The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that a nine-year sentence for a daycare supervisor who made child pornography with the toddlers he was supposed to be looking after was more appropriate than the fifteen year sentence requested by the prosecution.
“The message the nine-year sentence sent is loud and clear,” Justice Robert Sharpe wrote for the appeal panel.
“I am not persuaded that the longer sentence sought by the Crown at trial and on appeal would appreciably add to the deterrent effect of the sentence that was imposed,” he added, stating that a longer sentence could discourage guilty pleas in the future.
According to the Ottawa Sun, police in Peel Region west of Toronto found a “massive amount of graphic and highly disturbing” images and videos when they searched the 39-year-old man’s home. The girls in the images were only two and three years old.
The man, who lived with his mother and can only be identified as SC, pleaded guilty to eight counts of sexual assault, eight counts of making child pornography, and one of possession of child pornography. He also admitted to exposing the children’s genitals while they napped and using his phone to take close-up photographs.
Originally, the prosecution argued a sentence of 17 to 19 years would have been appropriate, but recommended 15 years. The offender, meanwhile, asked for 6.
In March of 2018, Ontario court Judge Donald McLeod sentenced the man to nine years. Six were for the sexual assaults, one was for making child pornography, and two years were for possession of the obscene material.
He also noted the impact the ordeal had on the parents of the children. “A common theme that resonated through the various messages was real and palpable — emotional destruction of trust,” he said. “The statements were riddled with emotional moments that run the gamut from self-doubt and guilt to anger, and feelings of betrayal.”
The prosecutors said the sentence was far too lenient. The Appeal Court disagreed with the claim that McLeod put too much weight on SC’s guilty plea and the lack of “brutality”.
“There can be no question that these were very serious offences that called for a substantial prison sentence,” the Appeal Court said. “…the trial judge’s reasons indicate proper awareness of both the gravity of the crimes for which the appellant was being sentenced and the legal principles bearing upon the appropriate sentence.”
What do you think? Is nine years an appropriate sentence for this crime? Let us know in the comments.
RCMP in Nanaimo, BC say they arrested a man wanted for murder in Toronto when they pulled him over for...