Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Violent Pedophiles and the Attorney General

Robert W.G. Gillen

Assistant Deputy Attorney General

Criminal Justice Branch

Dear Mr. Gillen,

Re: your letter to Mel Galea:

You assure Mr. Galea and others that the way in which Mr. Brundrett advised the Court on my sentence appeal was right and proper. You insist that by Mr. Brundrett's use of the cases of two violent pedophile sex offenders in comparison to my sentence for blockading at Eagleridge Bluffs was not at all meant to equate me with these two debased men with diseased minds.

I take umbrage with your protestations of innocent intent, but first, I am sure you will agree there are two kinds of law; statute law (Criminal Code) and case law (what other judges have decided on like cases). We also need to explain to others who may not know that on sentence appeal, the Appeal Court can adjust a sentence up or down, so there is always a risk of a greater sentence when appealing an original sentence.

And as you know very well, Mr. Gillen, but others might not, materials that are to be considered by the judges (three judges) on appeal are submitted in advance in writing before the actual court hearing. And because I brought the appeal I had to submit a Factum, that is, my reason for appealing, and it was per court rules; in writing. Again Mr. Gillen, as I am sure you know, but others might not, This Factum is extremely important as it is the primary information submitted by me upon which the judges will make a decision. After receiving a copy of my Factum, Mr. Brundrett then submitted to the Court his Responses to my Factum and his recommendations that the Court should follow in case the Court decides to give me additional time. And of course, Mr. Brundrett's written response to my Factum was the most important material the Court would see from the Crown's side.

And while it is true that Mr. Brundrett did not verbally say in Court that he thought I should be sentenced to life imprisonment or given a twenty-five year sentence like the violent pedophile cases he brought forth for comparison, he said it through Case Law. That is, in his written submissions to the Court which carries most weight ,Mr. Brundrett, by his submissions and comparisons, signalled to the Appeals Court that the Attorney General's office thought I should be given life imprisonment.

And the case that Mr. Brundrett emphasized in his submissions is as follows: In Regina v. M. (C.A.) , J.A. Jessup expressing the sentencing principal in Hill, at p. 147: " When an accused has been convicted of a serious crime in itself calling for a substantial sentence and when he suffers from some mental or personality disorder rendering him a danger to the community but not subject to confinement in a mental institution and when it is uncertain when, if ever, the accused will be cured of his affliction, in my opinion the appropriate sentence is one of life." And Mr. Brundrett emphasized the words "the appropriate sentence is one of life" by underlining them.

By emphasizing this section of Case Law Mr. Brundrett has accomplished two things: (a) he has equated my mens rea (my mind) with those of these debased men and (b) has attempted to anchor in the judge's minds the notion that I have committed like crimes (after all, repeated infractions of the law) and should therefore be similarly sentenced. If this were not so, why would Mr. Brundrett have submitted these two horrible cases as comparable to my own? And according to Madam Justice Brown in sentence of me (Page 2 of Madam Justice Brown's Oral Reason for Sentence [3]; ..."A sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders in similar circumstances."

Mr. Gillen, I am not a similar offender nor am I, or was I, in similar circumstances as these two debased violent pedophiles presented to the court by your office and I am highly offended that you and Mr. Brundrett seem to think I am. Protest as you please, the case law that was submitted by your office to guide the Court in considering my appeal case is conniving and cowardly. Perhaps it reflects the attitude of the Attorney General's office only too well. Sincerely yours,Betty Krawczyk

No comments:

Post a Comment