Jail is no place for teen who has been compliant on bail for over a year

'Nonsensical' to send sliver to jail, says lawyer

Jail is no place for a Winnipeg teen who sparked a June 2009 attack that saw a 64-year-old man sliced with a machete, a court was told Monday.

The now 18-year-old man has had no more run-ins with the law since being released on bail a year ago, said defence lawyer Jody Ostapiw, adding it would be “nonsensical” to send her client to jail.

Ostapiw recommended Judge Ted Lismer sentence the man to 18 months supervised probation, with an absolute curfew for the first six months of the sentence. “(Probation) would be far more effective than ripping this young man from his home where he has been compliant for a year,” Ostapiw said.

Crown attorney Susan Baragar argued the man should not receive a more lenient sentence than two male co-accused who were not released on bail.

A then-16-year-old co-accused was previously sentenced to 18 months in jail. A 15-year-old co-accused was sentenced to just under one year in jail.

“This kind of behaviour must attract a custodial sentence,” said Baragar, who urged Lismer to sentence the man to 15 months in jail.

Court heard the then 17-year-old accused had been drinking heavily and was in the company of two youths he had met that same day when the trio came across the victim shortly after midnight, walking in the vicinity of Aberdeen Avenue and McGregor Street.

The victim was “minding his own business” when the accused instigated a verbal exchange with the victim and punched him in the head, knocking him to the ground, Baragar said. The accused sprayed him with bear repellent and kicked him in the head.

The two co-accused joined in the attack, the older of the two slicing the victim in the shoulder with a machete.

Court heard the victim continues to have difficulties raising his arm, has trouble with his eyes and is unable to work.

Lismer adjourned sentencing to July 15.

I agree with the defence lawyer in this case. Prison is no place for this man. If he has demonstrated good behaviour while on bail, there is no further need to imprison him, as he has proven that he is not a danger to society any further. Prison is the school of crime and is a negative environment filled with drugs, gangs and pro criminal attitudes and behaviours and values. I would like to know more information on this man's background life and mitigating factors, but I agree with the supervised probation as a recommended sentence for this man along with emotion management, substance abuse, violence prevention programming. Jail is not necessary to protect the public from this man.

Sentencing hearing in Hutterie colony sex abuse adjourned until next week

Sentencing in Hutterite colony sex abuse case

Court reporter Mike McIntyre was Tweeting live from the sentencing of a 19-year-old member of a Manitoba Hutterite colony who has admitted to drugging, restraining and sexually abusing several boys over a prolonged period of time.

The accused – who can’t be named because some of his crimes occurred while he was a youth – was to be sentenced today on charges of sexual interference and forcible confinement, but things did not go as planned.

Read a replay of his Tweets to see for yourself.

Judge is not happy with the Crown, who dropped 6 cases in her office earlier today to review.  

Judge has had no time to read them - has been in court since 9 - and says it's her preference to be prepared ahead of court. 

Now defence lawyer raising objection as well to only being given Crown's cases just before court. 

Judge: It would be my preference to put this matter over. Has told Crown, defence lawyers to take a few minutes out of court to discuss. 

Just for background, judges usually like lawyers to give them copies of cases they intend to rely on well ahead of sentencing date. 

This is especially important in cases where lawyers are NOT making a joint-recommendation, helps judge prepare for arguments. 

Crown attorney Jennifer Mann told judge she's been tied up in court all week, this am was first opportunity to do so. 

Alright, lawyers in Hutterite sex case back in court. Both saying they want sentencing to start immediately. 

Defence now just handed judge his stack of cases. Again, she's not very impressed. 

Crown gave judge 6 cases, defence 5. Judge: "That's 11 cases I would have liked to have read." 

Defence wants sentence of time already spent in custody for accused. Crown wants nearly 4 more years in prison. 

Judge is refusing lawyer's bid to have sentencing hearing proceed. She's ordering an adjournment. Now lawyers not impressed. Gong show. 

Now lawyers asking if judge can not be "seized" of case, so they can find another judge who can hear it ASAP. 

Now everyone is checking their schedules over next few weeks to see if they can find a date that works. 

As you can tell, folks, court doesn't always move as slick and smoothly as it does on "Law & Order"! 

Judge apologized to accused. "I'm sure this is a stressful time waiting for your sentencing. Sorry we have to put it over, not your fault." 

They've found a date for adjournment - July 19, 2 pm. Judge Smith will remain seized. 

They tried to find a different judge available to hear it next week - but apparently there are no judges free to hear it. 

Crown and judge are now arguing, on the record. Bizarre. 

Judge lecturing Crown about leaving things to last minute. Crown unhappy judge not seeming to be very flexible. 

They are now taking another break to cool down, see if they can't find a date available before July 19, with or without this judge. 

This is a total mess. And pretty embarrasing for the justice system. 

Lawyers are back in court. Sounds like they have another "solution." 

They have now booked July 2, 2 pm. in front of another judge. 

So, a one-week adjournment instead of three-and-a-half. 

