Trigger Warning: explicit content concerning the sexual assault of a child BRANTFORD — A 53-year-old Six Nations man has been convicted of unspeakable sexual abuse against his step-daughter, now eight years old, over a two year span. Ontario Court judge Justice Colette Good called his crime, “nothing short of horrific.” The judge said details in this
Trigger Warning: explicit content concerning the sexual assault of a child
BRANTFORD — A 53-year-old Six Nations man has been convicted of unspeakable sexual abuse against his step-daughter, now eight years old, over a two year span.
Ontario Court judge Justice Colette Good called his crime, “nothing short of horrific.” The judge said details in this case were serious enough to add time and other conditions above those recommend by the Crown Attorney as well as the defence attorney.
The perpetrator, who the courts say must remain anonymous to protect the victim’s identity, has served equivalent time of 645 days in jail awaiting trial. His defence lawyer recommended that his time already served was sufficient to satisfy two-years plus time served. The Crown submitted four-years plus time served, neither of which were accepted by Good.
“With the greatest respect to the Crown and the defence, the sentences suggested are wholly inadequate for this offender and the gravity of his offences,” said Good before pronouncing a sentence of 10 years in penitentiary, minus time already served.
Good presented, graphically, why she believes a maximum penalty of 12 years plus time served would be in order, however, she also took into account several mitigating factors beyond the perpetrator’s control.
According to his Gladue report; an abusive upbringing coupled with a brain injury reduced his mental capacity to that of a grade 5 level. He grew up in an alcoholic home devoid of love as a result of his parents and several of his family members suffering abuses at the residential school. The Glade report says he lives on a disability pension and it is questionable if he could survive independently.
The story of abuse the young victim suffered included two years of rape of all descriptions under threat of death should she tell anyone about it. She was whipped with a belt and punched if she was incomplicit in the sex acts and forced to look at pornographic material.
Good explained her decision to add time to the recommended sentence. “Your considerable acts of cruelty, degradation, physical and sexual violence toward (the girl) would normally warrant a sentence at the extreme high end of the range,” she told the perpetrator. “Were it not for these significant mitigating features I would have no difficultly imposing (the top range for this crime) of 12 years,” said Good adding that nothing less would be acceptable under the horrific circumstances of this case.
The Justice had compassion for the girl rightfully suggesting that for her, sex would always be associated with pain and shame.
According to Good, it was “alarming ” that in a psychiatric assessment, the man attempted to blame the victim, saying that it was the child’s idea and that she “probably enjoyed” the sex acts.
“I can’t imagine an eight-year-old child enjoying being anally raped after first being slapped, punched and whipped with a belt into submission,” Good said directly to the man. “You have little to no insight into the harm you’ve caused this child.”
Good concluded that because of his perversion, the girl feels unloved and worthless, has trouble fitting in at school, mistrusts men, especially those who have been drinking, troupe sleeping and fears he will come after her when he gets out of prison.
The perpetrator was also convicted of “making intimate images available to a young person,” and making death threats against the girl and was sentenced to two years in jail to be served concurrently on those charges.
He will be on the sexual offenders list for life and restricted from owning or using weapons for 10 years.
His DNA will now be registered in the national databank. He must also stay away from his young victim for “the rest of his life.”
He is not to be around anyone under 16 “unless he’s being supervised by an adult who knows about his convictions.”
She added that if there is significant proof of rehabilitation somewhere down the road, she would reconsider the order.