Territorial Court
Decision Information
Decision information:
Abstract: Transcript of the Reasons for Sentence
Decision Content
T-1-CR-2005000624
IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
IN THE MATTER OF:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
- V -
MICHAEL BRUNO CHINKON
__________________________________________________________
TRANSCRIPT OF THE REASONS FOR SENTENCE DELIVERED BY THE
HONOURABLE CHIEF JUDGE B.A. BRUSER, SITTING IN YELLOWKNIFE, IN
THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, ON THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY,
A.D. 2006.
__________________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
MR. B. GAUNT: COUNSEL FOR THE CROWN
MR. H. LATIMER: COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED
(CHARGE UNDER S. 271 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA)
BAN ON PUBLICATION OF COMPLAINANT/WITNESS PURSUANT
TO SECTION 486 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
THE COURT: THE CHARGE IS THAT ON OR ABOUT
THE 26TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2005, AT WHAT IS
REFERRED TO AS THE HAMLET OF RAE-EDZO, NOW
BECHOKÖ, IN THIS JURISDICTION, THIS OFFENDER,
BORN JANUARY 27TH, 1986, COMMITTED A SEXUAL
ASSAULT ON THE COMPLAINANT, WHOSE INITIALS ARE
T.M.
THERE IS A COURT-ORDERED BAN PROTECTING THE
IDENTITY OF THE COMPLAINANT FROM BEING BROADCAST,
PUBLISHED, OR TRANSMITTED. MADAM REPORTER,
SHOULD A TRANSCRIPT BE ORDERED, THE TRANSCRIPT IS
TO MAKE REFERENCE TO THE BAN ON THE COVER PAGE.
I RETURN TO A THEME THAT MR. LATIMER TOUCHED
UPON AND WHICH HAS BEEN MADE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR TO
THIS COURT. MICHAEL CHINKON IS AN IMMATURE
20-YEAR-OLD. THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. HE
HAS NO CRIMINAL RECORD. HE IS ABORIGINAL; A
FACTOR THAT I CAN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT UNDER THE
CRIMINAL CODE. HE WAS ONE DAY SHORT OF HIS 19TH
BIRTHDAY WHEN HE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED THIS VICTIM
ON THE DATE I REFERRED TO. THE VICTIM WAS 18
YEARS OF AGE WHEN SHE TESTIFIED.
THE CROWN PROCEEDED BY WAY OF SUMMARY
CONVICTION. AT LEAST TWICE IN THE PROCEEDINGS, I
FELL INTO THE ERROR OF TREATING THIS AS AN
INDICTABLE OFFENCE BECAUSE OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF
WHAT OCCURRED, AND I FIND IT REMARKABLE THAT THE
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
1
CROWN DID PROCEED IN THIS WAY. BUT THIS IS THE
DISCRETION OF THE CROWN TO EXERCISE AND IT IS NOT
FOR THE COURT TO QUESTION OR TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND
HOW IT IS THAT THIS OCCURRED. I MERELY POINT OUT
THAT AS WEIGHED AGAINST THE EVIDENCE, IT APPEARS
TO BE A REMARKABLE CHOICE OF THE WAY TO PROCEED.
AND BECAUSE THE CROWN PROCEEDED THIS WAY,
MR. CHINKON, BY WAY OF SUMMARY CONVICTION, IF
THERE IS TO BE IMPRISONMENT, THE CAP ON IT AT THE
UPPER LEVEL IS 18 MONTHS. I CANNOT GO FURTHER
THAN THAT. HAD THE CROWN GONE BY INDICTMENT, I
COULD HAVE CONSIDERED UP TO TEN YEARS.
THE ACCUSED: TEN YEARS.
THE COURT: THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF WHAT
OCCURRED ARE NOW IN MORE DETAIL AS FOLLOWS. I
WILL NOT GO INTO ALL THE EVIDENCE. I WILL FOCUS
ON WHAT OCCURRED IN THE BATHROOM OF THIS HOME
WHERE THE VICTIM HAD BEEN VISITING AND WHERE A
SMALL PARTY HAD BEEN HAPPENING.
THE ACCUSED HAD BEEN DRINKING. THE VICTIM,
DURING THE COURSE OF THE EVENTS, WENT INTO A
WASHROOM. THERE HAD BEEN NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
HER AND THE ACCUSED BEFORE SHE WENT INTO THE
WASHROOM. THEY APPEAR TO HAVE KNOWN EACH OTHER
AND APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN FRIENDS AND THAT WAS THE
EXTENT OF IT. SHE WAS ABOUT TO CLOSE THE DOOR OF
THE WASHROOM. THAT IS WHEN THE ACCUSED ENTERED.
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
2
ONLY THE TWO OF THEM WERE INSIDE. THE OFFENDER
TURNED THE LIGHTS OFF. HE LOCKED THE DOOR. THE
VICTIM ENDED UP AGAINST THE WALL OF THE BATHROOM.
HE WENT AGAINST HER. HE PINNED HER AGAINST THE
WALL. SOMEHOW SHE ENDED UP ON THE FLOOR. HE WAS
ON TOP OF HER. HE PULLED HER PANTS DOWN TO HER
ANKLES AND HE PULLED HER UNDERPANTS DOWN. HE
PULLED HIS OWN PANTS DOWN. IT SEEMS TO ME FROM
THE EVIDENCE THAT HIS OWN PANTS WENT DOWN BEFORE
HE WENT TO THE FLOOR, BUT IT IS NOT IMPORTANT FOR
THE PURPOSES OF THE SENTENCING WHICH OCCURRED
FIRST, THE FLOOR OR THE PANTS COMING DOWN,
REGARDING BOTH PERSONS.
IN ANY EVENT, THERE THEY WERE ON THE FLOOR.
SHE TOLD HIM TO STOP. SHE TRIED TO PUSH HIM OFF,
BUT HE WAS TOO HEAVY. THERE WAS A KNOCK ON THE
DOOR. IT WAS THE FRIEND OF THE VICTIM, SAYING
WORDS TO THE EFFECT, "TRISHA, OPEN THE DOOR."
THE ACCUSED HAD TOLD THE VICTIM NOT TO SAY
ANYTHING, SO SHE SAID NOTHING.
