Well today was the day.... Sentencing.
I had a horrible sleep last night because we've had terrible weather (a total of about 8" of snow, horrible wind and frigidly cold temperatures), and I knew that the highway would not be in good shape. So I had planned to get up early, and I was not looking forward to getting up or driving.
But I did. And I got there safely (I know you were all worried). I saw lots of cars in the ditch but I didn't join them!
:
Court was supposed to start at 9:30; they'd asked it to start early because they wanted to get it done sooner rather than later and were hoping to not interfere with other cases that were previously scheduled that day. However, Daniel was late and there was some concern that he may not be coming. Apparently he'd moved to Edmonton so the thought was that he may not have realized how bad the highway was and hadn't left enough time. So right from the start it was looking poor.
He showed up shortly after 10 so things got started. The judge first discussed (briefly and without too much graphic description thankfully) the events of that day, and what the charges were that he had been convicted of. He then discussed some of the cases that he'd referred to in making his decision (the longest sentence was 3 months continuous in jail for a man who had a history of abusing his cat and finally killed it). He then talked about what the maximum sentence was (6 months imprisonment) and why that was rarely imposed (person pretty much has to have an "extensive" criminal record, be considered somewhat a danger to re-offend and have little to no likelihood of rehabilitation).
They broke for a few minutes to discuss the implications of the change to the code in section 447.1 subsection 1 (which repealed Section 446.5 pertaining to the duration/necessity for restrictions on owning or being responsible for animals). They came back with the agreement that the code that was in effect at the time of the crime was the one that must be imposed. I truly did not understand this because they also changed the maximum sentence for cruelty to animals and they never *once* discussed sentencing him under the new code - it is my understanding that you are charged and sentenced under the law that exists at the time of the crime as quite often things take a long time to get through the courts and though the code doesn't change often, when it does it would open up a HUGE can of worms if a person could be basically charged for a crime or sentenced in accordance with rules that didn't exist when they did their crime. I digress...
It was revealed that Daniel had moved back to Didsbury (living with his mother again), and that the lawyer had only been told that when Daniel arrived at court today - to which I question why the f** was he late if he lived only a few blocks away? I had an 85km drive in possibly the worst highway conditions possibly and I was there on time!! They talked about how his mother still has the other dog, Diesel (shih tzu mix), but if Daniel's sentence included a no-pet-ownership or care clause, they would rehome the dog for the duration of the sentence. His lawyer spoke about how moving back to the community in which the crime was committed was extremely relevant and made if of enormous benefit to him to be sentenced to serve time in the community due to the media attention and community awareness (therefore stigma on him) of his crime.
He also spoke briefly about how if the judge sentenced him to an intermittent sentence (this is jail time served only on weekends), he would be available to serve starting this friday (and being released on monday).
Crown got back up at this point and talked about the no-ownership part of things and how the max is 2 years. He said that Crown supports the maximum because there is always the possibility of an accident which could result in the same behaviour (the judge had talked earlier about how the torture was intentional but did not come out because of intent to injure the dog, but rather as a result of a very poor decision made after an accident). He also talked about how the effect of a conditional sentence (ie probation) is magnified by living in the community in which the crime was committed, but he still recommended REAL jail time as a deterrent to others. He said an intermittent sentence still allows him to be visible in the community and basically to carry on a normal life, which is very much like a conditional sentence. He said REAL jail time is needed to uphold the public's confidence in the justice system. (Did I mention that I truly love this man?? He is so awesome!)
We broke for a few minutes (well, first they dealt with a few other cases and then we broke - and I was honestly very afraid that they were going to push things off. The lawyer kept saying "if this goes to sentencing" and the judge didn't seem to have made up his mind!) and then they came back.
The judge said this was a unique case because he hadn't found any other cases where any sort of injury, especially of that magnitude, was inflicted on an animal following an accidental initial injury.
His sentence was this:
- no restrictions on pets (owning or caring for them) as his actions did not result from malice or hatred of a pet. Also, because he resides in the community, there will be no need for these restrictions.
- 30 day intermittent sentence (to be served on weekends) starting this weekend: he will report to the RCMP in Didsbury at 9am Saturday Dec 22 and be released at 6pm Sunday Dec 21. He will continue every weekend until the 30 days are up.
- Probation for 1 year starting today; report to probation officer within 7 days (he originally wanted immediate reporting, but the sheriff said that the PO was not there until next week). The probation will include requiring him to report to a 'manager designate' (whatever that is) in person once a month or as directed by his PO. It also puts down a curfew which requires him to be within his residence from the hours of 9pm to 6am whenever he's not serving his jail term.
- and finally, he is to serve 40 hours of community service, the type/location to be determined by the PO (I hope it's cleaning trash off the highway so I can find him and drive by while throwing rocks!).
As court was breaking, the lawyers were trying to discuss whether or not part of the sentence was to include a no-contact provision with T (the youth), and I'm not sure what happened, because people were moving around, but I think they said it wasn't necessary as that was part of the sentence conditions of T. (So when his probation is up, which should be in a few months, I think, I will have to check my files, they will be able to do whatever they want from 6am to 9pm on weekdays.
How completely betrayed do YOU feel by this? 30 days to be served on weekends? 40 hours community service? 40 hours???? He's used way more than 40 hours of the court's time for this, he should have to do more. Maybe 400 hours.
I totally feel let down, but there's nothing I can do. Tamara Chaney is starting a new petition, hoping to keep the bill from dying before the House again (I signed it but I don't have much faith that anything will get through the house anytime soon with the crap going on there). The website for that is
http://stopanimalcrueltyincanada.wordpress.com/ and I would encourage all of you to visit it and find out how you can help. There was over 100,000 signatures last time, but I don't think that's enough! We can do better!!
I've had a very tiring day so I will go. I will return in the next couple of days with any newspaper articles written about this.
The good news is that this is all done before Christmas and at last Daisy can rest in peace. Her memory will fade from many people, but it will not fade from my mind. She will live on in spirit in my heart. But at last she can rest, knowing that it is over.
I wish you all a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year and thank you for your continued support. It has been a very difficult 2 years dealing with this.
Much love,
Melissa