, from what counsel have told me, that
12 occurred in February of 2003. He was also, in
13 September 2006, convicted of spousal assault on
14 the same victim as in this case arising from an
15 incident that occurred in January of 2006, so
16 after he had been charged for the offence before
17 the Court now. And he was also at that time,
18 September 2006, convicted of a sexual assault
19 from June of 2003 and another failure to comply
20 with a Court order.
21 So prior to this offence in July of 2005, he
22 had convictions for spousal assault and sexual
23 assault. I refer to the sexual assault because
24 although I am not sentencing him today for sexual
25 assault, it is obviously a related offence. So
26 he had convictions for those offences prior to
27 July 2005. And after July 2005, he has
Official Court Reporters 4
1 convictions for related offences, again, that
2 occurred in 2003, I don't know whether he had
3 been charged by the time that he committed the
4 offence in July 2005. But he then has, after
5 July 2005 and after he would have been charged
6 with this offence, committed another spousal
7 assault on the same victim in January 2006. And
8 of course he has the sexual assault for which he
9 was convicted in September 2006 but occurred in
10 June 2003. So this is an individual who has a
11 history before and after the offence before the
12 Court of spousal assault and sexual assault.
13 I would have to say that there is an
14 indication here that Mr. Peetooloot is a danger
15 to women, perhaps men, I don't know what the
16 sexual assault convictions, what the gender of
17 the victim was on those offences, but clearly
18 Mr. Peetooloot is unable to control his anger.
19 He is unable to control himself from using
20 violence on other people and so that has to be of
21 great concern to me in sentencing him today.
22 As far as the remand time goes, in the
23 circumstances, as I understand it, initially the
24 reason that he was remanded in custody was
25 because he failed to appear at his preliminary
26 inquiry on the charge before the Court and the
27 other charges of which he was acquitted by the
Official Court Reporters 5
1 jury in this case. And of course the Nunavut
2 charges are relevant in that regard. Obviously
3 this man was facing quite a number of charges not
4 just the ones that were dealt with in this Court.
5 So I have to say that I have some difficulty in
6 giving him any more credit than the face amount
7 of the time that he was actually in custody on
8 remand for these charges. Because, in my view,
9 there is a difference between being in custody
10 because you are not able to obtain bail in the
11 first instance and being in custody after you
12 have been released and then you don't appear in
13 Court when required. The whole issue of credit
14 for remand time of course is generally aimed at
15 or the whole issue of more than face credit for
16 remand time is generally aimed at the fact that
17 remission is not available on the remand time and
18 also that it is often considered "hard" time.
19 And that generally is because those people on
20 remand are not able to participate in programs
21 and things like that where they are incarcerated.
22 In this case it appears that Mr. Peetooloot was
23 able to work at the jail. The only thing that is
24 indicative of his having a more difficult time is
25 the fact that he did have a stroke in
26 mid-December, so approximately a month ago. I
27 accept that that is a serious matter and that
Official Court Reporters 6
1 having to go through that while in remand would
2 make the remand more difficult.
3 In all of the circumstances, I have to say,
4 and especially in light of this very serious
5 record, I think that a sentence of eight months
6 is really inadequate to address the concerns. In
7 my view, society needs to be protected from
8 Mr. Peetooloot because this record indicates that
9 he is not controlling himself. Mr. Peetooloot
10 needs to be deterred from committing more
11 offences of assault and sexual assault, no matter
12 who they may be against, and other people who
13 would commit these types of offences need to be
14 deterred. So all of these factors have to taken
15 into account in sentencing Mr. Peetooloot.
16 Having said that, I am always reluctant to
17 go much beyond the sentence that is being
18 suggested by the Crown in any case but I do feel
19 in this case that, as I say particularly in light
20 of the record, that the sentence that is being
21 suggested is not adequate to address the issues.
22 There will be in the circumstances, and I
23 have not heard any argument to the contrary,
24 there will be a DNA order if there has not
25 already been DNA taken and being maintained in
26 the DNA databank. And the DNA order will be in
27 the usual terms.
Official Court Reporters 7
1 I am not going to impose a firearm
2 prohibition order. There were no firearms
3 involved in the comission of the offence. There
4 is no indication to me from the record or from
5 anything that was said that Mr. Peetooloot has
6 used firearms in the comission of any of the
7 offences on his record, so I decline to make that
8 order.
9 Stand please, Mr. Peetooloot.
10 Mr. Peetooloot, in the circumstances, quite
11 frankly from looking at your record I think that
12 if you commit further offences of assault or
13 sexual assault, you may, it will obviously be up
14 to the Judge at the time, but you may very well
15 find yourself looking at penitentiary terms. So
16 you had better think very carefully about what
17 you are doing and you better find a way to
18 control yourself. You cannot use force on people
19 without paying the penalty for it. You have a
20 very serious criminal record and any more
21 offences on your record are going to, I would
22 think, result in much longer periods of
23 incarceration being imposed on you.
24 In my view, and I am bearing in mind the
25 submissions that were made, but in my view the
26 sentence for this offence, the appropriate
27 sentence, is a sentence of one year in jail. I
Official Court Reporters 8
1 am going to give you credit for the remand time
2 but the credit will be five months which means
3 that you now serve a term of seven months in
4 jail. The Victims of Crime surcharge will be
5 waived.
6 You may have a seat.
7 Is there anything further, counsel?
8 MS. WALSH: Nothing further, Your Honour,
9 thank you.
10 MS. TAYLOR: Nothing, thank you.
11 THE COURT: All right, we will close
12 Court.
13 -------------------------------------
14
15
16 Certified to be a true and
accurate transcript pursuant
17 to Rules 723 and 724 of the
Supreme Court Rules,
18
19
20
21 ____________________________
22 Lois Hewitt, CSR(A), RPR, CRR
Court Reporter
23
24
25
26
27
Official Court Reporters 9
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.