MARTIN: Courts ought to treat child-abusers with heavy hand

Article content

There are few, if any, more vulnerable people in Canadian society than children.

Article content

Those under the age of 18, particularly those who have yet to have reached the rebellious teen years, rely greatly on the trust relationships they have with the adults charged with their care.

So when adults breach that trust, courts generally look harshly at such behaviour.

That’s why it’s somewhat baffling a Calgary judge last November handed a woman a conditional discharge, a pronouncement which would spare her a criminal record providing she complied with certain conditions for a period of one year.

In a written ruling handed down last week, the Alberta Court of Appeal found Justice Johanna Price erred when she granted Janine Marie Marr a discharge for abusing two pre-teens under her care and substituted a conditional sentence order of 15 months.

Article content

Article content

The province’s top court concluded “a fit and proper sentence for the offences is a period of 15 months imprisonment,” but because Marr had already completed 10 months of her conditional discharge term and no longer had contact with her two victims she could serve the remainder of her punishment in the community.

The ruling should serve as a stark reminder the abuse of children cannot be tolerated in our society.

In this instance the offender abused two children who were under the care of their elderly grandmother who required Marr’s daily assistance to look after the kids.

But instead of providing loving care and guidance, as most adults would do for children under their care, Marr regularly abused the two victims over a period of 3½ years, while the younger of the two, identified as ‘M’ in the ruling, was between the ages of seven and nine, and the older, referred to as ‘H,’ eight to 11.

Article content

“While in their grandmother’s care, H and M were assaulted by the respondent (to the Crown’s appeal). H and M were assaulted with the respondent’s bare hand and with a miniature hockey stick and a computer stick,” the appeal judges, Bernette Ho, Anne Kirker and Tamara Friesen, wrote.

Both the plastic hockey stick and “computer stick” were about 45 to 60 cm in length.

The offender slapped M on the head and body, including their bare butt (the appeal judges were careful in their ruling not to even identify the genders of the victims, whose identities are protected by a publication ban), on multiple occasions over that 3½-year period.

“The respondent slapped and/or hit M because M was not behaving as the respondent expected M to,” the appeal judges noted.

Article content

“The respondent slapped or spanked H on the head and back and hit their body (at times their bare butt) with the hockey stick and computer stick over a three-and-a-half-year period,” for the same reason.

Jurors convicted Marr of two counts each of assault and assault with a weapon and the Crown after trial had sought a jail term of 12 to 18 months followed by two years probation.

Price did find there were multiple aggravating circumstances, including that the offender held a position of trust over the victims “and the abuse took place in the children’s home by a person who was in a position of authority over them.”

But the Court of King’s Bench judge also found several mitigating factors, including erroneously “mischaracterizing certain facts as mitigating.”

The appeal court judges said the fact Marr complied with bail conditions, something expected of accused persons on release, wasn’t mitigating.

And Price finding the offender was remorseful was also an error.

“There was no basis for the sentencing judge’s finding that the respondent was remorseful. The respondent did not provide an apology, nor did she ever acknowledge hitting the children.”

Being spared any jail may still have been a break Marr didn’t deserve. Courts should treat most child abusers with a heavy hand.

KMartin@postmedia.com

X: @KMartinCourts

Article content