They are now trying to find out what judge will hear it so all of these cases can be forwarded to them ahead of time. 

                          

Sentencing hearing begins for teens charged in killing

Sentencing hearing begins for teens in killing

A sentencing hearing has begun for two teens arrested in the 2006 killing of Spence Street resident Audrey Cooper.

The now 17-year-old girls pleaded guilty last February to second-degree murder.

The girls were among four youths arrested following Cooper's brutal killing outside her home in October 2006.

Certain details of the sentencing hearing cannot be printed due to a publication ban.

A now 16-year-old girl pleaded guilty last year to manslaughter and received the maximum youth sentence of three years custody and community supervision, with a requirement she live in a specialized group home until she is 18.

A now 18-year-old male co-accused is set to stand trial in June.

Give teens maximum for murder, court told
Two teens arrested in the killing of Spence Street resident Audrey Cooper should receive the maximum sentence of seven years custody and community supervision, Crown and defence lawyers agree.
What they want a judge to decide is how long the now 18-year-old woman and 17-year-old girl should spend in custody.
A sentencing hearing for the teens began Monday. Justice Holly Beard is expected to sentence them next week.
The teens pleaded guilty last February to second-degree murder. 

Under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, they can serve no more than four years of their sentence in custody. They have already spent 3 1/2 years in pre-trial custody.
The girls were among four youths arrested following Cooper’s brutal killing outside her home in October 2006.
Certain details of the sentencing hearing cannot be printed due to a publication ban.
Court heard the 18-year-old accused has shown significant remorse for the killing, while the 17-year-old accused continues to “minimize and deflect” responsibility for her actions. They have both been assessed as medium risks to reoffend.
In a victim impact statement, Cooper’s parents described her as “a cheerful, creative and caring young woman.”
A now 16-year-old girl pleaded guilty last year to manslaughter and received the maximum youth sentence of three years custody and community supervision, with a requirement she live in a specialized group home until she is 18.
A now 18-year-old male co-accused is set to stand trial in June.

I dont think the maximum sentence should be given. I would like to know the background of these girls. Did they live in poverty? Have a tough childhood? In a gang? Negative peer influences? Substance Abuse? This article is biased in that it makes no mention of any mitigating factors of the 2 girls.

I think we need to address the underlying causes of crime. Prison fails to do that. I think since they are both medium risks to re-offend they should be given 2 years prison (as longer sentences do nothing to deter crime or reduce recidivism) combined with intensive rehabilitation/community supervision for 3 years to address their underlying issues.

Sentencing date set for woman charged with failing to provide the necessities of life

Guimond sentence due May 12th

Shirley Guimond, 55, will find out her fate on May 12 for failing to provide the necessities of life in the death of her young nephew Gage.

On Wednesday afternoon the judge reserved her decision after hearing submissions. A final sentencing date will be set next month.

Guimond pleaded guilty in November 2009 to one charge of assault causing bodily harm involving two-year-old Gage -- her great-nephew -- and his three-year-old sister and was sentenced to time served for that offence.

Gage Guimond died in July 2007 after falling from a high chair and down a flight of stairs. Shirley Guimond was previously charged with manslaughter but later pleaded guilty to one count of failing to provide the necessities of life.

On Wednesday, the Crown asked for two years in jail, minus credit for six months served. The defence, however, asked for an 18-month conditional sentence.

 

Both lawyers agreed Guimond should serve an additional three years supervised probation.

Court heard both children had been in the custody of Sagkeeng Child and Family Services when they were placed in Guimond's care in June 2007. In the weeks prior to Gage's death, Guimond repeatedly assaulted both children.

In a statement to police, Guimond said she "was having trouble with the children acting up and would slap them, punch them about the body, and on at least one occasion, kicked them in the buttocks," Crown attorney Tony Kavanagh told court.

Defence lawyer Saul Simmonds said Guimond was overwhelmed by the responsibility of caring for the two children as well as her 13-year-old grandson.

"It was clear at her age ... the stress of dealing with three children in the home caused her far more tension and stress than she was able to deal with," Simmonds said.

I wish this article had stated more mitigating factors and the defence lawyer's argument instead of simply the Crown. I completely agree with a conditional sentence for this woman. I do not think prison is necessary as she does not appear to be a danger to society or a high risk to re-offend. It was a mistake and I do not believe it was intentional.

Judge reserves sentence for death of 2 year old Gage Guimond

A judge reserved a sentencing decision Wednesday afternoon for the death of two-year-old Gage Guimond in 2007.

Last November, Gage's great aunt, Shirley Guimond, pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to provide the necessities of life.

In July 2007, Gage died after falling down a flight of stairs at a home on Magnus Avenue. Gage was placed through Child and Family Services in the care of his great aunt at the time.

The defence came down hard on CFS at the hearing Wednesday.

"Why in the world is Shirley Guimond sitting alone in this box when in my view the system, CFS, has a greater sense of responsibility than Mrs. Guimond," said Saul Simmonds, defence lawyer.