WITH HIS HANDS, HE WAS TOUCHING HER VAGINA
WHILE THE EVENTS WERE OCCURRING. AND SHE
TESTIFIED IN CHIEF THAT HIS PENIS TOUCHED HER
VAGINA. IN CROSS-EXAMINATION, WITH RESPECT TO
THE ISSUE THAT I REFERRED TO EARLIER IN THE
EXCHANGE WITH DEFENCE COUNSEL, THE PENIS, SHE
SAID, WENT INTO HER "ALMOST". I FIND ON THE
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
3
EVIDENCE THAT HE TOUCHED HER VAGINA AREA WITH HIS
HAND AND THAT HIS PENIS DID TOUCH HER VAGINA. I
AM NOT PREPARED TO FIND THAT THE PENIS WENT
FURTHER INTO IT. THIS STILL TAKES IT INTO A
CATEGORY OF A VERY SERIOUS SEXUAL ASSAULT.
AT ONE POINT WHEN SHE HAD CONSIDERED YELLING
FOR HELP, HIS HAND COVERED HER MOUTH.
THE IMPACT ON THE VICTIM HAS BEEN
SIGNIFICANT. IT IS SUMMARIZED WELL AT PAGE 6 OF
THE PRE-SENTENCE REPORT. I WILL REFER NOW TO
PARTS OF THE REPORT UNDER THE HEADING "INTERVIEW
WITH VICTIM". I HAVE ALSO TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE
VICTIM IMPACT MATERIAL FILED AS AN EXHIBIT.
IN THE PRE-SENTENCE REPORT, SHE IS QUOTED AS
SAYING "I HAVE NIGHTMARES AND TROUBLE SLEEPING SO
I MISSED LOTS OF SCHOOL AND IT'S HARD TO
CONCENTRATE ON SCHOOL." SHE MAKES OTHER COMMENTS
AT THE THIRD PARAGRAPH DOWN, UNDERNEATH THE
HEADING "INTERVIEW WITH VICTIM". I AM NOT GOING
TO READ IT. I DO NOT THINK THAT THE PUBLIC OUGHT
TO BE PRIVY TO WHAT IS IN THAT PARAGRAPH; BUT I
HAVE TAKEN IT INTO ACCOUNT.
IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH UNDER THAT HEADING,
THE VICTIM REPORTS THAT THE INCIDENT AFFECTED HER
RELATIONSHIP NOT ONLY WITH HER FRIENDS BUT ALSO
WITH HER FAMILY, ESPECIALLY HER MOTHER. IT HAS
AFFECTED HER ABILITY TO GO TO SCHOOL, AND SHE
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
4
JUST WANTS TO PUT IT BEHIND HER.
THE BACKGROUND OF THE OFFENDER IS EXPLORED
IN DEPTH BY THE AUTHOR OF THE REPORT. I HAVE
CONSIDERED ALL OF IT ALONG WITH EVERY OTHER PART
OF THE PRE-SENTENCE REPORT. THE ACCUSED HAD SOME
ROUGH SPOTS IN HIS BACKGROUND. HIS FATHER LEFT
THE FAMILY HOME. THE PARENTS SEPARATED IN 2000.
AS A CHILD, A YOUNG ONE, HE WITNESSED HIS FATHER
BEATING UP ON HIS MOTHER WHEN THE FATHER DRANK.
THE PARENTS FOUGHT. WHEN THEY DID SO,
MR. CHINKON WOULD BECOME FRIGHTENED. HE WANTED
TO LEAVE. HE REPORTS ON HOW SAD HE FELT. HIS
BACKGROUND HAS NOT BEEN WHAT ONE WOULD CALL
PRIVILEGED.
WHEN I PUT TOGETHER THE PRE-SENTENCE REPORT,
THE MATERIAL FILED TODAY, THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF
WHAT OCCURRED AND HOW IT OCCURRED, THE SENTENCING
EVIDENCE AND THE SUBMISSIONS, I ARRIVE AT THE
CONCLUSION I REFERRED TO EARLIER, THAT BEYOND ANY
DOUBT MICHAEL BRUNO CHINKON, COMMONLY REFERRED TO
AS JONATHAN, IS IMMATURE. HE IS YOUNG, BUT HE IS
IMMATURE FOR HIS AGE. HE IS AN IMMATURE ADULT
AND HE IS AN IMMATURE 20-YEAR-OLD. THE MATERIAL
I HAVE REFERRED TO BEARS THIS OUT.
WHEN HE COMMITTED THE SEXUAL ASSAULT, WHICH
WAS ONE OF OPPORTUNITY AND IMPULSE RATHER THAN A
CAREFULLY PLANNED COURSE OF ACTION, HE DID NOT
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
5
THEN APPEAR TO APPRECIATE HOW HIS BEHAVIOUR
IMPACTED UPON THE VICTIM. THIS REALIZATION
SLOWLY SEEPED INTO HIS CONSCIOUSNESS AFTER HE WAS
ARRESTED AND RELEASED ON A PROMISE TO APPEAR AT
THE BEGINNING OF FEBRUARY LAST YEAR.
THE CROWN IS ASKING THE COURT TO IMPOSE A
PERIOD OF INCARCERATION IN THE RANGE OF 12 TO 15
MONTHS. THE CROWN IS OPPOSED TO A CONDITIONAL
SENTENCE ORDER.
A CONDITIONAL SENTENCE ORDER, FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC, IS A PERIOD OF
IMPRISONMENT, BUT IT IS NOT IMPRISONMENT IN A
CORRECTIONAL CENTRE. USUALLY IT IS SERVED IN A
HOME IN THE COMMUNITY.
THE CROWN HAS ASKED THE COURT TO MAKE A DNA
ORDER, AND I DO NOW MAKE IT. IT IS A PRIMARY
DESIGNATED OFFENCE. THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO
MAKE IT.
THE CROWN IS NOT ASKING THE COURT TO MAKE A
STAND-ALONE FIREARM PROHIBITION ORDER, AND THE
CROWN IS NOT ASKING THE COURT TO HAVE THE
OFFENDER REGISTER UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER
REGISTRATION INFORMATION ACT.
