Accused targeted vulnerable female victims, psychologically and physically damaged them, judge says
Ample evidence supported that a man, designated as a dangerous offender, engaged in a pattern of repetitive behaviour and represented a threat to the life, safety, or physical or mental well-being of others, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently said.
The appellant, then aged 41, developed an online relationship with the complainant, then 14 years old, whom he met on a website. In September 2016, a jury convicted the appellant of sexual assault; sexual interference; child luring; and making, accessing, and possessing child pornography.
The trial judge reached the following conclusions:
- There was a pattern of behaviour since the appellant had also been convicted of aggravated sexual assault
- He targeted vulnerable female victims, used violence, and inflicted severe psychological damage on them
- He demonstrated a failure to restrain his behaviour, given that he showed a “sexualized hatred for women” and rejected therapeutic attempts
- There was a substantial probability that he would reoffend
The appellant also received a conviction for two counts of breaching a recognizance under s. 810.2 of the Criminal Code.
The judge sentenced him to an indeterminate period of custody. She designated him a dangerous offender for the sexual offences. For the breaches, she imposed consecutive 24-month sentences on each count, to be served concurrently with the indeterminate sentence.
Dangerous offender finding affirmed
In R. v. Jarrar, 2023 ONCA 67, the Ontario Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal the indeterminate sentence. It ultimately dismissed the appeals against the conviction, the dangerous offender designation, and the sentence.
The appellate court ruled that the trial judge committed no errors when declaring the appellant a dangerous offender. The record showed that the appellant beat a 19-year-old sex worker and left her almost dead in the snow with severe head trauma and other injuries.
That case had significant similarities to the convictions that the appellant was currently challenging, the appellate court said. Namely, the appellant manipulated a young female victim and committed offences that were violent and sexual in nature.
Other evidence in the record provided that the appellant:
- assaulted his sister and called her a “whore”
- showed hatred for a female correctional officer and wrote about pulling her into his cell and assaulting her
- harassed a female lawyer
- kept a calendar book that described his surveillance of a coffee shop’s female patrons and referred to them using sexualized and derogatory terms
This evidence supported the finding that the appellant demonstrated hatred for women and engaged in behaviour that could not be restrained, the appellate court concluded.
The judge correctly found no issue with the verdict’s validity and rightly denied the request for a mistrial, the appellate court said. The record did not support the appellant’s claims that the Crown tampered with a juror or that the judge was biased, the appellate court added.
Next, the appellate court held that the judge made no errors in imposing an indeterminate sentence. The judge considered all the relevant factors and reasonably decided that no other sentence would adequately protect the public, the court said.
The appellate court found no evidence that the appellant would willingly participate in therapeutic options that could reduce his risk of committing serious personal injury offences in the future.