Simmonds said CFS took Gage out of care from another foster family to place the boy with Shirley.

Gage's family agreed in part with some of the criticisms of CFS but said Shirley Guimond is ultimately responsible for the boy's death.

"She could have said no to CFS," said Natasha Guimond, Gage's biological mother.

Shirley offered a statement in court Wednesday.

"I'm sorry for (what) happened. I have to live with this for the rest of my life. I wish it never happened at all. That's all I have to say," said Shirley.

Victim impact statements were read out in court Wednesday from Gage's biological mother and former foster parents.

"I loved him as if he was my own. Now he is gone," said Gage's former foster father.

The maximum sentence in the case is five years. The Crown is asking for two years, less a day. The defence wants it served in the community. A new sentencing date has not yet been set.

System to blame in Guimond's death
Shirley Guimond shouldn’t be the only one sitting in the prisoner’s box awaiting sentencing in the death of her two-year-old great nephew Gage, a judge was told Wednesday.
“In my view, the system should be in this box with a greater deal of responsibility than Ms. Guimond,” said her lawyer Saul Simmonds.
Gage Guimond died in July 2007 after falling from a high chair and down a flight of stairs. Shirley Guimond was originally charged with manslaughter but pleaded guilty last November to failing to provide the necessities of life.
Court heard Gage and his three-year-old sister had been in the custody of Sagkeeng Child and Family Services before they were placed in Guimond’s care in June 2007. In the weeks prior to Gage’s death, Guimond — who was also caring for her 13-year-old grandson — repeatedly assaulted the two young children.
Guimond, 55, pleaded guilty in November to assault causing bodily harm and was sentenced to 68 days time served plus three years supervised probation.
Simmonds argued Sagkeeng CFS foisted the children on Guimond against her wishes.
“She was not out there asking to be a foster parent,” Simmonds said. “CFS came to her. Her position was she was clearly not prepared for that task.”
Guimond “reluctantly” agreed to care for the children but was asking CFS to take them back after two weeks, Simmonds said.
“Her personality is such that if you pressure her she will cave,” he said. “Unfortunately, you don’t go to the weak to take in a child under those circumstances.”
Simmonds alleged CFS removed the children from the home of loving foster parents and placed them in Guimond’s care for “political” reasons.
“This is not an isolated incident from their perspective,” he said.
Simmonds also fired criticism at local media which he accused of grossly misrepresenting the facts of the case.
“(Guimond) was treated in custody like a leper ... tormented and tortured,” he said.
Court heard on the day Gage was fatally injured, Guimond had been out shopping with the three children and needed to use the washroom when they got back home. She placed the boy in a backless high chair adjacent to the basement stairs and ran to the washroom. When Guimond returned, Gage had fallen down the stairs, critically injuring himself.
Guimond called 911 and Gage was rushed to hospital where he died several days later.
Crown attorney Tony Kavanagh described the boy’s death as “shocking and avoidable” and urged Judge Lee Ann Martin to sentence Guimond to two years in jail.
The maximum sentence for failing to provide the necessities of life is five years in prison. Simmonds argued Guimond should serve an 18-month conditional sentence in the community.
“This is not one of those cases that cries out for more custody in a facility,” he said. “This is a momentary lapse, not a lengthy one.”
Natasha Guimond, Gage’s mother, told court her son’s death has “scarred her forever.”
“How could I allow him to go?” she cried, reading from a victim impact statement. “It wasn’t supposed to be forever. It has been a rough road without my son.”
Martin reserved her sentence. A final sentencing date will be set next month.

Judge delays sentencing in 2 year old's death
A judge has reserved a sentencing decision in the death of two-year-old Gage Guimond who died in the care of his great-aunt.
Last November, Shirley Caroline Guimond pleaded guilty to assault cause bodily harm for injuries both Gage and his sister sustained from slapping and punching. She also pleaded guilty to failing to provide the necessities of life to Gage when he fell down a set of stairs in July 2007.
Then, a judge said Guimond would do no further time in jail for the assault charge, after giving her double credit for 68 days she'd already spent behind bars.
Now a judge will decide the sentence she'll do for the second charge. Crown attorney Tony Kavanagh told Provincial Court Judge Lee Ann Martin on Wednesday that Guimond should do two years less a day in provincial jail, minus about six months time served, for a crime that was "senseless, avoidable and sad."
"We can't ignore that this was an offence against a young boy who was incapable of looking after himself," Kavanagh told the court.
Defence lawyer Saul Simmonds said Guimond should be able to serve a two-year sentence under house arrest.
Both lawyers said Guimond should also be given three years of supervised probation.
Martin reserved her decision.
The mother of the two-year-boy said Wednesday she's against house arrest for the woman. Natasha Guimond said 55-year-old Shirley Guimond should do time behind bars.
Only six weeks after Sagkeeng Child and Family Services agency had placed Gage and his sister at a Magnus Avenue foster home with a great-aunt they'd never met, emergency responders found Gage with serious head injuries and struggling to breathe.
Court heard Shirley Guimond had placed the boy on a chair next to stairs while she used a bathroom, and the boy tumbled over a plywood guard rail to the bottom.
She was originally charged with manslaughter.
"She admitted she beat my kids, she's just not admitting for killing my son because how can anyone admit that?" said Natasha Guimond, who wept on the steps of the courthouse.
Natasha Guimond's children went into CFS when she was 19 years old and struggling to care for them.
They then were placed with foster parents before CFS removed them and placed them with Shirley Guimond.
Simmonds said his client contacted CFS to tell them she could not handle caring for the kids in addition to another teenager already in her home, but help didn't come.
"Why in the world is Ms. Guimond alone in this box?" Simmonds asked.
After Gage fell, Shirley Guimond called 911 and tried to revive the boy but he eventually died of his injuries.
"I just want to say I'm sorry for what happened," she told court Wednesday.

