Man will go to jail intermittently for horse mistreatment

Man will go to jail for horse mistreatment

A Manitoba man has been sentenced to 30 days — to be served on weekends — for the mistreatment of horses, a judge has ruled.
Geoffrey Giesbrecht of Steinbach was charged under the federal Health of Animals Act.
The judge considered and rejected a recommendation from the Crown prosecutor for a $7,500 fine.
Court officials said it may be the first time anyone has been sent to jail for violating the act.
Giesbrecht, who was charged in 2007, was trying to cross the border into the United States, at Emerson, Man., with 22 animals in his trailer. Some of the horses were dead, while many of the others were in such poor health they had to be euthanized.

"Inhumane" horse trucker to serve 30 days on weekends
A judge has sentenced a Manitoba trucker to 30 days in jail after he failed to seek medical treatment for several horses seriously injured during a trip to the slaughterhouse.
Geoffrey Giesbrecht, 27, previously pleaded guilty to one count of violating the Health of Animals Act by continuing to transport animals after they had been injured without seeking timely medical attention. Fourteen horses died or were euthanized following the Nov. 7, 2007 incident.
Judge Carena Roller told Giesbrecht she hoped the jail sentence — to be served on weekends — “will strongly deter you from treating animal cargo so inhumanely again.”
The Crown had been seeking a $7,500 fine.
Giesbrecht claimed the animals were injured after he swerved to avoid hitting a car that had stopped abruptly on the highway.
He had picked up a load of 22 horses in Minnesota and was bound for Pincher Creek, Alta., when border officials stopped him at the Emerson crossing. Inside Giesbrecht’s trailer, border officials found several injured horses trapped under the bodies of dead ones.
A veterinarian with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was called in and several of the animals were euthanized on the spot.
Several of the horses were found trapped under other horses or unable to rise on their feet, and many were so dehydrated they were drinking urine from the trailer floor. Several of the downed horses suffered stamping injuries from those still standing.
Giesbrecht chose to keep driving rather than seek medical treatment and at one point tried using an electric prod to stir the downed horses, Roller said.
“Almost inexplicably, he has told the court he loves horses,” Roller said. “That is hard to fathom given the callous and inhumane treatment they received.”
Giesbrecht previously told court he was only following the instructions of his dispatcher. His employer at the time, Shadow Creek Transport, has also been charged in the incident and remains before the court.

Trucker gets jail for abuse of horses
A Steinbach-area trucker will spend the next few weekends in jail after being sentenced for allowing several horses to die in "horrific" conditions in a trailer.
Provincial court Judge Carena Roller on Friday sentenced Geoffery Giesbrecht, 27, to 30 days in jail -- to be served on weekends -- starting June 11. Giesbrecht had pleaded guilty to charges under the federal Health of Animals Act last month.
Crown attorney Jeremy Akerstream said it is believed to be the first time a person has gone to jail after being convicted under the provisions of the act. The maximum penalty is a six-month jail term or a $50,000 fine.
Akerstream had asked for a $7,500 fine for the offences, but Roller decided they were so serious they instead warranted incarceration.
"The emphasis on the judge's sentence was on deterrence," Akerstream said.
"We're satisfied with the ruling."
Officials with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency found 22 horses were being transported from the United States to Canada for slaughter in an improper vehicle at the Emerson crossing in November, 2007.
Fourteen of the horses were already dead or had to be put down because they were suffering severe dehydration. Eight other horses were sent to farms to be nursed back to health.
Giesbrecht told the judge the horses were injured when he was forced to swerve to avoid a car stopped with a flat tire on a Minnesota highway. He was on his way to a horse-slaughter plant near Pincher Creek, Alta.
But Roller said the photographs she saw of the conditions inside Giesbrecht's vehicle were "horrific."

I completely disagree with prison time in general. I believe that prison should be used as a last resort and should be reserved for those who pose a danger to society. What this man allegedly did was cruel and inhumane, but it does not warrant jail time in my opinion. He had a legitimate reason, which was stated in a previous blog post of mine. I felt he should have been given probation and a fine. 

Jail was not warranted in this case. I am an animal lover and hate to see abuse of animals, but I feel that jail should be a last resort only for those who pose a danger to society and need to be incarcerated to protect the public. This man does not fit the bill. He should have gotten probation and a fine.  