THE DEFENCE ARGUES THAT A CONDITIONAL
SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT OR PROBATION WOULD BE A
MORE FIT AND PROPER SENTENCE. THE PROBATION
SENTENCE, IF IT WERE TO BE GRANTED, WOULD HAVE TO
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
6
BE IN ADDITION TO IMPRISONMENT. IMPRISONMENT
COULD BE ONE DAY, OR IT COULD BE BY WAY OF A
SUSPENDED SENTENCE. THE DEFENCE IS NOT ASKING
THAT IT BE BY WAY OF A CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE.
THE DEFENCE ARGUES THAT REHABILITATION AND
REINTEGRATION, TWO IMPORTANT SENTENCING
CONSIDERATIONS, WOULD BE BEST ACHIEVED BY MEANS
OF A COMMUNITY-BASED SENTENCE. THE DEFENCE
ARGUES THAT THE IMMATURITY OF THE OFFENDER, THE
ABSENCE OF A RECORD, THE FACT THAT THIS WAS OUT
OF CHARACTER OR AN ISOLATED INCIDENT, ARE
MITIGATING. THAT IS, THEY COUNT IN FAVOUR OF THE
ACCUSED. THE CROWN, ON THE OTHER HAND, SAYS THAT
THERE IS NOTHING MITIGATING. I PREFER THE
ARGUMENT OF THE DEFENCE IN THIS RESPECT.
THE DEFENCE SAYS THAT MR. CHINKON IS NOT A
DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY. THE CROWN DOES NOT
ARGUE THAT HE POSES A DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY.
BUT WHETHER OR NOT HE IS A DANGER TO THE
COMMUNITY IS NOT BY ITSELF DETERMINATIVE. THE
DEFENCE PLEADS FOR ONE LAST CHANCE FOR
MR. CHINKON BY WAY OF SOMETHING OTHER THAN
INCARCERATION.
IN ARGUING THAT THERE ARE SUFFICIENT
AGGRAVATING FACTORS TO MAKE INCARCERATION
NECESSARY, AND SUPPORTING THAT ARGUMENT WITH THE
GOALS OR OBJECTIVES, PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES OF
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
7
SENTENCING, THE CROWN HAS ADDRESSED THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF WHAT OCCURRED, THE KEY PARTS OF
WHICH I HAVE ALREADY REVIEWED, THE EFFECT ON THE
VICTIM, WHICH I HAVE ALREADY REVIEWED, AND THE
ABSENCE OF AN INDICATION THAT HE FULLY ACCEPTS
RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT HE DID, PARTICULARLY IN
THE PRE-SENTENCE REPORT. ALTHOUGH IN COURT
TODAY, HE ACKNOWLEDGED, WHEN I ASKED HIM, THAT
WHAT HE DID MADE HIM -- OR MAKES HIM FEEL BADLY,
AND HE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT WAS AGAINST HER WILL.
THE CROWN SAYS THAT PRIMARY DETERRENCE (THAT
IS, A NEED TO DISCOURAGE THIS OFFENDER FROM
REOFFENDING), SECONDARY OR GENERAL DETERRENCE,
WHICH IS THE NEED TO DISCOURAGE THE PUBLIC
GENERALLY (THAT IS, THOSE OUT THERE WHO MIGHT DO
THIS SORT OF THING), AND DENUNCIATION, ALONG WITH
PARITY (THAT IS, HOW OTHER OFFENDERS IN THESE
TYPES OF CIRCUMSTANCES ARE TREATED), MAKE
IMPRISONMENT NECESSARY.
CROWN COUNSEL ALSO ARGUES THAT THE OFFENDER
IS NOT CREDIBLE. CERTAINLY THERE ARE GAPS IN HIS
CREDIBILITY. HE TESTIFIED ON THE LAST DATE THAT
HIS MARKS WERE 80 PERCENT OR BETTER. THE
EVIDENCE TODAY SHOWS THAT THIS WAS NOT SO. BUT I
DO NOT FIND THAT HE WAS LYING. I THINK THIS IS
AN ASPECT OF HIS IMMATURITY. HE HAD TWO MARKS 80
PERCENT OR BETTER AND ASSUMED THAT IS HOW HE MUST
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
8
HAVE DONE. HE DOES NOT HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF
INSIGHT, AND THIS IS THE POINT I AM MAKING AT
THIS JUNCTURE.
THE CROWN SAYS, ADDITIONALLY, BECAUSE THERE
IS SUCH A HIGH PREVALENCE OF THIS SORT OF OFFENCE
IN THIS JURISDICTION, A CONDITIONAL SENTENCE
ORDER, ALONG WITH THE OTHER FACTORS, WOULD BE
INAPPROPRIATE, AND I INFER FROM THIS THAT THE
CROWN IS ALSO ARGUING THAT PROBATION ALONG WITH A
SUSPENDED SENTENCE WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE,
BECAUSE THE CROWN IS STRONGLY ARGUING FOR
INCARCERATION.
I TURN TO SECTION 742.1 OF THE CRIMINAL
CODE. THIS IS THE SECTION COVERING THE
IMPOSITION OF A CONDITIONAL SENTENCE. IT READS
THAT:
"WHERE A PERSON IS CONVICTED OF
AN OFFENCE, EXCEPT AN OFFENCE
THAT IS PUNISHABLE BY A MINIMUM
TERM OF IMPRISONMENT, AND THE
COURT (A) IMPOSES A SENTENCE OF
IMPRISONMENT OF LESS THAN TWO
YEARS, AND (B) IS SATISFIED THAT
SERVING THE SENTENCE IN THE
COMMUNITY WOULD NOT ENDANGER THE
SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY AND WOULD
BE CONSISTENT WITH THE
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
9
FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE AND
PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING ... THE
COURT MAY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
SUPERVISING THE OFFENDER'S
BEHAVIOUR IN THE COMMUNITY, ORDER
THAT THE OFFENDER SERVE THE
SENTENCE IN THE COMMUNITY,
SUBJECT TO THE OFFENDER'S
COMPLYING WITH THE CONDITIONS OF
A CONDITIONAL SENTENCE ORDER MADE
UNDER SECTION 742.3."
