|
BLACK-SHEEP COMMENTARIES by Wife Assault Merits Harsh Prison Sentence October 28, 2009 SINCE the 1970s, the judiciary in British Columbia has been obsessed with rehabilitation of violent offenders. Penal consequences—the infliction of a jail sentence reflecting the gravity of mayhem meted out to victims – has been swept aside by the concept of rehabilitation, an abstract process by which judges attempt to transform evil into docility and tractability. Each time a judge fails to grasp the enormity of a violent act, and chooses rehabilitation rather than punishment, the victim becomes a proverbial lamb being sacrificed on the altar of rehabilitation. And when it is a woman who is maimed and battered by her husband, and the judge responds with a soft rehabilitative sentence, it is unthinkably insensitive and cruel. On Nov. 25, 2007, Salmon Arm resident Judith Dawson was attacked and nearly killed by her husband David Reid Dawson. The assault was unprovoked and brutal, and resulted in a charge of aggravated assault, an indictable offence punishable by a maximum of 14 years in jail. At some point Dawson pleaded guilty in provincial court. On June 2, 2009, after a full sentencing hearing, Judge Edmond De Walle imposed a one-year conditional jail sentence – to be served in the community – with two years probation thereafter. De Walle’s decision is posted on the website of the provincial court. Here’s my abridgement of the facts and analysis of the decision. When police attended the family home they found Ms. Dawson, on a couch, bleeding from extensive facial injuries. She told police that Dawson struck her in the face with a five-pound barbell, that she was punched repeatedly, choked and tied up. On June 2, Ms. Dawson stood in court and related her many injuries and the nightmarish horror of being attacked by her husband of 15 years. “My nose was broken and both eyes were blackened. My head was split open from the hits from the barbell and required stitches as did my nose and lip. My jaw was very sore and bruised, and with my swollen lips I could only take in liquids for 5 days. I suffered from rug burns on my arms and shoulder, and severe bruises on my arms, shoulder, back and legs. I could hardly move. Six weeks later my face was still bruised and disfigured and I suffered a lot of pain and discomfort physically. “My world was turned upside down and nothing was as it was before. I did not know if I could sustain my business in Salmon Arm and I had to take a lot of time off work, firstly because of the bruised and battered face, and secondly because of it being a small town and everyone knowing what had happened. My life had fallen apart and I did not know how to pick up the pieces. “At this point I cannot forgive him as he chose not to let me go during the assault even though I begged and begged him to stop hurting me. He chose to continue – I never want to see him again.” De Walle said the assault was serious, unprovoked, brutal and aggravated. “It is clear from the material before me that while the physical injuries of Ms. Dawson may have healed, her emotional injuries run very deep and will no doubt last for a long time, if not the rest of her life.” De Walle stated that general deterrence and denunciation is the prime consideration in imposing sentence in cases of spousal assault, particularly where bodily harm is inflicted. But then De Walle proceeded to mix mitigating circumstances – a guilty plea, previous good character, and an untreated and undiagnosed depressive illness – with the possibility of rehabilitation, noting that in the aftermath of the offence Dawson had taken significant steps to recover “and has had great motivation to rehabilitate and reinvent himself in a new life. “The real question here is would the imposition of a conditional sentence give appropriate effect to the principles of general deterrence and denunciation? I have come to the conclusion that notwithstanding the very serious circumstances of the offence, that … to send Mr. Dawson back to jail would not act in his best interests and would be counterproductive … to the interests of society. …that a lengthy conditional sentence order would give effect to those principles, bearing in mind as well that Mr. Dawson has been in custody for a period of four months and giving him double time credit for that would mean that he has spent eight months in custody to date prior to the sentencing proceedings.” De Walle’s understanding of the interests of society in cases of spousal assault is at odds with the Dec. 10, 1990 decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in R. v. Julian where then Mr. Justice Josiah Wood spoke for the court: “One would have to be both ill informed and insensitive to the realities of life not to recognize the fact that women have for too long been left vulnerable to and unprotected against this sort of domestic violence. Whatever may be the complicated psychological and or sociological explanations which underlie this peculiar and devastating form of violent crime, the ultimate and uncomplicated object of any court before whom such tragedies are brought, must be to protect the victims as best that can be done within the parameters of our statutory jurisdiction.” And there is nothing in De Walle’s decision indicating how he dealt with Dawson’s breach of trust in committing aggravated assault on his wife. That burden of trust was clearly stated in 1992 by the Alberta Court of Appeal in R. v. Brown; R. v. Highway; and R. v. Umpherville. “When a man assaults his wife or other female partner, his violence toward her can be accurately characterized as a breach of the position of trust which he occupies. It is an aggravating factor.” Dawson’s horrific battering of his wife has left her in the clutches of a nightmare that will stalk her for the rest of her life. Dawson’s egregious breach of his position of trust warranted a harsh penitentiary sentence. North Shore News - October 28, 2009
Contact Judicial
Gadfly at:
wallace-gilby-craig@realjustice.ca |
|
|
