Younger victim, harsher sentence

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 02/04/2020 (2159 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Canada’s highest court is calling for stiffer sentences for those convicted of sex crimes against children, saying child sex offenders should be punished more harshly than those who offend against adults.

Last October, the Supreme Court of Canada restored a six-year prison sentence for Justyn Kyle Napoleon Friesen, who was convicted in 2017 of sexually abusing the four-year-old daughter of a woman he met on a dating website. The sentence was later reduced on appeal to 4 ½ years.

The Supreme Court released reasons for its decision Thursday.

“Far from being so excessive, the (original) sentence was on the lenient end of the spectrum of fit sentences,” the Supreme Court said.

Sentences for child sex offenders should increase as society’s understanding of the great harm inflicted on children deepens, the court said.

“Courts are justified in departing from dated precedents that do not reflect society’s current awareness of the impact of sexual violence on children in imposing a fit sentence,” the court said.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal reduced Friesen’s sentence in June 2018, ruling provincial court Judge Brent Stewart erred when he cited a child sex abuse case that set the starting point for cases involving a “position of trust” at four to five years.

While Friesen was not in a position of trust, the aggravating circumstances of his offence justified using the same starting point for sentencing, Stewart ruled.

According to court records, Friesen had sex with the victim’s mother while the victim and a babysitter were sleeping in another part of the home. When they were finished, Friesen told the woman to bring her daughter to the room so they could sexually abuse her. The girl’s screams awakened the babysitter, who took her out of the bedroom.

Friesen was charged with an additional count of attempted extortion after he threatened to expose the mother for allegedly abusing another child if she did not retrieve the victim for him.

Stewart was entitled to conclude the circumstances of the case put it on a par with those “trust relationship” cases where the starting sentencing range is four to five years, the Supreme Court said.

“The sentencing judge sought to exercise his discretion in a way that gave effect to the principles of sentencing, in light of the circumstances of the case, and his decision should be afforded deference,” the court said.

The case highlights the danger of treating starting points or sentencing ranges as “binding laws,” the court said.

“Sentencing ranges and starting points are guidelines, not hard and fast rules,” the court said. “Rather than focusing on whether the sentencing judge chose the right starting point, the Court of Appeal should have focused on whether the sentence was fit and, most fundamentally, whether the sentencing judge properly applied the principles of sentencing.”

Sex crimes against children should “generally” be treated more harshly than those against adults, the court said.

“Accordingly, provincial appellate courts are directed to revise and rationalize sentencing ranges and starting points where they have treated sexual violence against children and sexual violence against adults similarly,” the court said.

In 2015, Parliament increased the maximum sentences for sexual interference, sexual exploitation and invitation to sexual touching offences involving victims under 16 from 10 years to 14 years in prison.

dean.pritchard@freepress.mb.ca