Convicted sex offender Paul Leroux’s sentence has been extended to eight years from the original three.
That is the result of the decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal after the Crown successfully appealed the sentence handed down to Leroux in Battleford Queen’s Bench Court in 2013.
Leroux had previously been convicted of eight counts of indecent assault and two counts of gross indecency in connection to several incidents involving teenage students at Beauval Indian Residential School in the 1960s.
During sentencing submissions in that trial, one in which Leroux had defended himself, Crown prosecutor Mitch Piche had argued for an 11-year sentence.
But in December 2013, trial judge Murray Acton’s sentence amounted to a total of three years on all the charges.
At the time Piche made clear the sentence was “too low under the circumstances.” Victims who heard the sentence in court were upset with the ruling.
In a unanimous ruling May 4, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal sided with the Crown’s call for a longer sentence, and determined eight years was a “fit and proper sentence.” Leroux, who was already out on parole for the crimes, was given two days to turn himself in.
Notably, the sentence was extended even though the appeals court quashed one of the eight indecent assault convictions at the same time.
In his written decision, Justice J.A. Caldwell stated the trial judge “appears to have misapprehended testimony” of two of the victims in that instance. All other convictions, however, were upheld.
As for sentencing, the high court completely took apart Acton’s original ruling. There was no shortage of items the Court of Appeal took issue with in a 48-page decision.
The appeals court especially took issue with the trial judge’s application of the “totality” principle. This is used to determine a “fit and proper sentence” in instances where someone is convicted of multiple offences, so that a sentence would not be unduly crushing or harsh.
In this case the totality principle was applied, but the appeal court noted the trial judge “summarily reduced it to the length of the longest of the consecutive sentences imposed, namely, three years’ imprisonment.”
Caldwell’s ruling made clear a longer sentence was available under s.718.1 of the Criminal Code.
“Section 718.1 demands, because it is the fundamental principle of sentencing, that a sentencing judge craft a cumulative sentence that addresses the moral culpability of the offender and the gravity of the offences in the particular circumstances before the sentencing judge. In this way, a cumulative sentence may yet exceed the most serious of the individual sentences imposed—without offending the totality principle — if it remains a proportionate reflection of the gravity of the offences and the moral culpability of the offender in committing them,” he stated.
“For these reasons, I find the judge erred in his approach and consideration of the totality principle in the circumstances of this case.”
The appeals court then turned to the issue of sentence and came up with an overall sentence of eight years.
“Having considered all of this, and having particular regard for the many aggravating and few mitigating circumstances of this matter, I find that a cumulative sentence of eight years imprisonment is proportionate to the gravity of the offences committed by Mr. Leroux and his moral culpability in committing them.
“This sentence is fit because it recognizes the seriousness of the offences, the ages of the victims, the repeated nature of the offences, the multiplicity of victims, the residential school context in which the offences were committed, the effects of the offences on the victims, the abuse of a position of trust in relation to the victims, the absence of remorse, among other aggravating circumstances; and it is crafted to achieve the primary objectives of denouncing Mr. Leroux’s unlawful conduct and deterring Mr. Leroux and other persons from committing offences of this nature.
“The sentence also satisfies the principle of parity as it is similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. The sentence is fit because it also responds to Mr. Leroux’s advancing age and his personal circumstances in mitigation of its cumulative duration.”