No more jail time for tot's death
Where is sympathy for Gage?
All the evil done to Gage and no-one pays the price
No retribution for Gage's death
CFS should shoulder blame for child's death

This is such a sad story, but I do not think that this death was intentional on Guimond's part. She struggled caring for the children. She also called 911 herself and tried to revive the child, which shows caring actions, not callous actions. This act was not intentional and therefore I feel she should receive a conditional sentence. She is not dangerous, violent or high risk and should not be placed in prison, where she could be negatively influenced. It was a simple mistake and could happen to anyone. She put the child in the chair next to stairs while she ran to the washroom. She couldn't foresee in the future, that he may fall and ultimately die. She does not deserve to be punished. To me, this isn't even a criminal act! It's a mistake which could happen to anybody.    

Man sentenced to prison for botched kidnapping

Man sentenced to prison for botched kidnapping

Jeremy Egan couldn't hold back the tears as he denounced his participation in the botched kidnapping of a Winnipeg drug dealer.

"I'm embarrassed standing here," Egan told a judge before being sentenced to eight years in prison. "I just want to make a change, be there for the people that matter, not the people who don't."

Court heard Egan, 33, and two other men were acting as "muscle" for a "mid-level independent drug dealer" when they followed the 28-year-old victim to his Logan Avenue workplace and attempted to kidnap him, Jan. 28, 2008.

Crown attorney Dan Chaput said the alleged ringleader was supplying the victim with large quantities of cocaine which he then sold through his "dial-a-dealer" operatives. Chaput said Egan and his cohorts planned to rob the victim of drugs or money, believing that would force him to buy more drugs from the ringleader.

They didn't make it that far. Egan and another man, Patrick Keith Hiltz, 30, tried unsuccessfully to drag the victim out of his car and Hiltz hit him in the head with the butt of a handgun. The commotion caught the attention of the victim's co-workers who attempted to intervene. Chaput said Egan urged Hiltz to "shoot them" before they fled the scene.

The alleged ringleader and "puppet master" watched the drama unfold from a car a short distance away, Chaput said.

Egan pleaded guilty to attempted kidnapping, assault causing bodily harm, and several firearms offences.

"Mr. Egan was the muscle... but he knew what he was getting into," said his lawyer Jeff Nichols.

Egan, a former professional boxer, has a prior history of violent and drug-related offences. He was sentenced to jail in 2004 for assaulting an off-duty cop at a movie theatre.

Justice Brenda Keyser told Egan he will have a hard time landing a job with his criminal record, but it's time he tried.

"You've done a spectacularly bad job of being a criminal, so maybe you should try the opposite," Keyser said.

Egan received double credit of 26 months for time served, which will be deducted from his total sentence.

Hiltz has been granted full immunity from prosecution in return for testifying against his three co-accused.

Biniam Fitur, the alleged ringleader, and co-accused Pedro Maldonado are set to stand trial in January 2011.

Maldonado is currently serving a three year prison sentence for dangerous driving causing death.

Twenty-year-old Shauntelle Roulette was a front-seat passenger in Maldonado's Pontiac Grand Prix shortly before 2 a.m. on May 7, 2004, when Maldonado lost control of the car on Portage Avenue between Clifton Street and Valour Road. The vehicle jumped the centre median and tore out a fire hydrant and several trees before crashing into George Richards Big and Tall Menswear store.


