Northern News Services
Paul Bickford, North Battleford
A man notorious as a sex offender from his time as a residential school supervisor many years ago in Inuvik has again been sent to jail – this time in Saskatchewan.
On Dec. 12, Paul Leroux was sentenced to three years imprisonment on eight counts of indecent assault and two counts of gross indecency. The charges date back to when Leroux worked as a dormitory supervisor at the Beauval Indian Residential School in Beauval, Sask., from 1959 to 1967, except for the school year 1961 to 1962.
Leroux was previously convicted of three counts of indecent assault, attempted buggery, attempted indecent assault and nine counts of gross indecency, and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in 1998 in Inuvik.
The offences in Inuvik took place between 1967 and 1979, while he was supervisor of Grollier Hall, a residence for out-of-town boys attending school in the town. The victims ranged in age from 13 to 19.
On the charges in Saskatchewan, the Crown had asked for a sentence of 11 years. However, he was handed a sentence of just three years by the Court of Queen’s Bench in Battleford after a three-week trial in front of a judge alone.
Crown attorney Mitch Piche has recommended the sentence be appealed to the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan.
“It’s, from my point of view, not a reasonable sentence,” he said.Piche explained a sentence can be reviewed if there is an error of principle which results in a sentence that’s not proportional to the gravity of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender.
“In this case, we feel the moral blameworthiness of the offender is very, very high, and, of course, he has multiple counts here,” he said. “From our point of view, even one of these charges, the more serious ones, are worth four or five years in jail.”
The Crown attorney noted the charges include seven sexual assaults involving major violations of a young person’s bodily integrity. The major offences were generally against boys aged 13 to 15, while offences against younger children involved such things as fondling.
“The same type of charges that he was dealing with in Inuvik,” said Piche.
In fact, the Crown attorney noted the sentence in Inuvik figured prominently in the most recent sentencing, explaining the 73-year-old Leroux –who represented himself before the court – suggested that, if the complainants in Saskatchewan had been more vigilant and come forward at the time of the Inuvik matter, he would have received a global sentence on all charges, both from Inuvik and Saskatchewan, and he would have received 13 years.
“His sentencing at Inuvik was front and centre of his argument as far as sentencing here,” Piche said. In fact, the Crown attorney noted the judge did take the sentence from Inuvik into account when passing the most recent sentence, despite his argument against that based on a ruling of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba in the infamous case of Graham James, a junior hockey coach convicted of molesting players.
That appeal court increased the sentence for James after determining the trial judge gave too much consideration to a previous sentence on separate, but similar, charges. Since being paroled in 2002 on the NWT charges, Leroux A man notorious as a sex offender from his time as a residential school supervisor many years ago in Inuvik has again been sent to jail – this time in Saskatchewan.
On Dec. 12, Paul Leroux was sentenced to three years imprisonment on eight counts of indecent assault and two counts of gross indecency.
The charges date back to when Leroux worked as a dormitory supervisor at the Beauval Indian Residential School in Beauval, Sask., from 1959 to 1967, except for the school year 1961 to 1962.
Leroux was previously convicted of three counts of indecent assault, attempted buggery, attempted indecent assault and nine counts of gross indecency, and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in 1998 in Inuvik. The offences in Inuvik took place between 1967 and 1979, while he was supervisor of Grollier Hall, a residence for out-of-town boys attending school in the town. The victims ranged in age from 13 to 19.
On the charges in Saskatchewan, the Crown had asked for a sentence of 11 years. However, he was handed a sentence of just three years by the Court of Queen’s Bench in Battleford after a three-week trial in front of a judge alone.
Crown attorney Mitch Piche has recommended the sentence be appealed to the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan.
“It’s, from my point of view, not a reasonable sentence,” he said.Piche explained a sentence can be reviewed if there is an error of principle which results in a sentence that’s not proportional to the gravity of the offence and the moral blameworthiness of the offender.
“In this case, we feel the moral blameworthiness of the offender is very, very high, and, of course, he has multiple counts here,” he said. “From our point of view, even one of these charges, the more serious ones, are worth four or five years in jail.”
The Crown attorney noted the charges include seven sexual assaults involving major violations of a young person’s bodily integrity. The major offences were generally against boys aged 13 to 15, while offences against younger children involved such things as fondling.
“The same type of charges that he was dealing with in Inuvik,” said Piche.
In fact, the Crown attorney noted the sentence in Inuvik figured prominently in the most recent sentencing, explaining the 73-year-old Leroux –who represented himself before the court – suggested that, if the complainants in Saskatchewan had been more vigilant and come forward at the time of the Inuvik matter, he would have received a global sentence on all charges, both from Inuvik and Saskatchewan, and he would have received 13 years.
“His sentencing at Inuvik was front and centre of his argument as far as sentencing here,” Piche said. In fact, the Crown attorney noted the judge did take the sentence from Inuvik into account when passing the most recent sentence, despite his argument against that based on a ruling of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba in the infamous case of Graham James, a junior hockey coach convicted of molesting players.
That appeal court increased the sentence for James after determining the trial judge gave too much consideration to a previous sentence on separate, but similar, charges. Since being paroled in 2002 — has lived in Vancouver.
_______________________________________________
Crown Prosecutor agrees courts can’t take away sexual assault victims’ pain but still says Leroux sentence is too low
Battlefords Daily News
13 December 2013
Posted on December 13, 2013 by Doug Collie in News
By Doug Collie, Editor
As he rendered his sentence to former Beauval Indian Residential School dorm supervisor Paul Leroux yesterday for sexually molesting boys, Justice Murray Acton said no sentence he could give could make up for what happened to those victims.
In Court of Queen’s Bench Battleford yesterday, Acton sentenced Leroux, 73, to three years in a federal jail, minus 36 days spent in custody.
