The sentencing decision of provincial court Judge Catherine Carlson

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 21/03/2012 (5272 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

“Mr. James’ victims are multiple. His offences spanned a long time. There were many, many incidents. His behaviour was predatory and deliberately orchestrated to make the victims totally dependent on him. The offences were egregious. He was in a significant position of trust. He was not just the victims’ coach. He was essentially their guardian. There was the extra element of his ensuring compliance and silence of his victims by controlling that which his victims valued most — the chance at a career in professional hockey. His victims have suffered significant and lasting impact. The moral culpability of Mr. James is high.

“Mr. James has not reoffended. He has rehabilitated by adjusting his behaviour, given his sexual preferences.

“At this stage, and for this sentence, rehabilitation and specific deterrence are not the main factors to address. Rather, denunciation and general deterrence are key.

“In the end the Court comes to the following conclusions:

— “1. These offences were ‘major sexual assaults’ perpetrated on teenage boys by a person in a position of trust. As such, the ‘starting point’ of four to five years imprisonment contemplated by the Manitoba Court of Appeal in R. v. D. (M.F.), supra, is applicable.

— “2. The unique factors of this case, including all the mitigating and aggravating factors, have to be balanced relative to that starting point sentence.

— “3. Totality is important here. If all four offences had been before the Court in 1997, it is likely a concurrent sentence on all offences would have been imposed for all offences, given the similarities of Mr. James’ offending toward all four victims. But, given that there were four offences instead of two, the sentence would have been greater than 31/2 years. In all the circumstances of that time, the Court is of the view that an appropriate total sentence in 1997, for the four offences, would have been one equivalent to, or about, six years of imprisonment.

— “4. It is impossible to ignore the passage of time in this case. It is a fact that the timing of the disclosure of these offences has meant that Mr. James has had the opportunity to rehabilitate. Since one of the objectives of sentencing stated in the Criminal Code is to assist an offender with rehabilitation, the fact that, by all accounts, rehabilitation has been successful, must be given some credit in mitigation. Mr. James, since being sentenced in 1997, has done everything his sentence has asked of him. He has rehabilitated, not offended, become a productive member of the community, came back to face these offences and taken responsibility for them. Sending Mr. James to prison is not necessary for his personal rehabilitation or own deterrence.

— “5. But, the seriousness of the offences, and the need to address general deterrence and denunciation, do require a further jail sentence. The lapse of time, even with demonstrated rehabilitation, does not make inapplicable the principles of general deterrence and denunciation.

— “6. Recognizing that Mr. James has served a sentence of 31/2 years, relative to what the Court has assessed would have been, in 1997, a sentence at or close to six years, giving him credit for his rehabilitation, and also taking into account the five weeks he spent in custody on these matters before being released on bail, the Court has determined that a sentence of two years imprisonment going forward, on each of the two offences, is appropriate.

— “7. Giving recognition to the principle of totality, so as to avoid what would be a crushing sentence, the sentences for these offences, which would, but for the principle of totality, otherwise be consecutive, will be concurrent to each other.

— “8. The two year sentence is a penitentiary sentence. It acknowledges the seriousness of Mr. James’ offences. It means sending back to jail someone who has not reoffended in the last 15 years and has done all society has required of him during that time.

— “9. Given the length of the sentence, a conditional sentence order is not available for consideration.

— “10. Even had the Court imposed a sentence of less than two years, a conditional sentence order is not appropriate. Chief Justice Lamer, for the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of R. v. Proulx , 2000 SCC 5, stated, at paragraph 106, that: ‘…there may be certain circumstances in which the need for denunciation is so pressing that incarceration will be the only suitable way in which to express society’s condemnation of the offender’s conduct.’

“The case of Graham James is one of those cases.”