THERE YOU HAVE IT. THAT BRIEF SENTENCE HAS
SPAWNED A CONSIDERABLE VOLUME OF LAW, INCLUDING
CASES FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA. I WILL
REFER TO SOME OF THE KEY PRINCIPLES THAT HAVE
EMERGED FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA THAT I
MUST FOLLOW AND DO FOLLOW. THE EASIEST WAY TO DO
THIS IS FROM THE ANNOTATIONS FOLLOWING SECTION
742.1 IN MARTIN'S CRIMINAL CODE, 2006 EDITION. I
BELIEVE THE ANNOTATIONS ARE CORRECT. THEY ARE
OFTEN REFERRED TO IN THESE COURTS. THE
PRINCIPLES ARE EXTENSIVE, AND I WILL NOW REFER TO
SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ONES, ALTHOUGH I HAD
CONSIDERED A WIDER BODY OF LAW IN ARRIVING AT THE
ULTIMATE SENTENCE.
FROM THE SUPREME COURT CASE OF PROULX IN
2000, THE COURT HELD THAT "UNLIKE PROBATION,"
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
10
WHICH IS PRIMARILY A REHABILITATIVE SENTENCE, "A
CONDITIONAL SENTENCE IS INTENDED TO ADDRESS BOTH
PUNITIVE AND REHABILITATIVE OBJECTIVES."
THE PROULX JUDGMENT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT
CONDITIONAL SENTENCES SHOULD GENERALLY INCLUDE
PUNITIVE CONDITIONS THAT OPERATE TO RESTRICT THE
LIBERTY OF THE OFFENDER. "THEREFORE," THE
SUPREME COURT SAID, "CONDITIONS SUCH AS HOUSE
ARREST OR STRICT CURFEWS SHOULD BE THE NORM." IN
DECIDING WHETHER TO IMPOSE A CONDITIONAL
SENTENCE, THE COURT, AT THE FIRST STAGE, MERELY
CONSIDERS WHETHER TO EXCLUDE THE TWO POSSIBILITIES
OF A PENITENTIARY TERM OR A NON-CUSTODIAL TERM.
IN THIS CASE, THE CROWN IS NOT ASKING THAT
MR. CHINKON RECEIVE A PENITENTIARY TERM, AND I AM
NOT CONSIDERING A PENITENTIARY TERM. THAT
POSSIBILITY IS EXCLUDED. IN MY VIEW, A
NON-CUSTODIAL SENTENCE IS SIMPLY OUT OF THE
QUESTION. THERE ARE TOO MANY FACTORS THAT
OPERATE IN THIS CASE TO MAKE IMPRISONMENT
NECESSARY BUT NOT TO THE POINT WHERE IT WOULD BE
A PENITENTIARY SENTENCE. I HAVE NOW EXCLUDED
THOSE TWO TYPES OF SENTENCE.
IN MAKING THESE PRELIMINARY DETERMINATIONS,
A PENITENTIARY SENTENCE BEING EXCLUDED AND A
NON-CUSTODIAL SENTENCE BEING EXCLUDED, THE PROULX
CASE SAID THAT ALL I HAVE TO CONSIDER, AS I HAVE
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
11
DONE, IS THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES
OF SENTENCING TO THE EXTENT TO NARROW THE RANGE
OF SENTENCES FOR THIS OFFENDER FOR HAVING
COMMITTED THIS OFFENCE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES
UPON THIS VICTIM.
NOW, WHAT I HAVE TO DO IS CONSIDER THE
PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING IN A COMPREHENSIVE WAY
IN DETERMINING WHETHER TO IMPOSE A CONDITIONAL
SENTENCE.
THE PROULX JUDGMENT HAS ALSO SAID THAT AT
THIS STAGE THE COURT "MAY PROPERLY CONCLUDE THAT
THE TERM OF A CONDITIONAL SENTENCE," IF MADE,
"SHOULD BE LONGER THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF THE
OFFENDER WERE SENTENCED TO IMMEDIATE
INCARCERATION."
THE THIRD PRINCIPLE ANNOTATED IN MARTIN'S
FROM PROULX IS THAT THE SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY
ISSUE IS MERELY ONE OF THE THREE PREREQUISITES.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT THE
OFFENDER DOES NOT POSE A DANGER TO THE SAFETY OF
THE COMMUNITY, AS I HAVE DONE IN THIS CASE, THIS
IS ONLY ONE FACTOR. IT IS NOT THE PRIMARY
CONSIDERATION. IT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR THE DEFENCE
TO SAY MY CLIENT DOES NOT POSE A THREAT FOR THE
COMMUNITY, THEREFORE, THERE MUST BE A CONDITIONAL
SENTENCE. INDEED, I DO NOT HEAR MR. LATIMER TO
BE MAKING THAT ARGUMENT. IT IS SIMPLY A BRANCH
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
12
OF HIS ARGUMENT, AS IS APPROPRIATE FOR HIM TO
ARGUE.
THE SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY, TO BE MORE
SPECIFIC, REFERS ONLY TO THE THREAT BY THE
OFFENDER BEFORE THE COURT AND NOT IN A GREATER
CONTEXT.
WHEN THE COURT CONSIDERS THE DANGER TO THE
COMMUNITY, THE COURT WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER THE
RISK OF THE OFFENDER REOFFENDING AND THE GRAVITY
OF THE DAMAGE THAT HE COULD DO. A SMALL RISK OF
VERY HARMFUL FUTURE CRIME, PARTICULARLY IN THE
CASE OF VIOLENT OFFENDERS, MAY WARRANT A FINDING
THAT THERE IS A DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY. THE
POSITION TAKEN BY THE CROWN AND MY INDEPENDENT
ASSESSMENT RESOLVE THIS ISSUE.
THE FOURTH ANNOTATED PRINCIPLE IS THAT A
CONDITIONAL SENTENCE IS AVAILABLE FOR ALL
OFFENCES IN WHICH THE STATUTORY PREREQUISITES
HAVE BEEN MADE OR SATISFIED. THERE IS NO
PRESUMPTION THAT CONDITIONAL SENTENCES ARE
INAPPROPRIATE FOR SPECIFIC OFFENCES. THIS IS
IMPORTANT IN THIS CASE BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE CASE
THAT BECAUSE THERE IS A HIGH PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL
ASSAULTS IN THIS JURISDICTION, THAT THERE IS A
PRESUMPTION AGAINST A CONDITIONAL SENTENCE ORDER.
