vicnews.com
Published: July 19, 2013 11:00 AM
Updated: July 19, 2013 1:24 PM 2013
By Kyle Slavin – Victoria News
The justice presiding over the sentencing hearing of a former Saanich priest found guilty of touching a young person for a sexual purpose has adjourned the trial to September.
Justice J. Miriam Gropper said she didn’t want to rush her decision on handing down her sentence to Phil Jacobs.
Crown prosecutor Clare Jennings argued Friday during the sentencing hearing for a four- to six-month prison sentence for Jacobs, following by two years probation. He would also be put on the National Sex Offender Registry, and be included in the National DNA Data Bank.
The guilty charge stems from a witness testimony regarding tutoring sessions at Jacobs’ house on the grounds of St. Joseph the Worker Parish on Burnside Road West. The church is connected to St. Joseph the Worker school, where the young victim went to school.
The witness said he ended up in a position of laying on the couch with his legs over Jacobs’ lap.
During testimony in December, the young man told the court that Jacobs’ right hand would slide up and down the witness’s left thigh over his pants – “he went from my knee to my groin back and forth … the back of his hand touched my genitals.”
Gropper agreed with the Crown’s assertion that Jacobs’ touching of the victim’s genitals was “deliberate,” and not accidental brushing.
According to a psychiatric report conducted after the guilty verdict, handed down in February, Jacobs is deemed at a low to moderate risk to re-offend.
Defence attorney Chris Considine asked Gropper to consider a conditional sentence, given the incident Jacobs was found guilty of wasn’t “more physical, long-lasting or aggressive” compared to other similar crimes.
“This offense has to be at the very lowest of the scale of this type of offense that I can think of,” he said.
While Jennings’ argument focused on the crime as being sexual touching of a young person, Considine repeatedly told Gropper that said it was a breach of trust offense.
After both counsels pleaded their cases, Jacobs, 63, stood up and addressed the court, apologizing to his victim and his family. Jacobs believes he did not commit a sexual offence, but apologized for having put the victim in the compromising situation.
“I regret that I was not responsible to see how problematic that situation was,” he said. “I should have understood the potential consequences (of being in that situation).”
Jacobs worked part-time from 1996 to 1998 at St. Rose of Lima in Sooke before taking the position of parish priest at St. Joseph the Worker in Saanich in 1997.
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Victoria hired Jacobs despite knowing he had been relieved of his duties at a church in Columbus, Ohio, in the early 1990s after admitting to inappropriately touching a teenage boy in the 1980s.
Jacobs admitted during testimony in Victoria court that he had sexually abused two boys in Ohio, but had attended therapy to control his compulsion to instruct boys on masturbation. He told the court he had a series of inappropriate experiences with teenage boys involving camping trips and masturbation.
The diocese intentionally initially hired Jacobs to a post where he would not be interacting with children, but over time Jacobs became progressively more engaged with children.
In a press release from 2002 regarding hiring Jacobs, the Victoria diocese had deemed “Jacobs was not a pedophile nor an abuser and he was no threat in the future.”
A release following Jacobs’ guilty verdict from Bishop Richard Gagnon, head the Victoria diocese, reads: “A sexual offence against minors is a crime and like all such harmful actions, goes directly against what the Church believes and teaches. … I remain truly sorry for any harm caused by this situation.”
A date for Gropper’s sentencing verdict was set for Sept. 4.
kslavin@saanichnews.com
According to Jacob’s lawyer: “”This offense has to be at the very lowest of the scale of this type of offense that I can think of.”
In other words, “no big deal’?
What an insult to every soul who has ever endured childhood sexual abuse at the hands of a Roman Catholic priest. Any!
And there’s his client, the priest – convicted child molester – still denying: ““I regret that I was not responsible to see how problematic that situation was,”
Disgusting. Both of them.
And it’s all on hold now until September.
Keep the victims in your prayers. I am sure it wasn’t easy for the victim, partuclalry when it came time to sit in that courtroom and listen to Father Phil Jacobs couple his apology with a denial. If that doesn’t send a message to the judge I don’t know what does!