Jeremy Egan couldn’t hold back the tears as he denounced his participation in the botched kidnapping of a Winnipeg drug dealer.
“I’m embarrassed standing here,” Egan told a judge before being sentenced to eight years in prison. “I just want to make a change, be there for the people that matter, not the people who don’t.”
Court heard Egan, 33, and two other men were acting as “muscle” for a “mid-level independent drug dealer” when they followed the 28-year-old victim to his Logan Avenue workplace and attempted to kidnap him on Jan. 28, 2008.
Crown attorney Dan Chaput said the alleged ringleader was supplying the victim with large quantities of cocaine which he then sold through his “dial-a-dealer” operatives. Chaput said Egan and his cohorts planned to rob the victim of drugs or money, believing that would force him to buy more drugs from the ringleader.
They didn’t make it that far. Egan and another man, Patrick Keith Hiltz, 30, tried unsuccessfully to drag the victim out of his car and Hiltz hit him in the head with the butt of a handgun. The commotion caught the attention of the victim’s co-workers who attempted to intervene. Chaput said Egan urged Hiltz to “shoot them” before they fled the scene.
The alleged ringleader and “puppet master” watched the drama unfold from a car a short distance away, Chaput said.
Egan pleaded guilty to attempted kidnapping, assault causing bodily harm, and several firearms offences.
“Mr. Egan was the muscle ... but he knew what he was getting into,” said his lawyer Jeff Nichols.
Egan, a former professional boxer, has a prior history of violent and drug-related offences. He was sentenced to jail in 2004 for assaulting an off-duty cop at a movie theatre.
Justice Brenda Keyser told Egan he will have a hard time landing a job with his criminal record, but it’s time he tried.
“You’ve done a spectacularly bad job of being a criminal, so maybe you should try the opposite,” Keyser said.
Egan received double credit of 26 months for time served, which will be deducted from his total sentence.
Hiltz has been granted full immunity from prosecution in return for testifying against his three co-accused.
Biniam Fitur, the alleged ringleader, and co-accused Pedro Maldonado are set to stand trial in January 2011.

I had a difficult time understanding this article and the crimes committed. The article did not do a very good job of explaining everything. I find the article biased in that it does not offer explanations of the offender's behaviour, by the defence lawyer. It is slanted by only offering what the Crown said. It also does not include the background info on the offender, and/or any hardships, such as poverty, unemployment or drug addictions.

8 years for drug-trade related kidnapping bid 

A Winnipeg man has been sentenced to eight years in prison for a brazen daytime abduction attempt that ended in chaos outside a city business.
Jeremy Egan, 33, pleaded guilty to several charges Tuesday stemming from the bizarre January 2008 incident, including attempted kidnapping, pointing a firearm and assault causing bodily harm.

"I just want to put this behind me. I want to be a good father and role model for my son," a tearful Egan told Court of Queen's Bench Justice Brenda Keyser.
Crown attorney Daniel Chaput said the plot was hatched by a high-level drug supplier who wanted to steal nearly $100,000 worth of cash and cocaine from the victim -- a regular customer of his who dealt drugs at the street level -- so he would have to purchase even more product from him.
Egan and two other men were recruited to be the "muscle" and spent several days planning the attack. They conducted surveillance on their target, obtained a handgun and car and were given specific roles to play. They also bought gloves, balaclavas, zip ties and pillowcases.
"It was decided that as much force would be applied as necessary," Chaput said. The accused wanted to force their victim to turn over his BlackBerry password, so they could access his network of drug contacts and steal from them as well, court was told. The "puppet master" who came up with the plan would not be directly involved, Chaput said. "He wasn't going to get his hands dirty."
The three would-be kidnappers followed the victim from his home to his workplace -- a Logan Avenue autobody shop -- on the morning of Jan. 28. They quickly boxed in the victim's car and surrounded him, waving the gun around and beating their target over the head with the butt end. The victim fought back, leaning on his car horn and refusing to unbuckle his seatbelt. Several co-workers heard the commotion and came running outside.
Egan repeatedly shouted "Shoot them, shoot them" to one of his gun-toting accomplices, Chaput said. But the firearm wasn't loaded and the two men fled in a waiting vehicle driven by the other accused. The victim suffered a large cut on his head, but wasn't seriously injured.
Police obtained surveillance video of the incident from a business across the street and quickly identified the suspects. They found Egan hiding inside a closet in a home and eventually seized a gun with his DNA and blood from their target on it.
Egan is the first of the accused to deal with his charges. The others remain before the courts.

Defence lawyer Jeff Nichols said his client comes from a loving, supportive network of family and friends, but has made some terrible choices in life based on his connection to the drug trade.

"You've already wasted a good chunk of your life," Keyser said. "You weren't raised to do the kind of things you've pleaded guilty to here. You have to get out of the drug scene. That's what's led you down this path."
Egan has spent the past 25 months in custody, which was given double-time credit of 50 months. That leaves him with three years, 10 months left to serve.

Personally, from the facts I was given, feel that 8 years is too harsh for an attempted kidnapping. This man is a father and comes from a supportive family, but just made some bad choices in life and was influenced by the peers he surrounded himself with. I do think that prison is needed in this case, as this man has a prior history and kidnapping is a serious offence, but I think that 3 years or so, would be more appropriate. The article did not mention any mitigating factors in this case, such as drug addictions, which are likely and if that is the case, they are best dealt with using community sanctions. Offenders find ways to get drugs into prison, and in more dangerous ways at that. In that case, I would sentence this man to between 3-4 years prison and have mandatory drug counseling/addictions treatment upon release. He should also be given help to secure employment to help support his family, upon release.     

Man sentenced for sexually assaulting former girlfriend

Man sentenced for sexually assaulting former girlfriend

A Winnipeg man was sentenced Thursday to four years in prison for stabbing and sexually assaulting a former girlfriend after she spurned his repeated demands for anal sex.

