Judge defers incest case ruling

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 07/03/2015 (3348 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A resident of Steinbach who impregnated his own daughter will learn his fate on Thursday.

Judge Ray Wyant deferred his decision so he could formulate an appropriate sentence for a sexual assault and incest case before Steinbach provincial court last Thursday that Crown attorney Jeff Nichols described as “almost the ultimate taboo.” The Crown is suggesting a seven-year jail sentence while the defence is arguing for two years behind bars and three years of supervised probation.

A court-imposed publication ban bars the identification of those involved.

The court heard that a sexual relationship between the man and his daughter began when the girl turned 16. Acts of inappropriate touching escalated over time to unprotected sex. At age 18, the teen became pregnant and gave birth to a daughter in 2013.

That same year, she came forward to report a history of sexual abuse.

The man’s now-estranged family had become suspicious earlier, the Crown said, when he once referred to the victim’s child as his daughter but corrected himself, saying the newborn was instead his granddaughter.

Once arrested, the man said he understood the charges but explained his daughter was comforting him. His partner had previously ended their relationship and it was a tough period in his life.

“There is a lack of understanding on the part of the accused of what exactly he has done to his own offspring and the damage that has been done as a result of his actions upon her,” said Nichols.

The teen did not know her father until she was nine or 10 years old when she began having sleepovers at his home and later moved in with him as a young teenager.

The man’s lawyer, Bill Marks, said his client lacked insight that his actions were inappropriate.

“He thought she could make her own decisions at 16,” Marks said. “He didn’t really appreciate just how much of his fatherly role would affect her, especially given that they didn’t grow up together.”

Marks also argued his client’s willingness to enter a guilty plea should be considered a mitigating factor as it meant his daughter could avoid testifying.

The Crown presented examples of similar cases with significant jail sentences but the defence suggested those cases documented more specifics of the indecencies that occurred. For instance, Marks established that the court did not hear how many times the daughter was sexually assaulted.

“He has saved her from testifying against all facts,” said Marks.

The young woman prepared a victim impact statement but did not want it read in court.

Judge Wyant did reference her statement in response to Marks’ assertion the complainant is not suffering from the same physical abuse, self-harm or suicidal ideations other sexual assault victims sometimes profess.

“She indicated that she was fearful for her life, the baby’s life, that she felt emotionally broken, I think she said on one occasion,” said Wyant. “There seemed to be a description of really controlling behaviour about who she could see, who she could date, when she could spend time with her friends. It talks about being mentally brainwashed.”

Marks said the statements were not examples of her longstanding state of mind.

The accused fought through tears when apologizing.

“I’m just sorry that I hurt everybody. I’m so sorry,” he told the judge as his voice trailed off.

Asked by Wyant as to why in the pre-sentence report the man said he felt it was unfair for him to serve jail time, the accused remained silent.