Earlier, Acton found Leroux, 73, guilty of 10 of 17 charges of sexual assault against boys aged six to 15 from 1959 to 1967. The charges had been laid in regard to 14 boys.
In a span of about 45 minutes, Acton read his decision out loud in a Battleford Court of Queen’s Bench courtroom packed with victims, family and friends of victims, and news media.
He carefully noted various precedents in similar cases and said he made sure to render a sentence that was fair and just, taking into account Leroux’s age and similar punishment that had been meted out for similar crimes.
He also pointed out that while Leroux’s crimes were “major sexual assaults” in some cases, over the years, he has taken sex offender treatment and has not reoffended for decades.
“Any sentence I impose will not absolve the suffering,” Acton said, adding later, “we do not impose punishment for the sake of retribution.”
Crown Prosecutor Mitch Piche agreed with Acton’s statement, but still said in his opinion, Acton’s sentence is too low.
“Of course there’s some aspect of that that’s true but still you have to fashion a sentence that is proportional to the harm done and the state of the law in the country,” he said.
As reported yesterday in the Daily News, Piche said he plans to look into the possibility of appealing the verdict.
“I’m not satisfied with the sentence; I think it’s too low in the circumstances,” Piche said. “I’ll have to of course consider my position, but expect that I’ll be calling my head office to see about launching an appeal. I just don’t think that it’s a just and fair sentence in the circumstances.”
“To a certain extent all I can do is put the best case before the court that I can and the court has to render its decision. But that’s reviewable, and I’ll certainly see about that,” he added.
A reader sent me the first art5icle a few days ago. When I glanced over it I was thrilled – thought the paltry sentence imposed had been appealed. Not so, as I discovered when I read the article verbatim in preparation for posting. But, it looks as though the Crown is still pushing for an appeal. Let’s hope it happens.
As you see, I also tacked on an earlier article which I came across while trying to see if there was any further news re an appeal.
Two comments or questions :
(1) ” Leroux … suggested that, if the complainants in Saskatchewan had been more vigilant and come forward at the time of the Inuvik matter, he would have received a global sentence on all charges, both from Inuvik and Saskatchewan, and he would have received 13 years.”
Why, Mr.Leroux, did you not speak up and identify ALL your victims?
(2) “‘Any sentence I impose will not absolve the suffering,’ [Judge] Acton said, adding later, ‘we do not impose punishment for the sake of retribution.’”
What about justice? What about just meting out plain old justice?
That is another ” thoughtless” statement!! …: “…we do not impose punishment for the sake of retribution”!!! Maybe the Judge should have paused….probably thinking of “revenge”!
Retribution:”punishment that is considered to be morally right and fully deserved”, according to Wiki!
When they forget the significance of the “scales of justice”, how can they expect the rest of us mortals to “respect” that system!!
Maybe the Judge is more inclined to believe the important aspect of the Justice system is to provide a steady income for the “legal” mechanics!…..with stat holidays and overtime pay!…and weekends at the cottage!
They are all out of touch…too comfortable!
We need more “retribution” and less “institution” rationalization!
The Judge should have read the book first, then thrown it at him!…and at all the pervert priests who soiled their “calling”… if that wasn’t a sham to begin with…
Looking too hard to find some excuse for the “poor accused” ….making “that” the victim.
Maybe the Judge should have thought first of putting a tight “collar” on him and have forgotten about the white collar!
jg
I always had the impression that Leroux was “clergy”…..!?.. don’t know why!…but it came to me this morning while shoveling the roof in a balmy -20C…
Maybe I have developed a bias whereby all predators are priests and all priests are predators! Can’t certainly apologize to either but I will apologize to the victims for speed reading and not focusing enough. After a while it is easier to read fast. The details become too disturbing.
Regardless, I maintain that the Justice is not where it should be…and maybe I have a bias towards those political appointees as well!….
jg
Leroux is shameless. The level of victim-blaming he engages in is chilling. An appeal – absolutely. What will that take?
Well, your bias has some basis. The priest(s) to whom his abuse was reported stated “Paul Leroux was preparing to become a priest”, which is why the mother of a boy horrendously abused in Inuvik was not believed when she reported his abuse. Paul Leroux preyed freely upon Aboriginal and some non-Aboriginal children because of that cleric affiliation and his employment in R.C. institutions.
The judge in the Leroux case ruling in Beauval made offensive and ill-informed statements in his recent judgement…. For example, he remarked “how articulate the victims were — which demonstrated how good their [residential school] education had been”.
This obnoxious mindset is reflected in the worst sentencing for a crime of this type in recent Canadian history.
Why is that outrage allowed? Because there is no effective political lobby, and no awareness — that is why.
First Nations peoples in Saskatchewan are on the perifere and – as demonstrated in this court case – appear not to matter. It is implied that they should be thankful for the education they received and the immense cost is negated.
Today, if a judge made an offensive statement, even a mildly offensive statement, about women, he would likely be toast. Minimally, he would made very uncomfortable and might be an object of ridicule.
Saskatchewan, 2015, First Nations victims of Leroux get patronizing and demeaning comments from a judge who is clearly past his “best before date”.
This appeal is important!
Sent from my iPad
Good point 1yellowknife.
I have just posted several court rulings from the Beauval trial, as well as excellent editorial from News North in NWT.
Here they are:
12 December 2013 (Beauval, Sask, abuse) : Sentencing Decision
16 September 2013 (Beauval, Sask, abuse) : Denial of application for similar fact evidence (Grollier Hall)
16 September 2013 (Beauval, Sask, abuse) : Dismissal of application for stay of all 17 charges
09 February 2015: A ‘crushing’ 10-month sentence