A family's anger erupted simultaneously in two courtrooms when a judge sentenced a driver for his role in a hit-and-run accident that killed a seven-year-old Dauphin girl.
Queen's Bench Justice Lori Spiva had no sooner sentenced Lionel Lavallee to 42 months (3 and 1/2 years) in prison when words were hurled in both a Winnipeg courtroom and one in Dauphin connected by a video link.
"You call yourself a judge?" a man identified as the father of the child, Teah Ironstand, yelled in Dauphin.
"You're un(expletive) fit to be a judge."
In Winnipeg, the child's grandmother saved her anger for Lavallee himself.
"Justice will be served you child killer," Diane Ironstand yelled, shortly before Lavallee was escorted out of the courtroom by sheriff's officers.
The grandmother said after court that she hoped the Crown would appeal the case.
"(Teah) was a happy girl and she just loved animals," she said.
"I'm really disappointed in the justice system. You never want to be a victim of crime ever."
Lavallee, 39, had pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident.
Family members said Teah was playing with her brother on the front lawn of her Dauphin home when she spotted a dog crossing the road and darted after it into the path of a half-ton truck. The accident occurred on Aug. 9, 2008, at about 10 p.m.
Teah, who was thrown several metres in the air, was rushed to hospitals in Dauphin and Winnipeg, but she died of her injuries two days later.
Court was told Lavallee left the vehicle and began screaming for help, but drove off about five minutes later before emergency crews were called.
An RCMP crash investigation later concluded that Lavallee was not at fault and had slammed his brakes in vain to avoid hitting the child.
But court was also told that Lavallee -- who RCMP determined was driving about 58 kilometres an hour in a 50 km/hr zone -- had a long history of driving while impaired.
He didn't have a licence at the time of the collision.
The Crown argued for Lavallee to be sentenced to six years in prison, because it was believed the man had drugs on him at the time of the collision and had taken off to dispose of them. Lavallee's lawyer argued the man should be sentenced to time in custody.
But Spivak said she didn't believe Lavallee was in possession of drugs and noted he had testified he left the scene because "he was in shock and didn't know what to do because I was driving without a licence."
Spivak said because of the months of pre-trial custody Lavallee had already served, he only had to serve four more months in prison.
The judge also ordered Lavallee to be prohibited from driving for seven years.
I understand why the victims/family and public is in an uproar about this sentence. They don't fully understand the principles of the justice system and have a distorted view of crime as perpetuated through the media. You need to look at both sides of the story here. Yes this man was driving without a license and had a history of impaired driving, but he also was not excessively speeding, and did scream for help (showing that he felt remorse for what had just happened) and likely left because he was in shock. What I don't understand, is why this man wasn't charged with manslaughter (because the girl did die). I feel that this sentence is appropriate, considering these circumstances. He is prohibited from driving for 7 years and has already served a considerable amount of time in custody, which reduced his sentence to 4 months. The reason offenders recieve double time credit for pre-trial custody is because of the horrible conditions and lack of programming, among many others. I feel that the least restrictive sentence should always be used before prison because prison is ineffective for the most part, in accomplishing deterrence of the public and reducing crime rates. That is why I think that this sentence is appropriate.
No comments:
Post a Comment