Territorial Court

R. v. Hudson, 2004 NWTTC A5
Date: 20040730
Docket: T-2-CR-2003002463; T-2-CR-2003002464; T-2-CR-2003000120; T-2-CR-2004000121

IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

IN THE MATTER OF:


HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN


- and-


DANIEL HUDSON


Transcript of the Reasons for Sentence delivered by The Honourable Chief Judge R.M. Bourassa, sitting in Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories, on the 16th day of March, A.D. 2004.


APPEARANCES

Ms. S. Tkatch:   Counsel for the Crown

Mr. J. Mahon:   Counsel for the Accused


(Charges under s. 264(2)(b) x2, 145(5.1), 145(3), 264(2), 129(a), and 733.1(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada)


THE COURT:   Mr. Hudson's conduct is not that uncommon. I think the old phrase is “Hell hath seen no fury than that of a woman scorned”. I would add the corollary, Earth hasn't seen anything more pathetic than a man who has been rejected. It is difficult to understand when we are faced in these courts on a weekly basis with men acting as they do when their love object denies them. The suicide threats, (sometimes actually carried out), the threats of self-injury, the threats and assaults on the victims, as if you can coerce or force someone to have affection for you and live with you. It is as though these men lose their heads. There is no rationale to it, there is no logic to it, and it is very difficult to control. Unfortunately, it is not something that we can just put aside as quaint and amusing, because it seems as though a week or two don't go by when we read in the newspapers or hear on the media of some woman and her children being slaughtered by some rejected boyfriend. Obviously Parliament was concerned with this phenomena in passing the criminal harassment legislation.

This accused was before the Court the first time as an adult and sentenced on charges of criminal harassment, breach of undertaking, and -- two counts of breach of undertaking. Judge Bruser went to great lengths to explain to the accused in his reasons for

[Page 1]

judgment, and here he is speaking directly to the accused, the jeopardy he was in and the seriousness of the charges against him. Judge Bruser says on page 3, line 14:

“I become alarmed in cases of this sort where there is this kind of repeated contact and persistence and harassment, and where the accused just does not seem to understand the depth of the hole he has dug himself.”

Judge Bruser then goes on, for the benefit of the accused, speaking of sentences that had been handed down in matters of criminal harassment - sentences of a year imprisonment - obviously making his point to try and drive home to the accused that he was not convicted of a minor offence, he was convicted of serious offences. There is discussion with counsel. There appears to be some surprise at the Crown's position with respect to a suspended sentence, but the Court went along with the submissions of defence and Crown and imposed a suspended sentence with conditions. The conditions were not too onerous, just that the accused essentially stay away.

Judge Bruser goes on, with the accused present:

“What I am going to do is suspend the passing of sentence on everything. Now, this means that you” - referring to Hudson - “will, today, regain your freedom as soon as I am through. A suspended sentence means that during the period of the probation order, which will be one year, you” - Mr. Hudson - “will have to obey each and every condition.

[Page 2]

If you fail to do so, the Crown can, and in this case it ought to bring you back and ask that I undo this, and further ask that I give you any other lawful sentence that I could have made today, including a lengthy period of imprisonment. Are you with me so far?”

And the accused apparently indicated “yes” with his head. Judge Bruser went on:

“Good. Also, you could be charged with failing to obey the probation order if you do not obey this order or if you commit any further offence. This by itself is a separate crime punishable by a number of things, including imprisonment of up to two years. Are you still with me on that?”

The accused, “Yes, I am.”

So the Court went out of its way to first of all demonstrate that the offence the accused was convicted of back in December was extremely serious, punishable, by cases given, of a year imprisonment, and, secondly, to make Mr. Hudson understand that there would be complications if he did not comply with the probation order.

I read the pre-sentence report that was prepared for sentencing at that time. It speaks of, and I am paraphrasing, Mr. Hudson learning his lesson, Mr. Hudson just wanting to get back to normal life and get back to his schooling, and Mr. Hudson agreeing that it was the wrong thing to do and indicating he would not do it again, that he had family support and a lot of support in the community. Obviously that

[Page 3]

pre-sentence report had an effect on the sentencing judge. But it was all for naught, because back in January, the accused, on the allegations before me, which he has admitted, criminally harassed the same woman and breached his probation order.

The circumstances surrounding the harassment and breach of probation order are really aggravating. When he breached his probation order, he walked right by the police who were there investigating, trying to get at this woman again. I don't know what it is that the accused does not understand.

