Cornwall Standard Freeholder

18 October 2008

Posted By MEGAN HARRISON

A 57-year-old Cornwall man was sentenced to two years probation yesterday for a sex assault he committed more than 40 years ago.

The man, who cannot be named because he was a youth at the time of the offence, was found guilty in May of sexual assault and gross indecency against another Cornwall man, who also cannot be named.

"Clearly these are offences that, because of their repetition and gravity, would result today in a period of incarceration and segregation," said Justice Bruce MacPhee as he handed down the sentence.

"They are serious, violent offences and they resulted in significant trauma over the years for (the victim) . . . but we also must take into account that you were 15 at the time of the incident, and that we are now 40 years past the crime."

Last month defence lawyer Ewan Lyttle argued, based on a 2005 case from the Yukon, that jail time was not a fair option for his client because it exceeded the maximum penalty found in the Juvenile Delinquent Act, which governed the laws surrounding young offenders in Canada until 1984.

Lyttle claimed that if his client had been found guilty when he committed the crime at the age of 15, he could have served his time at an industrial school, which no longer exists in Ontario.

Yesterday Lyttle renewed his arguments, adding that the offender was a victim of sexual abuse himself, and was unaware that what he was doing was wrong.

"At the time he thought it was completely normal for males to engage in sexual acts, regardless of their age," he told Justice MacPhee.

"I don't have to present any expert testimony to show that sexual abuse has devastating effects on people, and (the victim) is extremely fortunate, and it's a credit to him that he hasn't gone on to commit criminal offences himself."

Given the circumstances, Crown Attorney Jennifer Burke requested the two-year probation sentence, which also includes 100 hours of community service or a $500 donation to the Children's Treatment Centre.

  The offender is also not allowed within 100 meters of the victim, his family, his residence or his place of work, and is prohibited from being in contact with children under the age of 16 unless supervised by an adult family member. 

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #2 By jules10003,

The problem with this case is that the offender cannot be named due to being a youth at the time of the offence (which is not true...ask Emma Wilson King). Another problem is what was NOT reported that took place in the courtroom. A report was read in that this MAN? is at risk of re-offending, and no one knows who he is. Is he your neighbour? Is he your childs teacher? Is he a Big Brother? Or a Boy Scout leader? Something is very wrong here, and it is time to stop being mad at your kitchen tables while reading the paper. We as members of this community have a right and a need to know who these offenders are. It is time to stop pandering to the perpatrators and time to start looking after the children of this community. Get ANGRY people, they are YOUR children!!!!!!

 John Mac Donald  

Reply | Report | Page Top Post #4 By grimreaper_47