Weekend-sentence ruling a precedent

Weekend-sentence ruling a precedent

A precedent-setting ruling could pave the way for more Manitoba criminals to receive intermittent jail sentences served only on weekends.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal's decision centres around the case of a Winnipeg man who pleaded guilty last year to two counts of forcibly entry, mischief, possession of a dangerous weapon and theft. Scott Peebles was given a 70-day intermittent jail sentence in addition to receiving credit for 50 days of time already served following his arrest.

The Crown immediately filed an appeal, claiming the judge had issued an "illegal sentence." The Criminal Code says intermittent sentences can only be given out when the penalty is 90 days or less. Prosecutors claimed the 120-day total sentence given to Peebles made him ineligible.

"The Crown's argument, at first blush, seems persuasive," Justice Barbara Hamilton wrote in the decision. However, the province's highest court ultimately disagreed, saying judges only have to concern themselves with the sentence "going forward" and do not have to factor in pre-trial custody when deciding whether an offender qualifies for an intermittent penalty.

The key issue centres around when an actual sentence truly begins, and there are conflicting rulings in law.

The Crown relied on a 2005 Supreme Court case that stated a person can only be given a conditional sentence if the judge deems the "total punishment," which includes pre-trial custody, is worth less than two years.

Peebles' lawyer relied on a 2008 Supreme Court ruling, this time revolving around the issue of probation. The country's highest court said an offender can be put on probation as long as they receive a sentence not exceeding two years of "new" jail time, regardless of how much credit they are given for pre-trial custody.

The Peebles case represents a previously unexplored area in law, as there are no other Canadian cases where the issue of intermittent sentences has been addressed. The Manitoba Court of Appeal said the 2008 Supreme Court ruling seems to be the official guide judges must now follow and is "dispositive" of the Crown's position.

"A sentence commences when it is imposed," Hamilton said. "An intermittent sentence has been a sentencing option since long before conditional sentences. As the jurisprudence amply demonstrates, it is a useful and worthwhile part of the judicial arsenal."

Hamilton said there are "numerous" examples in Manitoba and other provinces of intermittent sentences being imposed in Canada where credit for pre-trial custody brought the total penalty beyond the 90-day maximum. None of those cases were ever appealed by justice officials.

Peebles was given an intermittent sentence to allow him to keep working full-time during the week, then report on consecutive weekends to serve his time. The judge cited several factors, including a drug addiction that contributed to his crimes. His offences involved smashing his way into an apartment building, apparently to help a friend he believed had overdosed, and stealing DVDs from a Winnipeg electronics store and confronting security staff with a "pen-like object with a blade."

I completely agree with intermittent sentences for those who need some form of incarceration, for possibly breaching conditions of probation, but who are not extremely dangerous or pose a threat to the community or for those convicted of minor, property or drug offences. These people do not need to be in secure custody, but may need some form of open custody which is appropriate.  

Prison for banned Ottawa driver who struck cyclist

Jail for banned driver who struck cyclist

A judge jailed a 23-year-old woman who sideswiped a cyclist while banned from getting behind the wheel because of a drunk driving conviction.

Ontario Court Justice Richard Lajoie handed Sarah Prout-Barrett 21 days in jail Thursday — her lawyer had asked for house arrest — and a stern lecture about her bad choices and bad driving.

“Clearly there’s a lack of judgement and a complete disregard and disrespect for court orders,” Lajoie said.

“She thought she could do what she wanted, when she wanted.”

Prout-Barrett pleaded guilty in December to driving while disqualified because of an earlier impaired driving charge.

She was driving a silver Cadillac on Aug. 18, 2009 and trying to merge onto the Airport Pkwy. when she struck competitive cyclist Jim Borrens — sending him flying — then drove over his $6,000 bike.

Borrens was treated by paramedics for cuts and bruises and needed stitches.

Lajoie noted the woman hadn’t flouted her driving prohibition once. It had been an ongoing pattern after her Feb. 2009 conviction.

“The message must go out not only to Ms. Prout-Barrett but to all other people who are suspended or prohibited drivers that such flouting of court orders will have serious consequences,” Lajoie said.

Prout-Barrett will be allowed to serve her sentence on weekends so she can keep her job. She was also sentenced to 12 months probation and 40 hours of community service.

I think this sentence is appropriate for the purpose of denunciation and specific deterrence of this woman. She only has to serve her sentence on weekends but it sends a message to her that her actions were dangerous and that she should not be breaking her conditions again, or worse could happen.