Convicted last September, Daniel Olenick was taken into custody by provincial sheriff’s officers as soon as Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Colleen Suche delivered the sentence at Winnipeg’s Law Courts building.

His back to the court gallery and slouched in his chair, Olenick rested his head in his right hand and bounced his right leg up and down while Suche called the crime disgusting and explained her decision.

“Whatever its roots, something is seriously wrong with Mr. Olenick,” Suche said.

Now 49, the victim didn’t attend the sentencing.

Olenick, 47, defended himself at his trial and was convicted of sexual assault, assault causing bodily harm and forcible confinement in the February 2006 incident.

For the sexual assault, Suche sentenced Olenick to four years. On the other two counts, he was given a combined two-year sentence to be served concurrent to the four-year sentence.

She agreed with defence lawyer Daniel Manning’s suggestion of four years.

The Crown was seeking a 10-year sentence.

Suche said sentences of that length are usually given to people who have a history of violence. Olenick had no previous criminal record.

Suche found trouble with the fact Olenick maintains his innocence.

She said the violent episode had a grand emotional toll on the victim, who experienced feelings of betrayal, shame, and fear, and a loss of self-confidence, in addition to physical injuries.

The incident occurred days after Olenick’s then-girlfriend moved into his Point Douglas home.

Court heard the couple had been drinking, smoking crack and arguing before Olenick tied her to a staircase bannister with twine and stabbed her in the arm, hip, abdomen and back.

Olenick untied her, had her cook food for him, and later dragged her to a bedroom and raped her, court was told.

Olenick represented himself at his trial, which resulted in him cross-examining the victim.

The woman told court she felt “raped all over again” by the cross-examination.

I suppose I agree with the sentence of 4 years but I also find it troubling that he maintains his innocence. What if he is innocent? He has no prior record and is a low risk to re-offend, which are mitigating circumstances. I would have liked to have known other background issues, such as employment, poverty, etc. Personally, I feel that between 2-3 years would be more appropriate, but 4 is close enough. 

Manitoba Warriors sentenced to prison for alleged attack

Manitoba Warrior jailed for attack


TWO Manitoba Warriors gang members have pleaded guilty to their role in an attack which saw a man get beaten, stabbed and tossed out a third-floor window.
Russell Warren Disbrowe, 45, and Mervin Frankie Flett, 38, were sentenced to four years in prison Monday following a joint recommendation from Crown and defence lawyers.
The victim, Gerald Marsden, suffered extensive injuries in August 2008 including a broken arm and leg. He also has permanent scars throughout his body. Marsden admits he once belonged to the Manitoba Warriors but left the gang for a fresh start.
Marsden said trouble began after he was called to a Maryland Street apartment block by his brother, who asked him to guard some stolen property. He said he was alone inside the suite when three men burst inside carrying a crowbar, a baseball bat, a beer bottle and piece of wood.
"They told me 'You're gonna die tonight, pray to Jesus'," Marsden testified at a previous hearing. He identified Disbrowe and Fleet but didn't know who the other attacker was.
Former Winnipeg Blue Bomber Colin Scrivener was also charged in the incident but was set free at a preliminary hearing earlier last year after a judge decided there was insufficient evidence against him.
Lawyers for Disbrowe and Flett told court Monday their clients admit beating Marsden but claim it was the "unidentified" third man who threw him out the window.
Crown attorney Geoff Bayly said he was forced to strike a plea bargain because Marsden was now refusing to co-operate with the justice system and has given several different versions of his story. There were also problems with other potential witnesses.
Both Disbrowe and Flett have spent approximately 18 months in custody, which was given double-time credit, leaving them with just under a year to serve.


This article implies that these two men were definitely guilty of the attack and of throwing the other man out of the window, when really, it might have been the third unidentified man, who threw him out the window, but the article only mentions this briefly. The article also does not say what charge the men pleaded guilty to! That is very relevant information that was missed. Also, it does not mention many details of the attack, the victim’s possible role in what happened, was the victim provoking the other men?, or explaining why he was now providing court with different versions of his story. The article did not explain what the other versions were and how they differed from the version they explained in the article. It also does not discuss events leading up the attack and mitigating circumstances of the men. It does discuss the offenders’ background life circumstances (poverty, immigrants, unemployment, lack of education, etc.) or addictions which may have contributed or fuelled the attack. 


Since I don’t know what charge these men pleaded guilty to or their background lives and mitigating circumstances, I cannot say for sure whether I agree or disagree with this sentence.

