After hearing a sentencing appeal regarding a home invasion perpetrated in Estevan, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals decided to overturn the original "demonstrably unfit" community sentences and ordered jail time.
Ayla Schachtel, Joseph Debigare and Peter McQuinn were given probationary terms of varying lengths on April 8, 2013 following the Nov. 27, 2011 incident in which the three drove from Weyburn to the victims' house in Estevan and broke into the residence with a sledgehammer.
Schachtel, Debigare and McQuinn attacked the occupants who were known only to Schachtel. The dog in the residence was struck with the sledgehammer and suffered serious injuries while a pregnant woman was attacked by Schachtel. Debigare attacked a male occupant, punching him repeatedly.
The eight-months pregnant victim gave birth prematurely just days later, though the Crown did not prove the assault caused the premature delivery.
McQuinn brandished a knife forcing a pair of visitors to the home to sit on a couch and not move. Before too long, Debigare and McQuinn thought it was time to leave and one of them removed Schachtel from the house.
Debigare drove the three assailants away from the residence, and police followed them. There was a brief chase and when Debigare's truck got hung up on a fence, the pursuing police officer performed a high-risk arrest of all three people.
The appeal was heard in Regina on Nov. 3, and the written decision by Justice Neal Caldwell was released on Jan. 15.
During the original sentencing, the Crown sought four years of incarceration for each of the accused, while the defence suggested the three individuals could be dealt with through suspended sentences. In Estevan provincial court, Judge Karl Bazin suspended the passing of sentence, imposing terms of probation of three years for Schachtel and two years each for Debigare and McQuinn.
During the appeal, the Crown again asked for sentences of four years in jail.
In the decision, Caldwell considered Schachtel the most culpable for the offence, noting that without her the offence wouldn't have occurred.
"Her animus toward (a victim) motivated the crime. She knew the victim and where he resided," Caldwell wrote in the decision.
She planned the break and enter, and assaults on two of its occupants, while personally committing a physical assault on a pregnant woman. Before they left, she threatened retribution if the victims reported the home invasion to the police.
Debigare's involvement and culpability was also considered high, while McQuinn's was considered significant but less so than the other two.
"In the circumstances, I do not agree that the sentencing judge erred in emphasizing the potential for rehabilitation in the cases of two of the respondents," wrote Caldwell, referring to the two men.
"While I can appreciate the factors, which led the sentencing judge to impose suspended sentences with respect to Debigare and McQuinn, I must respectfully say that he failed to properly consider the other more central objectives in the determination of a fit sentence in the serious circumstances before the Court. While the rehabilitative efforts undertaken by Debigare and McQuinn are plainly genuine, important and laudable steps on their parts, these steps cannot outweigh the paramountcy of the sentencing objectives of general denunciation and deterrence in offences of this nature."
Caldwell wrote further that any laudable steps taken by those two are not shared with Schactel, who cut off the bracelet she was required to wear during her probation and "went to ground for a couple of months."
As a consequence, she is currently incarcerated and faces a breach of probation charge.
"By her actions, which may be properly characterised as a rejection of the suspended sentence and probation order imposed on her, Schachtel has provided the most cogent evidence that her sentence is demonstrably unfit."
Schachtel was sentenced to two years less a day imprisonment, followed by a three-year probation order. Debigare was sentenced to 18 months, followed by another 18 months of probation, and McQuinn received a sentence of 10 months in jail, followed by an 18-month probation order.
The decision read that the leniency of sentence was warranted for Debigare and McQuinn based on their post-sentence conduct, while considering they had no previous criminal record.
"Restorative justice had a role to play in their sentences in the circumstances, and the rehabilitative efforts of Debigare and McQuinn have had considerable tangible impact on the length and nature of their sentences as set out above. This is because their rehabilitative efforts have so obviously extended beyond the usual pre-sentence promises of reform, which seem all too frequently forgotten following the imposition of a lenient sentence."
