Increased Sentences for Blackstock Abusers

You will recall the outcry when the Blackstock abusers were sentenced last June to nine months’ imprisonment.  The Crown appealed the sentence.  Last Thursday, the Court of Appeal increased the sentences to five and four years for the mother and father, respectively.

Here are some quotes from the appeal judgment and my editorial translation:

“I conclude that the sentences imposed by the trial judge are not proportionate to the gravity of the respondents’ offences and are demonstrably unfit.”

[TRANSLATION] The sentences are far too light for the seriousness of the offences.  They are so far off that we must change them.  They are not a general deterrent to others.

“All counsel agree that the facts of this case are unique and that, as a result, it is difficult to identify directly analogous sentencing cases.  It is also not possible to refer to a ‘range of sentence’ for the offences at issue here.”

[TRANSLATION] This is one of the most severe cases of child abuse ever and there is no precedent to guide us in passing sentence.  We are setting the precedent for this kind of case.

“The facts as found by the trial judge unequivocally establish the horrendous abuse of two young boys by their parents for more than a decade.  The abuse was carried out by the respondents in breach of their position of trust in relation to the boys and with full knowledge that their conduct was wrongful and that assistance was available from community agencies on request.  Nonetheless, the respondents knowingly persisted in a continuing and escalating course of abusive conduct and failed to seek available assistance for the care and management of C.R. and B.R.  The respondents’ conduct is shocking to the conscience of the community.”

“The sentences imposed here must clearly signal society’s abhorrence and condemnation of the prolonged child abuse inflicted by the respondents.  Stated simply, the appalling abusive conduct of the respondents cannot be tolerated and must be met with severe sanction.  Denunciation and deterrence are paramount sentencing considerations.”

No translation required!

“As I have previously indicated, at trial the Crown sought sentences of six to eight years for Wendy R. and three to five years for Cecil R.  There is certainly merit in these proposed sentences.  However, there are several important factors, to which the trial judge was attuned, that require mitigation consideration.”

[TRANSLATION] More severe sentences would be warranted if it were not or certain mitigating factors.  (In other words, in the future, should this ever happen again, four or five years is not the benchmark: it is six to eight years.)
The reality is that these people are not going to have fun in jail.  They will be in “protective custody”, meaning that they will be kept isolated from other prisoners for their own safety.  (Criminals have their own rules of justice.  Rapists and child abusers are the lowest of the low.  Without protective custody, these people might not emerge alive from prison.)  It’s bad enough to be in jail.  It’s worse to be in isolation.