Local

Winnipeg Free Press - ONLINE EDITION

Appeal Court reserves judgment on Graham James sentence

By: Mike McIntyre

Posted: 12/3/2012 12:43 PM | Comments: 0 | Last Modified: 12/3/2012 1:47 PM | Updates

Graham James

Manitoba’s highest court has reserved judgment on whether to increase the sentence given to convicted sex abuser Graham James.

Crown and defence lawyers appeared before the Court of Appeal Monday morning to argue the fate of the notorious former junior hockey coach.

Prosecutor Liz Thomson says the two-year penalty James received for sexually assaulting two of former players on hundreds of occasions between 1983 and 1994 was not nearly enough. She is arguing for a six-year sentence, saying it’s the only way to express society’s condemnation for such a crime.

But defence lawyer Evan Roitenberg urged the three-justice panel not to interfere, saying James is a changed man who has earned a second chance. He said the fact James has gone nearly two decades since he offended without re-arrest shows he is no longer a public danger.

"There is proven rehabilitation here," said Roitenberg.

James, 59, pleaded guilty earlier this year to abusing Theoren Fleury and Todd Holt while coaching them during the 1980s and early '90s in the Western Hockey League. Fleury went on to become a star in the National Hockey League.

"What occurred here was incredibly egregious," Appeal Court Justice Alan MacInnes said Monday. "He was not just their guardian. He controlled their futures. He effectively destroyed them by his conduct."

At his sentencing hearing earlier this year, Crown attorney Colleen McDuff told court James specifically targeted players for abuse, even making trades in the Western Hockey League "for players he thought were good-looking."

"There was a buildup of their hopes and dreams, then a breakdown of these victims to ensure compliance. Graham James dangled a carrot... that virtually every boy playing hockey in Canada would aspire to. He abused that trust horribly," McDuff said.

In their notice of appeal, the Crown argued provincial court Judge Catherine Carlson erred in her approach to the sentence, overemphasized the significance of prior sentences for similar offences and erred in assessing the "totality principle." That principle holds that jail time for multiple offences must still be fair and reasonable when added together.

James was previously sentenced in 1997 to three-and-a-half years behind bars for attacks against three other former junior players around the same time as the ones which happened to Fleury and Holt. However, both those victims waited until years after the fact to come forward to police.

James received a controversial pardon in 2007 for his earlier set of offences, but it was revoked after his most recent arrest. The Conservative government has since revamped the pardon system, particularly for convicted sex offenders such as James.

James became eligible for day parole in September after serving six months of his sentence. He became eligible for full parole when he served one-third of his sentence by late November. However, the National Parole Board says it has not received any applications from him. If the Crown is not successful in its appeal, James is eligible for statutory release next July.

James's sentence sparked outrage from many, including his victims. Fleury and Holt called the sentence a "national travesty." He remains in custody and did not personally appear at Monday’s appeal.

The high court has given no indication of when they will be ready with their decision.

www.mikeoncrime.com

History

Updated on Monday, December 3, 2012 at 12:47 PM CST: Photo added

12:50 PM: update

1:47 PM: story updated

Fact Check

Have you found an error, or know of something we’ve missed in one of our stories? Please use the form below and let us know.

* Required

In which story did you find the error? *
Please post the headline of the story or the title of the video with the error.
What was the error? *
Please post exactly what was wrong with the story.
What should we have written?
Please indicate your source for the correct information.
Who else should we interview to improve this story?
Please include any contact information you may have.
Can we contact you in the future for advice on stories about this topic?
Yes

No
First Name: *
Last Name: *
E–mail Address: *
This will only be used to contact you if we have a question about your submission, it will not be used to identify you or be published.
Phone: *
This will only be used to contact you if we have a question about your submission, it will not be used to identify you or be published.
Colour:
Are you blue? If you can see this, leave it blank and get some CSS support.
Enter the words that you see: * This is to prevent our forms from being filled out automatically.
You have failed to correctly identify the words in the box above. Please try again.

More Local

Undock

You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is be a Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscriber to join the conversation and give your feedback.

Have Your Say

New to commenting? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions.

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press print or e-edition subscribers only. why?

Have Your Say

Comments are open to Winnipeg Free Press Subscribers only. why?

The Winnipeg Free Press does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comment, you agree to our Terms and Conditions. These terms were revised effective April 16, 2010.