A judge determining Dangerous Offender or Long Term Offender status is entitled to very considerable deference. See today's decision in R. v. W.E.J.M., 2009 ONCA 844:
[56] On the issue of hope and speculation, one must observe that because the dangerous offender/long-term offender hearing is conducted for the purpose of sentencing, it takes place immediately following conviction for the predicate offence and the order is made following the hearing. However, the evidence deals with what is likely to occur in the distant future, many years hence. One cannot know the future with certainty. More particularly, in cases such as this one where the prognosis for the reduction of the risk is dependent on the offender undergoing treatment while serving the determinate sentence, there can never be a guarantee that it will occur or be successful.
[57] It is clear that the sentencing judge thoroughly reviewed all of the evidence. She was under no misapprehension or misunderstanding about it. She recognized that the respondent is an extremely dangerous man, who, without all of the treatments, therapies, and controls anticipated, will continue to be a danger. However, she was entitled to accept the evidence of the defence psychiatrist, Dr. Gojer, that the respondent is treatable within a definite period of time, that this treatment will cause his risk of re-offending to be significantly reduced, and that with the appropriate community controls in place, enforced by the legal system, the risk will be reduced to an acceptable level.
James Morton
1100-5255 Yonge Street
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6P4
416 225 2777
No comments:
Post a Comment