“Disgusting. Both of them.”
Yes. Agree completely. As well as the slippery, sleazy manner in which the diocese has distanced itself from being held accountable. How could they have possibly allowed this twisted egomaniac to be anywhere near young people from any parish? Just plain sickening. Boy hopping in and out of Jacob’s shower while the twisted pig gets his jollies saying dirty things, etc. Sickening. And the Victoria diocese needs to be accountable for enabling this disgusting egomaniac to do his thing.
Disgusting and then some. Little wonder the morality of the church is crumbling around all the phony do-gooders who apparently wish us to believe they are blind as well. Sleazy little careerists and social climbers.
I used to love the faith, and I still do. But the church people, with all their sleaze, and socialite stupidity, do nothing but drive true faith far from them. Disgusting. Sickening. Ad nauseam. I saw this guy in action at mass once. Honestly, I thought, “another egomaniac” and stayed away from that parish after that. God help us. What a mess. Praying for all those families and people damaged by this abuser and by the negligence of the diocese. Really just so sick of all the socialite stupidity in the church. A real nasty business.
Paul, if you’re in Victoria on the 4th of September , we could use your voice (and any other supporters for that matter. We need to get the message out that this is a paltry sentence for the harm he has caused and that the church needs to be held accountable for their inaction in all if this. Where is the voice of the bishop, and why aren’t there concerned Catholics in Victoria speaking out in support of victims? They are complicit in their silence!
Hi Leona – I also wonder why there is no outrage at this sentence. I am going to do my best to be there on Sept. 4/13. No matter what sentence he receives I will speak to any media after that. Hope U r doing well in spite of this most distressing outcome.
very good reply Paul. U are so right. My Mom & Dad attended St. Joseph’s when “Phil” was there. Everyone loved him & never suspected anything. To think that my Mom & Dad were sitting in the pews while Jacobs was molesting boys right before mass!! The judge is corrupt in this case. How hard it was for these boys to come forward & then basically told they were liars. Why would they lie about it? There isn’t any gain for them other than reliving the abuse. But not just the Judge – also the Prosecutor Clare Jennings only asking for 6 months max jail time when the charge carries imprisonment for up to ten years. I will post another comment down below.
Sexual exploitation
153. (1) Every person commits an offence who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency or who is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person, and who
(a) for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of the young person; or
(b) for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person.
Punishment
(1.1) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 90 days.
…R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 153; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 1; 2005, c. 32, s. 4; 2008, c. 6, s. 54; 2012, c. 1, s. 13.
Section of the Criminal Code that Jacobs was found guilty. I cannot find out if this is a “summary” or “indictable” offence. The Crown’s Clare Jennings who is prosecuting Jacobs says: “Crown prosecutor Clare Jennings called for a jail term of four to six months for Jacobs followed by at least two years of probation. Defence lawyer Chris Considine said Jacobs should be given a conditional sentence, to be served in the community.”
article: http://www.timescolonist.com/news/world/victoria-priest-philip-jacobs-to-be-sentenced-sept-4-for-sexual-touching-conviction-1.544600
I have tried to contact Ms. Jennings with no luck. If I do get ahold of her I will be asking her WHY she is recommending such a low sentence. Will post if I have anything.
Jacqqueline,
They went by way of summary conviction, less serious crime!!!…Don’t get upset! Not serious as compared to use of weapon in committing the crime, murder, rape, etc….
Doesn’t make sense when considering the damages to the child…but this is an “adult” world with “adult” tolerance…
Personally, I believe that anyone who soils a child and by extension the adult, then his family, his entire future and then his time spent on this planet, should be cast in the middle of the ocean with a “Hummer” chained to his neck!
There are no longer enough “mill stones” to go around! We need to improvise!
Simple message:don’t touch any child in an improper way!
That is not difficult to understand, regardless of your religious belief or lack of belief!
The child is “sacred”. Period!