Crown breaks down while describing impact of sexual assault on victim

Crown breaks down describing rape victims' devastation

A Manitoba Crown attorney wept Monday as she described how a rape victim has been devastated by the attack.
Jocelyn Ritchot had to pause several times as she struggled to read a statement on behalf of the woman, whose 46-year-old former boyfriend pleaded guilty to several charges. He was sentenced to three years in prison in addition to 18 months of time already served. His name isn't being published to protect the identity of the victim.
"I trusted you. I cared for you. I only wanted the best for you. Why, why, why?" the woman wrote. "Emotionally I felt dirty, used, guilty that somehow I allowed it to happen, and very degraded. I feel like my soul has been robbed."
The victim -- who wasn't present for the sentencing hearing -- began dating the man after they met at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting in 2007, court was told. They ended their romance in July 2008 but continued to be friends. However, everything changed when the woman went to his Beausejour-area home in September 2008 and found him intoxicated.
"I wanted to help him. I felt sorry for him. Then it became a nightmare," she wrote.
The man put duct tape over her face, bound her hands and legs together and then sodomized her. He also demanded she call her 18-year-old daughter to come over so he could sexually assault her while she watched. She was repeatedly beaten when she refused. The man also threatened to hit her with a lead pipe.
"No mother should ever be put in that position," Ritchot told court. "He had no regard for the feelings or personal integrity of the victim."
The man eventually untied his victim and allowed her to escape the house, telling her "I have nothing left in my life... I belong in jail."
"I no longer had any personal control. I was at his mercy. I looked into his eyes and could see nothing," the woman recalled in her victim impact statement. "My whole world changed absolutely when that duct tape came out."
The woman said she was unable to cope with the physical and emotional damage she suffered and began drinking again to mask her pain. She also had to quit her job.
"I despise myself for starting to drink again," she said.
The man has a previous criminal history, including a similar sexually motivated attack on his former wife in 2004. He also met her at an AA meeting, court was told.
Defence lawyer Manny Bhangu said his client is sorry for the harm he caused his former girlfriend.
"This was definitely a situation that was fuelled by alcohol," he said.
The man's sentence was a joint recommendation from Crown and defence lawyers.






This article does not spend enough time talking about the offender and his previous background life, history of alcohol addictions and more of the arguments from Defence. It’s clear that this man had alcohol addictions and attempted to seek help through AA, on more than one occasion. This should have been acknowledged. 



This man says that he has nothing left in his life. This article does not delve deeper into the possible reasons why he said this.
It also does not provide enough information on his previous criminal history. Was he found guilty of that offence? What were the events leading up to it? Was it violent, etc.? Not enough is known about the previous attack, for it to have any relevance in this man’s guilt.


Throughout the article, it is implied that this man had intent to harm this woman, when he may not have. I believe that this attack was fuelled by alcohol and that putting this man in prison, is just a lazy response to dodge the issues of alcohol addiction. This man needs more intensive help, in my opinion, such as a residential alcohol treatment program of some sort. It also does not say whether he was employed, lived in poverty, etc. and other mitigating circumstances. 


I understand that he plead guilty but I feel that he should have gotten 2 years less a day combined with probation, to help in addressing his addictions.

Just because a jury convicted three men, does not mean they are definitely guilty of the crime..

Accomplice to appeal
The three men convicted in the 2006 stabbing death of 24-year-old Red River College student Minh Hong Huynh were all handed prison terms Monday, with one already planning to appeal.
Glen Monkman, 39, was convicted by a jury last month of second-degree murder for fatally stabbing Huynh outside the former Main Street bar Club Desire on April 30, 2006. Carlos Tavares, 30, and Norris Ponce, 31, were convicted by the same jurors of manslaughter for their roles in the crime, which the Crown said involved “encouraging and assisting” Monkman.
Justice Brenda Keyser sentenced all three to jail time Monday.
Monkman was handed an automatic life sentence, as are all offenders convicted of murder. He will not be eligible for parole for 12 years, which is part way between the Crown’s suggestion of 15 and the defence’s preference of the minimum 10. Keyser heard the sentencing arguments earlier this month.
Tavares was given a seven-year sentence, minus two years for time served, leaving five to go.
Ponce got a four-year sentence minus two years for time served. Both of their sentences fell between the terms suggested by the Crown and defence at the sentencing hearing.
Tavares told the gallery as he was leaving court Monday that he hopes to appeal. He did not say whether he intends to appeal his conviction or his sentence.
During the trial earlier this year, court heard the accused believed Huynh had previously stabbed Tavares at a wedding social.
Tavares’ cousin Danny Simao testified the men had plotted to go to Club Desire and attack Huynh when they learned he was there the night of the fatal stabbing. Jurors heard evidence Huynh was on steroids and high on cocaine when he started picking fights with several people outside the nightclub, including a man believed to be Ponce. Witnesses said that’s when Monkman intervened and stabbed Huynh in the face and chest.
The 24-year-old later died from his wounds.

I am definitely seeing some bias in this article. First of all, the title says "accomplice to appeal," when it should say "alleged." Just because a jury convicted this man, does make him 100% guilty as I feel that the Crown did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Second, "for their roles in the crime," also implies that these men definitely HAD roles in the crime, when they may not have. Again, just because 12 people "agree" that they did, does not mean it's 100% true.

This article only states the Crown's opinion that these men were "encouraging and assisting Monkman." Nowhere, does it state what the Defence lawyers argued, which is also important information, in order for a reader to make an informed opinion. 