NEVERTHELESS, THE SERIOUSNESS OF WHAT THE
OFFENDER HAS DONE AND THE GRAVITY OF THE OFFENCE
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
13
ARE CLEARLY RELEVANT TO DETERMINING WHETHER A
CONDITIONAL SENTENCE IS APPROPRIATE IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES.
THE FIFTH PRINCIPLE ANNOTATED IS THAT THERE
IS NO PRESUMPTION IN FAVOUR OF A CONDITIONAL
SENTENCE ONCE THE PREREQUISITES HAVE BEEN
SATISFIED. BUT PROULX SAID THAT SERIOUS
CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO A CONDITIONAL
SENTENCE IN ALL CASES WHERE THE STATUTORY
PREREQUISITES HAVE BEEN SATISFIED.
THE SIXTH PRINCIPLE ANNOTATED IS THAT A
CONDITIONAL SENTENCE CAN PROVIDE A SIGNIFICANT
AMOUNT OF DENUNCIATION (DENUNCIATION IS A KEY
PART OF THE CROWN'S ARGUMENT TODAY) PARTICULARLY
WHERE ONEROUS CONDITIONS ARE IMPOSED AND THE TERM
OF THE SENTENCE IS LONGER THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN
IMPOSED BY A TERM OF INCARCERATION. THE COURT
HELD THAT "GENERALLY, THE MORE SERIOUS THE
OFFENCE, THE LONGER AND MORE ONEROUS THE
CONDITIONAL SENTENCE SHOULD BE."
THE SEVENTH ANNOTATED PRINCIPLE IS THAT A
CONDITIONAL SENTENCE CAN PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT
DETERRENCE IF SUFFICIENTLY PUNITIVE CONDITIONS
ARE IMPOSED AND IF THE COURTS ARE WARY OF PLACING
TOO MUCH WEIGHT ON DETERRENCE WHEN CHOOSING
BETWEEN A CONDITIONAL SENTENCE AND INCARCERATION.
WE HAVE TO BE WARY OF PLACING TOO MUCH WEIGHT ON
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
14
THE DETERRENCE ASPECT OF IT. BUT PROULX ALSO
SAYS THAT THERE MAY BE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE
NEED FOR DETERRENCE WARRANTS INCARCERATION.
THE EIGHTH PRINCIPLE ANNOTATED IS THAT "WHEN
THE OBJECTIVES OF REHABILITATION, REPARATION AND
PROMOTION OF A SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY MAY
REALISTICALLY BE ACHIEVED, A CONDITIONAL SENTENCE
WILL LIKELY BE THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION..." BUT
THEN THE COURT WENT ON TO ADD THAT THIS WOULD
HAVE TO BE SUBJECT TO CONSIDERATIONS OF
DENUNCIATION AND DETERRENCE.
THE NINTH ANNOTATED PRINCIPLE IS THAT WHILE
AGGRAVATING FACTORS, POINTED OUT BY THE CROWN
TODAY, RELATING TO THE OFFENCE AND/OR TO THE
OFFENDER "INCREASE THE NEED FOR DENUNCIATION AND
DETERRENCE, A CONDITIONAL SENTENCE MAY BE IMPOSED
EVEN IF SUCH FACTORS ARE PRESENT".
THE NEXT ANNOTATED PRINCIPLE IS AN IMPORTANT
ONE IN EVERY CASE OF THIS KIND WHERE A
CONDITIONAL SENTENCE IS SOUGHT: "NEITHER PARTY
HAS THE ONUS OF ESTABLISHING THAT THE OFFENDER
SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT RECEIVE A CONDITIONAL
SENTENCE." THE OFFENDER IS USUALLY IN THE BEST
POSITION TO CONVINCE THE JUDGE THAT THE
CONDITIONAL SENTENCE IS APPROPRIATE, AND, AS
PROULX SAYS, IT WILL BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF
THE OFFENDER TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
15
INFORMATION, HELPING THE COURT TO ARRIVE AT THE
CONDITIONAL SENTENCE AS OPPOSED TO INCARCERATION.
IN ANOTHER SUPREME COURT OF CANADA JUDGMENT
FROM THE SAME YEAR, 2000, THE COURT IN R. V.
S(R.N.) HELD THAT "IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE EITHER
A SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION OR A CONDITIONAL
SENTENCE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, A CONDITIONAL
SENTENCE SHOULD GENERALLY BE IMPOSED..." THIS
WOULD APPLY EVEN IF IT WOULD BE LONGER THAN AN
APPROPRIATE SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION.
IN ANOTHER CASE OUT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
CANADA FROM THE SAME YEAR, THE COURT HELD THAT
"WHILE NO OFFENCE IS PRESUMPTIVELY EXCLUDED FROM
THE POSSIBILITY OF A CONDITIONAL SENTENCE, AS A
PRACTICAL MATTER, AND NOTWITHSTANDING S. 718.2(E),
PARTICULARLY VIOLENT AND SERIOUS OFFENCES WILL
RESULT IN IMPRISONMENT" -- AND BY "IMPRISONMENT",
THE SUPREME COURT MEANT INCARCERATION -- "FOR
ABORIGINAL OFFENDERS AS OFTEN AS FOR
NON-ABORIGINAL OFFENDERS."
THESE ARE SOME OF THE MANY PRINCIPLES THAT I
HAVE HAD TO CONSIDER, INCLUDING ALL THE OTHER
PROVISIONS OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA
RESPECTING THE PURPOSE, PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVES
OF SENTENCING. IT SHOULD BE APPARENT THIS IS
NEVER AN EASY TASK.
THE IMMATURITY OF MR. CHINKON IS A FACTOR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
16
SUGGESTING THAT HE MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENTLY
RESPONSIVE, NOR SUFFICIENTLY RELIABLE TO BENEFIT
FROM A COMMUNITY-BASED SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT
(I.E. A CONDITIONAL SENTENCE ORDER). ON THE
OTHER HAND, HIS IMMATURITY COULD ACT LIKE A
SPONGE IN A PRISON SETTING, SOAKING UP THE
CRIMINALITY OF THE CHARACTERS HOUSED WITH HIM.