There are no “mitigating” circumstances, excuses or explanations .No summary conviction or indictment question to be debated! Only one last “dunk” in the depth of the dark ocean!
jg
from: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-153-20051101.html
Justice Laws Website – Government of Canada
Philip Jacobs convicted of 153(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada:
Sexual exploitation – indictable offense
153. (1) Every person commits an offense who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency or who is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person, and who:
(a) for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of the young person;
(1.1) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days;
I spoke with the prosecutor Clare Jennings & she said it WAS “indictable offense” not summary. As in my other post the sentence is:
Philip Jacobs convicted of 153(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada:
Sexual exploitation – Punishment
(1.1) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year;
Jacqueline,
Those offences are dual procedure offences as are most in the criminal code….The prosecutor could have gone by way of indictment OR summary conviction…If she tells you she proceeded by way of indictment , did she explain why she asked for such a short jail term…
I am copying the relevant sections of the code and as you can tell, there is more to those sections than previously printed…especially the infamous “or” between sub-sections “a” and “b”…:
Sexual interference
151. Every person who, for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of a person under the age of 16 years
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 90 days.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 151;
R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 1;
2005, c. 32, s. 3;
2008, c. 6, s. 54;
2012, c. 1, s. 11.
Previous Version
Marginal note:Invitation to sexual touching
152. Every person who, for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a person under the age of 16 years to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the person under the age of 16 years,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 90 days.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 152;
R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 1;
2005, c. 32, s. 3;
2008, c. 6, s. 54;
2012, c. 1, s. 12.
Previous Version
Marginal note:Sexual exploitation
153. (1) Every person commits an offence who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency or who is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person, and who
(a) for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of the young person; or
(b) for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person.
Marginal note:Punishment
(1.1) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 18 months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of 90 days.
Marginal note:Inference of sexual exploitation
(1.2) A judge may infer that a person is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person from the nature and circumstances of the relationship, including
(a) the age of the young person;
(b) the age difference between the person and the young person;
(c) the evolution of the relationship; and
(d) the degree of control or influence by the person over the young person.
Definition of “young person”
(2) In this section, “young person” means a person 16 years of age or more but under the age of eighteen years.
My take on this, the prosecutor asked for the minimum penalty, playing it safe to avoid an appeal. It makes the appreciation of the crime look real for the victim, going by way of indictment, and it makes it acceptable for the offender to get the minimum,or close to minimum penalty, as provided by the Code under the circumstances.
I hate to say this, but quite often the Justice system(prosecution) is looking at the “positive” or “plus” column with the files they have to take to court and conclude…A win is a win in a prosecutor’s resumé… It is a game of numbers for them( and for everyone else in this “bean counter” world!)….because there are another 200-300 files waiting for a resolution sometimes. They need to “produce” and at the end of the day, they just want to go home, like the rest of us…
I don’t believe prosecutors work on passion but are more inclined towards “compromise”…middle of the road approach for everyone!
Don’t agree with all of this. I am just saying it is “A” reality …
jg
I appreciate your reply. If U don’t mind me asking are U a reporter, lawyer – other? When I spoke to Clare Jennings she wouldn’t answer my questions & referred me to Neil McKenzie, Media Relations for Ministry of Attorney General. He gave me some mumbo jumbo about how it starts with the police investigation, they recommend which section of the code he should be charged with. When it goes to the Crown from there they do their thing about further investigation etc. I am going to try to get ahold of the “Opposition” (NDP) & see if they will speak out or try to have any input. Also Harper’s “new” crime bill – because it’s Federal does that mean it applies or not or is it provincial. I have previously been in contact with Justice Minister Rob Nicholson & will write him about this case. *Please correct me if I’m wrong about the chain of command regarding what Neil McKenzie said. If this is not the case I will phone him back & see what he says.
Jacqueline,
You can place me in the “other” column…with almost 20 years of behind the scenes observation of our Justice system, in different occupations…
What I said about the “compromise” and the need to solve the “crimes” in the positive column is just a fact of life. The Police have to show a certain percentage of resolution as does the prosecution…No one in the “chain of command” ,as you called it, takes a case to court to lose it. They have to weigh the evidence, the strengths of the witness or the weaknesses…
The new crime bill would be an amendment to the Criminal Code and applies across the country with provincial enforcement.