I can only repeat, the law says, “Stay away from that girl.” But Hudson does not compute that. To be in her bedroom, with this manipulative threat that “I love you so much” or “if you have a boyfriend, I'll kill myself” is emotionally manipulative and cynical. It is pathetic. To subject people, in particular Cherie Arrow, to this kind of non-stop emotional blackmail, manipulation -- 40 phone calls in a day, ignoring police warnings, ignoring the court orders. I can well understand that the victim here would be somewhat frustrated if the Court does not give her any protection.

On a broader scale the accused has to understand that he is breaking the law. She does not want him and he has no business anywhere near her. It is said in the pre-sentence report that he might have

[Page 4]

difficulty dealing with rejection. Well, deal with it because you are rejected. It is not the end of the world. But the Court has to be concerned, given the terrible tragedies, crimes, that are committed in this kind of environment. The Court has to be concerned that the accused is in fact a danger to that woman, if not a danger to himself. The Court is concerned that he is unmanageable by paperwork (probation orders, promises), he is unmanageable by people telling him to do or not do certain things when it relates to this woman, and that is not a situation that can be allowed to continue.

I do not know if the Court will be successful in bringing home to this man that he has to stay away from the victim, but I think the Court has to make the effort and try to deter him and other men who seem to be unable to recognize when it is over that this kind of criminal harassment will be dealt with severely in the courts. Judge Bruser mentioned a number of cases where sentences of one year were imposed on a first conviction. This accused has been convicted twice. He is phoning her from the jail. It boggles the mind.

I take into account he has pleaded guilty at the first reasonable opportunity, and that is a significantly mitigating factor that has to be taken into account. I take into account the submission of Mr. Mahon on his behalf, particularly with respect to

[Page 5]

totality and the time he spent in custody. I look at the seriousness of the of fences, and in my view, in terms of the goal of sentence is to draw a line in the sand, as it were, that this accused understand in clear and uncertain terms that there will be very serious consequences if he fails to comply with court orders in the future. The only way of doing that is to have serious consequences on these matters which all involve, inter alia, a refusal to comply with court orders.

Stand up, Mr. Hudson. Anything you want to say?

THE ACCUSED:  I am shamefully sorry for disobeying the law of my probation, and being in prison has been the most miserable and disgraceful thing that has ever happened to me.

As my lawyer stated, I was, was and still am, enrolled in college and I want to speak out to the youth. I don't do drugs or alcohol.

I never threatened this woman, and I've been so kind, and I just had a really hard time letting go, but I fully understand that it's over and she doesn't want anything to do with me. And I just want to try to pursue my studies. My house is frozen solid, and I missed that grant, and I just... If I had one chance to get out of here, I'm never going to come back. I'll do anything never to come back here again. That's all, Your Honour.

[Page 6]

THE COURT:   Thank you.

On the old charges of criminal harassment, there will be a term of imprisonment of two months. On the charge of breach of undertaking, thirty days consecutive. On the first charge of breach of undertaking, ten days concurrent. That is a total of the three months.

On the second set of charges, one charge of criminal harassment, one charge of breach of probation -- on the criminal harassment charge, there will be a term of imprisonment of five months. On the breach of probation, one month, consecutive to each other, consecutive to the three months on the revoke charges.

In addition, on the criminal harassment charge, he will be placed on probation - the probation order, I take it, no longer exists on the suspended sentence - for a period of one year. He is to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. He is to have no contact directly or indirectly with Cherie Arrow. He is not to be within 50 metres of any residence occupied by her. He is to report to the probation officer, upon his release, once a week for a period of one month. Thereafter, twice a week. I'm sorry. Thereafter, twice a month for a period of four months. Thereafter, as required by the probation officer. He is to take any counselling that the probation officer may be able to arrange for him from time to time.

[Page 7]

This is not a primary designated DNA offence, is it?

MS. TKATCH:   It may be. Just --

MR. MAHON:   I don't believe it's a primary designated DNA offence. I believe it is for purposes of a firearms order. I believe one was imposed.

THE COURT:   Well, I am not making any firearms order, but I will make a DNA order then.

MR. MAHON:   Your Honour, just for clarity. So that would be six months on the charges arising in January of this year to be served consecutive to three months from the charges from December?

THE COURT:   Yes.

MR. MAHON:   Thank you, Your Honour.


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

Jane Romanowich,
Court Reporter

[Page 8]