CLOSE SUPERVISION BY A SENTENCE SUPERVISOR COULD
BE SUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF IMMATURITY,
AND IT OUGHT TO BE.
THIS CASE IS ONE THAT, UPON CAREFUL
REFLECTION OVER A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD OF TIME
(GIVEN THE ADJOURNMENTS IN THIS MATTER), FALLS
WITHIN THE NARROW CATEGORY WHERE EITHER A
SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION OR A COMMUNITY-BASED
PERIOD OF IMPRISONMENT WOULD BE A FIT SENTENCE
FOR THIS OFFENDER FOR HAVING COMMITTED THIS
SERIOUS CRIME IN THESE SERIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES UPON
THIS VICTIM, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE IMPACT UPON
THIS VICTIM. THIS CONCLUSION LEADS ME TO AWARD A
CONDITIONAL SENTENCE ORDER.
A TIPPING POINT IN MY ANALYSIS IS A PASSAGE
AT PARAGRAPH 15.25 OF THE SIXTH EDITION OF RUBY
ON SENTENCING. IT READS:
IN REGARD TO DETERRENCE, A JUDGE
SHOULD BE WARY OF PLACING TOO
GREAT AN EMPHASIS ON DETERRENCE
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
17
IN CHOOSING A CUSTODIAL SENTENCE
OVER A CONDITIONAL ONE, FOR THE
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT
THE DETERRENT EFFECT OF
INCARCERATION IS UNCERTAIN.
MOREOVER, A CONDITIONAL SENTENCE
WITH SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS
CONDITIONS WILL OFTEN SERVE AS A
SUFFICIENT DETERRENT.
THE CITATION IS GIVEN FOR SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE
PARAGRAPH.
I SAID EARLIER THAT CERTAIN CONSIDERATIONS
LEAD ME TOWARD A CONDITIONAL SENTENCE ORDER.
THIS OFFENDER DOES NOT NEED INCARCERATION TO
DETER HIM. OTHERS CAN BE DETERRED BY A HARSH
CONDITIONAL SENTENCE ORDER INCORPORATING, AS IT
DOES, AND AS ANY SENTENCE OUGHT TO INCORPORATE, A
MEASURE OF RESTRAINT WITHOUT SACRIFICING PUBLIC
SAFETY.
HIS REHABILITATION CAN BE BEST ACHIEVED, AS
CAN HIS REINTEGRATION, BY A CONDITIONAL SENTENCE
ORDER. DENUNCIATION, WITH SUFFICIENTLY HARSH
CONDITIONS AS SUGGESTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
CANADA, CAN ALSO BE ADEQUATELY ACHIEVED. TO BE
CLEAR, HOWEVER, I HAVE PLACED THE FACTORS OF
REHABILITATION AND REINTEGRATION SECOND TO
PRIMARY DETERRENCE, SECONDARY DETERRENCE AND
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
18
DENUNCIATION.
THERE WILL BE A CONDITIONAL SENTENCE OF
IMPRISONMENT. THE PERIOD WILL BE FOR 15 MONTHS.
HAD THERE BEEN INCARCERATION, I WOULD HAVE MADE
IT IN THE RANGE OF 9 TO 12 MONTHS.
MR. CHINKON, IF YOU DISOBEY ANY OF THE TERMS
OF THIS ORDER, YOU COULD BE REQUIRED TO SERVE ALL
OR A PORTION OF THE REMAINDER OF YOUR SENTENCE BY
WAY OF INCARCERATION AT THE CORRECTIONAL CENTRE
EITHER HERE IN YELLOWKNIFE OR HAY RIVER. IS THIS
CLEAR TO YOU?
THE ACCUSED: YES.
THE COURT: THIS IS VERY SERIOUS BUSINESS.
THIS IS NOT LIKE ATTENDING SCHOOL. YOU REGISTER
FOR SCHOOL, YOU ARE THERE FOR A MONTH OR TWO OR
WHATEVER AND THEN YOU QUIT. THIS IS DIFFERENT.
IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THIS, YOU WILL BE CAUGHT;
THIS I CAN ASSURE YOU. AND IF YOU ARE BROUGHT
BEFORE THE COURT AND IF THE COURT IS SATISFIED
THAT YOU HAVE BREACHED THIS CONDITIONAL SENTENCE
ORDER, EXPECT TO BE LOCKED UP.
THE ACCUSED: ALL RIGHT.
THE COURT: THE STATUTORY CONDITIONS IN
SECTION 742.1 WILL ALL OF COURSE HAVE TO APPLY.
ACTUALLY, THEY ARE IN 742.3. YOU HAVE TO KEEP
THE PEACE AND BE OF GOOD BEHAVIOUR. THIS MEANS,
IN EFFECT, YOU WILL HAVE TO BE ON YOUR BEST
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
19
BEHAVIOUR. IF YOU CAN DO THAT, EVERYTHING ELSE
OUGHT TO FALL INTO PLACE NEATLY FOR YOU. YOU
WILL APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT WHEN REQUIRED TO DO
SO BY THE COURT. YOU ARE TO REPORT TO A
CONDITIONAL SENTENCE SUPERVISOR NO LATER THAN
THIS COMING MONDAY, FEBRUARY -- IS IT FEBRUARY
6TH, COUNSEL?
THE COURT CLERK: YES, SIR.
MR. LATIMER: YES.
THE COURT: AT 4 P.M., IN PERSON, AND
THEREAFTER, WHEN AND AS REQUIRED BY YOUR
SUPERVISOR AND IN THE MANNER DIRECTED BY YOUR
SUPERVISOR. YOU ARE TO REMAIN WITHIN THE
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES UNLESS YOU HAVE WRITTEN
PERMISSION TO GO OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION FROM
THE COURT OR FROM YOUR SUPERVISOR. YOU ARE TO
NOTIFY THE COURT OR THE SUPERVISOR IN ADVANCE OF
ANY CHANGE OF NAME OR ADDRESS, AND PROMPTLY
NOTIFY THE COURT OR THE SUPERVISOR OF ANY CHANGE
OF EMPLOYMENT OR OCCUPATION. ARE YOU WITH ME SO
FAR?
