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.