|
The Consequences of Drugs and Driving (Marianne Smisko’s letter to our federal and provincial law ministers) I would like to draw your attention to a criminal offence that took place November 20, 2004 at approximately 6:15 p.m. and the consequences of that offence. Heather Parsons, Jody Lloyd and I were out for our daily power walk. We had spent the afternoon at a ladies tea that encouraged those in attendance to dress in vintage clothing, hats and all. The pictures tell the story of the lighthearted atmosphere and authentic dress suited to the occasion. This simple walk, which we did almost daily, would change our lives forever. A vehicle driven by a 25 year-old female crossed the centre line and struck us from behind as we walked on the sidewalk. Jody Lloyd was killed instantly. Heather Parsons and I sustained life-threatening injuries leaving us with permanent disabilities. Fast forward to June 19, 2007, the date of sentencing by The Honourable Mr. Justice Grist. The defendant, Jamie Condon, had pled guilty to criminal negligence causing the death of Jocelyn Lloyd, criminal negligence causing bodily harm to Heather Parsons and Marianne Smisko. There was a pre-sentence report available to the judge. I am drawing your attention to this circumstance not only because I do not feel the sentence Ms. Condon received is a reasonable consequence, but also because of the disrespectful situation I found myself in. In the year following the crime, the Victim’s Services Office in Powell River contacted me. They requested I fill in a Victim Impact Statement, if I so chose, as it would be needed at an eventual trial. I, of course, wanted to take my time and write a statement that would adequately portray the impact on my life as a result of this crash. I believe I had finished the statement in the summer of 2006. I didn’t see the need to rush as the trial date had not even been determined. At that time it was explained to me that I could either read the statement myself at the trial or Crown Counsel could do so. The week before the sentencing hearing Crown Counsel’s office contacted me. He wanted an update of my current life situation and as I had edited my Victim Statement somewhat I brought it along with me. When June 19th finally arrived I was nervous and apprehensive. These feelings were there because I was unsure what emotions and trauma I might experience. Jody Lloyd’s sisters from another province were there along with her sons and her twin sister was reading a Victim Statement of herself, as was Jody’s husband. Just before entering the courtroom on June 19th a piece of paper was handed to me. It was a poor copy of a fax with my name misspelled. It was an apology letter from Jamie Condon. I felt this was in very poor taste considering the timing and seriousness of the crime. This letter seemed staged and I wondered if the Judge ever knew how this was handled. This may seem a moot point to you but to me it was significant. As the sentencing hearing proceeded Crown Counsel began to describe my situation with regards to injuries and impact. He not only did not read my statement but he mixed up my injuries with Heather Parson’s injuries. I felt let down, as that was my only chance to have Jamie Condon hear in my own words how this event had impacted me. I will never get that chance again. I think this situation illustrates how helpful it would be to have a Victim’s Advocate position in our judicial system so these kinds of discrepancies do not occur. The Judge states, “that the public does not understand conditional sentencing”. Perhaps they do not understand it in the way he would like but how do we change that? The public needs to feel safe. It has been several months now since the sentencing and I still have members of the community sharing with me their condolences and dismay at the lack of consequence for this criminal act. The community was shocked that there was no incarceration. In my working life I was an office manager at an Outpatient Addiction Counselling Service. I am familiar with addiction and its devastation. I know that attendance at a treatment centre for four weeks does not completely address the issues an addict will face. Follow-up care, counselling and/or attendance at a twelve-step group are the key to being successful. Relapse is very common in addicts. I do not understand why accessing these services was not a condition of Ms. Condon’s sentence. Is it not in her and the public’s best interest to maintain sobriety? Also missing from the conditions, in my opinion, was the requirement of drug testing. If a person has nothing to hide they have no problem with such a requirement. This is often used by the Human Resources Ministry when a child has been apprehended from a parent who has been abusing drugs and putting the child at risk. This motivates the person to seek recovery and stick to a recovery plan in order to obtain their child back. This benefits the person and the child. In Ms. Condon’s case it would offer protection to her and the public. I am not a vengeful person and I want to put this tragic event behind me and continue with maintaining my injured body and mind to the greatest degree of health I can. I do not harbour feelings of hate and revenge toward Ms. Condon. I hope she can live the rest of her life in a productive and satisfying way. I felt motivated to write to you with my feelings as a victim of crime. I know one of the ways the system changes is politically and by public pressure. I hope the information I have shared in this letter will help you understand what it is like for an ordinary member of society who has been personally affected by a serious crime. A response to this letter would be appreciated. Thank you. * * * * www.realjustice.ca extracts from Judge W.G. Grist’s reasons for sentencing Condon to a conditional sentence order or two years less one day. “Jamie Condon was 25 years of age …the use of the drug (cocaine) triggered the onset of seizures. … Events leading to the collision lead to the conclusion that a seizure was the cause of Condon’s vehicle travelling across Joyce, … to strike the three unsuspecting women on the sidewalk opposite. “The death of Ms. Lloyd is a tremendous loss to her family and her community. The injuries to Ms Smisko and Ms Parsons were serious and have continuing disabling consequences. The impact on those immediately affected, and on the community in general is profound. … “I think much of the attitude sometimes seen in public forums in reaction against imposition of conditional sentence orders comes from a lack of knowledge of what they can constitute by way of significant consequence. “… the empirical evidence suggests that the deterrent effect of incarceration is uncertain. Moreover, a conditional sentence can provide significant deterrence, if sufficiently punitive conditions are imposed and the public is made aware of the severity of these sentences. There is also the possibility of deterrence through the use of community service orders. … the rehabilitative effect of the sentence is most likely enhanced through the terms of a conditional sentence order.”
Wallace Craig (of realjustice.ca): In my opinion and experience there is no “significant deterrence” in a conditional sentence; there is nothing “punitive” in the conditions and there is nothing “severe” about it. It is all words to justify the convict’s “rehabilitation” being given priority over protection of the public. It is a soft sentence. |
|
|