THE ACCUSED: YEAH.
THE COURT: YOU DO NOT HAVE TO MEMORIZE
ALL OF THIS. DO NOT BE FEARFUL. THE CLERK WILL
GO OVER IT ALL WITH YOU AND LEAVE A SIGNED COPY
FOR YOU TO TAKE HOME.
THERE WILL BE WHAT WE CALL ADDITIONAL
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
20
CONDITIONS OR OPTIONAL CONDITIONS, AND THIS IS
WHERE IT GETS TOUGH.
YOU ARE TO DO COMMUNITY SERVICE WORK. THE
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF HOURS ALLOWED UNDER THE
CRIMINAL CODE IS 240. YOU ARE TO DO 200 HOURS OF
COMMUNITY SERVICE WORK WHEN AND AS DIRECTED BY
YOUR SUPERVISOR, BUT AT A RATE OF AT LEAST 20
HOURS PER MONTH BEGINNING THIS MONTH.
NEXT. THE OFFENCE WAS IN SOME WAY RELATED
TO YOUR CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL. YOU ARE
PROHIBITED FROM CONSUMING OR HAVING IN YOUR
POSSESSION ANY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ANYWHERE FOR
THE ENTIRE 15-MONTH PERIOD. YOU WILL OBEY A
DEMAND FOR BREATH, URINE, OR BLOOD SAMPLES MADE
TO YOU BY A PEACE OFFICER WHO HAS REASONABLE
GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE VIOLATED TO ANY
DEGREE THE ALCOHOL PROHIBITION CONDITION. ARE
YOU STILL WITH ME?
THE ACCUSED: YEAH.
THE COURT: YOU APPEAR TO BE FOLLOWING
KEENLY.
SUCH DEMAND ON THE COLLECTION OF SAMPLES
MUST BE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS
OFFENDER'S RIGHTS UNDER THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND
FREEDOMS.
NEXT. YOU WILL ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN
COUNSELLING WHEN AND AS DIRECTED BY YOUR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
21
SUPERVISOR.
NEXT. YOU ARE TO HAVE NO CONTACT OR
COMMUNICATION OF ANY SORT WITH THE VICTIM, AND
YOU ARE NOT TO ATTEND AT HER PLACE OF RESIDENCE,
WHEREVER IT MAY BE FROM TIME TO TIME. YOU ARE TO
LIVE WITH YOUR AUNT, JULIA SANGRIS, IN N'DILO, IN
THIS JURISDICTION, AT TELEPHONE NUMBER 873-2660,
LOCATED AT 146 N'DILO. SHOULD THE LIVING
ARRANGEMENT BREAK DOWN, YOU MUST INFORM YOUR
SUPERVISOR IMMEDIATELY AND YOU MUST MAKE
IMMEDIATE ARRANGEMENTS TO HAVE THIS ORDER
REVIEWED BY THE COURT, PREFERABLY BY MYSELF
BECAUSE I HAVE THE MOST FAMILIARITY WITH THIS
PARTICULAR MATTER.
NEXT. FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF THIS
ORDER, YOU ARE CONFINED TO THE HOME OF YOUR AUNT.
THAT IS GOING TO BE YOUR PRISON. SHE HAS SAID
SHE CAN KEEP YOU THERE. AND I ASKED HER, IF
THERE WERE HOUSE ARREST, IF SHE COULD ACCOMMODATE
THAT AND SHE SAID YES. YOU ARE CONFINED TO HER
HOME SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, TWENTY-FOUR HOURS A DAY,
EXCEPT TO DO COMMUNITY SERVICE WORK, TO
PARTICIPATE IN COUNSELLING AS DIRECTED BY THE
SUPERVISOR, FOR MEDICAL OR DENTAL REASONS OR FOR
RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCES OR FOR SCHOOL OR
SCHOOL-RELATED ACTIVITIES OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL
PURPOSES WITHIN A RECOGNIZED EDUCATIONAL
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
22
INSTITUTION. AND YOU MAY BE OUTSIDE THE HOME
WITH PERMISSION FROM YOUR SUPERVISOR FOR URGENT
PURPOSES NOT ADDRESSED BY THIS ORDER. HERE WHAT
I HAVE IN MIND IS SOMETIMES THINGS HAPPEN AND YOU
MAY NEED PERMISSION.
NEXT. YOU MAY ALSO HAVE UP TO TWO HOURS A
WEEK IN THE COMMUNITY FOR LAWFUL PURPOSES, THE
TERMS OF WHICH WILL BE IN WRITING FROM YOUR
SUPERVISOR.
NEXT. YOU MAY NOT ATTEND THE COMMUNITY OF
BECHOKÖ, FORMERLY KNOWN AS RAE-EDZO, UNLESS YOU
HAVE WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM YOUR SUPERVISOR
BEFOREHAND.
AFTER THE SIX MONTHS OF THE 24-HOUR-A-DAY
HOUSE ARREST, THERE WILL BE A CURFEW FOR A
FURTHER SIX MONTHS. IT WILL BE FROM 7 P.M. TO 7
A.M. YOU ARE STILL TO BE LIVING AT THE HOME OF
YOUR AUNT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF THIS
ORDER, FOR 15 MONTHS. BUT FOR THE SECOND BLOCK
OF SIX MONTHS, YOU ARE BOUND BY A CURFEW, 7 P.M.
TO 7 A.M. THE SAME EXCEPTIONS ARE TO APPLY.
HOWEVER, A FURTHER EXCEPTION WILL BE TO ALLOW YOU
OUTSIDE THE HOME DURING THE CURFEW HOURS IF YOU
ARE WITH YOUR AUNT; AND BY "WITH" HER, I MEAN IN
HER IMMEDIATE PRESENCE. IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO BE
IN YELLOWKNIFE WITH HER. YOU HAVE TO BE RIGHT
WITH HER.
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
23
THE ACCUSED: ALL RIGHT.
THE COURT: THAT EXCEPTION DOES NOT,
HOWEVER, APPLY TO THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF HOUSE
ARREST. THE FIRST SIX MONTHS, YOU ARE NOT TO BE
GOING OUT WITH HER UNLESS THERE IS AN EXCEPTION
AS I ALREADY MENTIONED.