There is little you can do to alter the outcome and the sentence. Voice your discontent but don’t expect it will change the way they do business any time soon….
I had almost 20 years of frustration and preferred to get away from it.
You are entering into a maze if you want to make sense of it…You will need a Law Degree, another in Psychology, Political Science, a career in Policing …to start!
It is a “system”, not just one person you have to understand to understand the “compromise”…
I said it was “my take”…No one within will discuss the conversations, the agreements behind the scene…It is an imperfect system but that is the one we have. Most are honest in its administration and often are just as frustrated as you are. The scenarios can be as different as the individuals in any given case: a good Policeman can build a good case but loose in Court on a technicality…a witness can change his story…evidence is compromised…
I may sound cynical but the more I try to explain to you the more I remember how easy it is to loose a case completely and let the “guilty” walk away free…Sometimes they have no choice to “compromise” to “at least” get a conviction…
Anyone will or should tell you that every case is different and stands on its own merit. So many variables to consider.
Good Luck….
jg
thx for the response – so doing any kind of petition would be fruitless? I realize each case is different but just referring to Jacobs’ trial. I have written to the authour of the article http://www.timescolonist.com/news/world/victoria-priest-philip-jacobs-to-be-sentenced-sept-4-for-sexual-touching-conviction-1.544600.
To: jwbell@timescolonist.com
would U consider doing an article on the issue of “Crown prosecutor Clare Jennings called for a jail term of four to six months for Jacobs followed by at least two years of probation. Defence lawyer Chris Considine said Jacobs should be given a conditional sentence, to be served in the community.”
Questions I have are:
1. Why is the Crown settling for this “minimal” sentence & not the maximum of 10 years?
2. Sets a dangerous precedent for other offenders.
3. Public/victims may/will be outraged at this.
4. Would a petition to the Judge or the Court have any impact on Jacobs’ sentence?
5. What about justice for the victims?
If U could find this out would be great substance for a petition. Otherwise if U could direct me to anyone that could answer these questions would greatly be appreciated.
As you know we only have about a month before the sentencing.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline Lamoureux
I wouldn’t say it would be fruitless Jacqueline, only that it will not impact the outcome of the trial. It may however bear fruit for the future. That is important too.
I think it would be fantastic if the Times Colonist ran an article addressing some of your questions. Will it happen? Cross your fingers and hope.
Here’s a link about judicial independence and impartiality. http://www.cscja-acjcs.ca/independent_impartial-en.asp?l=5
The bottom line is, you do what you feel you must Jacqueline. As long as you’re not breaking any laws, speak your mind. You will learn as you go. As I say, the chances of influencing the sentencing are nil, but people will read what you have to say and they will think about it, and you just never know what impact it may have on them in the future.
After the sentencing, if you are outraged, then file written complaints. I’m not sure which bodies you complain to in BC, but there will be one which deals with complaints about judges, and you would probably got to the office of AG regarding the Crown. Again, your complaint or that of anyone will not overturn the sentencing, – the only way that can happen is for the Crown to appeal. And write letters to the Editor. And perhaps try to get a talk show host to put it on as a topic?
If you send off letters, feel free to send copies to me and I will post them on the site. That may encourage others to follow suit 🙂
“And write letters to the Editor.”…
So true Sylvia!…That is exactly how I got to be on your site, through a letter to the editor. What I believed to be the end was just a beginning!…Then the “battle” with Bastarache which is some indirect way may have had repercussions in the Moncton, Cap Pelé settlements…
Jacqueline, at times we all wonder if our little contributions have any impact and we need to be reminded, we need to prop each other up to continue…
Sometimes your desire for Justice is just what someone else will need to step forward. Who knows, your letter, your point of view may just reach the right Judge or prosecutor or even the right politician…
Follow your heart…and don’t under estimate the power of the press.
Sometimes it is better not to know you “can’t” do something; that’s how so many “impossible” challenges were met with success, by people who ignored the word “can’t”…
jg