ANY REFERENCE -- THIS IS THE NEXT CONDITION.
ANY REFERENCE TO WRITTEN PERMISSION IN THIS ORDER
WILL REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE THE WRITING IN YOUR
PHYSICAL POSSESSION AT ALL TIMES.
NEXT. YOU ARE NOT TO HAVE IN YOUR
POSSESSION THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE 15-MONTH PERIOD
ANY FIREARMS AND SO FORTH AS MENTIONED IN SECTION
109 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA. ALTHOUGH THE
CROWN HAS NOT SOUGHT A FIREARM PROHIBITION ORDER,
THIS KIND OF AN ORDER IN A CASE LIKE THIS, I
THINK BENEFITS AND ENHANCES PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN
THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IF THE OFFENDER IS
NOT TO HAVE IN HIS POSSESSION FIREARMS. IN OTHER
WORDS, PRISONERS SHOULD NOT HAVE FIREARMS. HE IS
A PRISONER, BUT A DIFFERENT KIND OF PRISONER.
THE CLERK, AND LATER YOUR SUPERVISOR, WILL
BE TAKING GREAT CARE IN REVIEWING CONDITIONS WITH
YOU, MR. CHINKON. THE SUPERVISOR WILL HAVE TO
MONITOR THIS VERY CAREFULLY, GIVEN THE IMMATURITY
OF THIS OFFENDER, TO ENSURE THAT HE HAS THE BEST
TOOLS AVAILABLE TO HIM TO MAKE THIS SENTENCE
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
24
WORK.
IT IS A RECOMMENDATION OF THE COURT THAT
IMMEDIATE STEPS BE TAKEN TO BREACH THIS OFFENDER
IN THE EVENT OF A VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE
CONDITIONS. I AM NOT PREPARED TO SUGGEST
OTHERWISE. THERE IS NO TOLERANCE FOR BREACHING
THIS ORDER.
THERE WILL NOT BE ANY VICTIM SURCHARGE GIVEN
THE APPARENT HARDSHIP THAT WILL FOLLOW. THE DNA
I HAVE DEALT WITH, AND THE CROWN IS NOT ASKING
THAT THE OFFENDER REGISTER UNDER THE SEX OFFENDER
REGISTRATION. IS THERE ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE
CROWN?
MR. GAUNT: NO, YOUR HONOUR.
THE COURT: MR. LATIMER? IS YOUR CLIENT
TO -- IS ON THE LINE HERE.
MR. LATIMER: YES.
THE COURT: IS THERE ANYTHING THAT MIGHT
BE WORDED DIFFERENTLY? SHOULD BE ADDED?
MR. LATIMER: I'M JUST WONDERING -- THANK
YOU, YOUR HONOUR. THIS IS VERY -- IT'S A
WELL-THOUGHT-OUT ORDER. I'M JUST WONDERING IF --
SUPPOSING THAT HE'S SEEKING EMPLOYMENT. I THINK
THAT WE HAVE -- I KNOW IT IS GEARED TOWARD HIM
TRYING TO GET HIS EDUCATION AND EVERYTHING, BUT
WHAT IF THINGS TURN OUT IN THE NEXT MONTH OR SO
THAT HIS -- THAT HE CAN'T DO ANY OF THESE THINGS
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
25
AND HE HAS TO SEEK EMPLOYMENT? COULD WE -- WOULD
IT BE BETTER TO COME BACK TO THE COURT THEN TO
CHANGE THEM?
THE COURT: THAT IS RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE
THE HOUSE ARREST FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS TO BE
HOUSE ARREST. I AM NOT ANTICIPATING --
MR. LATIMER: RIGHT.
THE COURT: -- EMPLOYMENT DURING THAT
PERIOD.
MR. LATIMER: NO. ALL RIGHT.
THE COURT: BUT IF SOMETHING COMES UP AND
HE HAS GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT THAT MIGHT BE OF
ASSISTANCE TO HIM AND TO THE COMMUNITY, I WOULD
ENTERTAIN --
MR. LATIMER: RIGHT.
THE COURT: -- AN APPLICATION. BUT I AM
NOT SUGGESTING FOR A MOMENT THAT THE COURT WILL
GRANT IT.
MR. LATIMER: NO. NO, THAT'S FINE. I
UNDERSTAND. THAT'S MORE CLEAR, YOUR HONOUR.
THE COURT: YOU ARE WELCOME TO MAKE ANY
APPLICATION TO CHANGE THE ORDER THAT YOU DEEM
APPROPRIATE.
THE CURFEW, HOWEVER, FOR THE SECOND PERIOD
OF TIME WILL HAVE ANOTHER EXCEPTION - THAT IS THE
SECOND BLOCK OF SIX MONTHS - THAT HE MAY BE
OUTSIDE DURING THE CURFEW HOURS IF IT IS FOR THE
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
26
PURPOSE OF GOING TO EMPLOYMENT, WORKING AT
EMPLOYMENT, AND RETURNING DIRECTLY HOME FROM IT.
MR. CHINKON, THE CLERK WILL BE WORKING ON
THE ORDER, I AM SURE, AS WE ARE DOING BUSINESS
HERE. I AM NOT SURE WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE
NEXT MATTER, BUT I WOULD LIKE THIS ORDER
COMPLETED TODAY. BUT I WILL GET A BETTER SENSE
IN A MOMENT. DO NOT GO AWAY YET.
MS. NGUYEN, WHERE DO YOU THINK YOU ARE
HEADING WITH YOUR CASE?
(OTHER MATTER SPOKEN TO)
THE COURT: MR. CHINKON, YOU ARE NOT TO
LEAVE THIS FLOOR. YOU MAY HAVE A SEAT IN THE
COURTROOM OR IN THE WAITING AREA OUTSIDE THE
COURTROOM.
THE ACCUSED: ALL RIGHT.
THE COURT: THERE IS A WASHROOM ON THIS
FLOOR. BUT YOU ARE NOT TO LEAVE THIS FLOOR.
THE ACCUSED: ALL RIGHT.
.................................
CERTIFIED PURSUANT TO RULE 723
OF THE RULES OF COURT
JANE ROMANOWICH, CSR(A), RPR
COURT REPORTER
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS
27
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.