The article talks about what Simao testified but does present any of the counter arguments made by Defence lawyers, which is biased. There were countless contradictions and inconsistencies in his testimony and defence argued that he was unreliable and 100% untrustworthy. This should have been mentioned. 

The article also does not include any background information on the three accused and how the sentence will greatly impact their families. They are victims also. All of these men have families and children and they showed remorse. 

Three sentenced in stabbing death 
Three men were convicted of killing a Winnipeg student outside a downtown bar, but they left court Monday with vastly different sentences for their roles in the 2006 attack.
Glen Monkman, 39, was given a mandatory life sentence with no chance of parole for at least 12 years after being found guilty by a jury last month of second-degree murder.
Carlos Tavares, 31, received five years in prison in addition to one year of time already spent in custody. Norris Ponce, 31, was given two years in jail, in addition to one year of time served. Both men were convicted of manslaughter.
All three accused had originally been charged with first-degree murder.
Ming Hong Huynh, 24, was knifed outside Club Desire on Bannatyne Avenue in April 2006.
Monkman admitted stabbing Huynh four times in the chest and cheek with a small knife while horrified bystanders watched, but claimed he should only be found guilty of manslaughter based on the fact he was provoked.
Ponce was accused of distracting Huynh on the street before the stabbing. Tavares was accused of driving the getaway vehicle. Lawyers for both had argued there was no credible evidence linking them to the attack.
The key issue at trial was whether the jury believed the testimony of the Crown's star witness, Danny Simao, who claims he overheard a plan to kill Huynh while inside a car with the three accused. Defence lawyers argued at trial that Simao was a proven liar.
The Crown argued the accused planned the attack as revenge for another stabbing that happened at a wedding social in March 2006.
Before the attack, court heard Huynh was wandering around shirtless outside the club. His girlfriend, Angie Pfeifer, testified Huynh used steroids and cocaine. The Red River College business administration student was intoxicated and looking to fight anyone who crossed his path, she said.

The headline is biased in this article. It says "three sentenced in stabbing death" which implies that all three men were involved in the death, when really, that may not be the case. 
It also does elaborate on the contradictions and inconsistencies in Simao's testimony and only presents the Crown's opinion. 
In the beginning it says, ".. the their roles in the 2006 attack" which also implies that they are all guilty of playing a role, when that may not be true. Just because a jury convicts, does make it a definite fact. That is the author's opinion that they all played a role. 

As I said in my previous blog posts, I completely disagree with the verdicts first of all. How can a jury convict, when the key witness is unreliable and untrustworthy? I figure that some of them must have conformed to the dominant position of the group, because I don't see how any reasonable person could believe anything he said. Ponce and Tavares should have been acquitted. 

I also disagree with the sentences of Ponce and Tavares. Ponce has a wife and two children to support. I believe 100% that he was not involved in this and did play any role. He told me specifically that he was afraid and nervous of being wrongfully convicted. Guess what? He was. Ponce had been on bail for at least a year prior to the trial and followed all of his conditions. This shows that the Judge should have considered all other alternatives before imprisonment, as stated in the Criminal Code, and realized that prison was not the least restrictive sanction. I believe that a conditional sentence of 2 years should have been imposed. 

I also disagree with Tavares' sentence of 5 years. I also believe that he had no role in this attack and should also have been sentenced to a conditional sentence.  
 

Three men sentenced for alleged roles in 2006 stabbing death

I wrote this article about the three men sentenced (Ponce, Monkman and Tavares) today, as I felt both newspaper stories (Winnipeg Sun and Winnipeg Free Press) were highly biased and did not include enough information from both sides, so here is my article, which presents each side of the argument.

Three men were sentenced to different prison terms for their alleged roles in a stabbing death outside a Winnipeg nightclub in 2006.

            Glen Monkman, 39, was given a mandatory life sentence with parole eligibility set at 12 years after being convicted last month of second degree murder by a jury. The Crown was seeking 15 years for parole eligibility while his lawyer sought 10 years.

            Carlos Tavares, 31, received 5 years in prison in addition to one year in custody of time served, after jurors found him guilty of manslaughter. He will be eligible for parole after serving 1 and a half years. The Crown was seeking 13 years in prison.  

            Norris Ponce, 31, was given 2 years in prison in addition to 2 years time served. When the verdict was delivered last month, Ponce addressed the court by saying, "Not a day goes by where I don't think of what I could have done." Ponce has no previous criminal record and had asked the court to be sentenced lightly in order for him to raise his two children and support his wife as she completes her education. Ponce had been on bail for a year prior to the trial, where he obeyed his conditions, which was why his lawyer argued for a community sentence. Ponce will be eligible for full parole in 8 months. The Crown was seeking 7 years.

       Monkman was originally charged with first degree murder and Ponce and Tavares of second degree murder.  

            Ming Huynh, 24, was stabbed outside Club Desire in Winnipeg on April 30, 2006, which caused his death. Monkman admitted stabbing Huynh four times in the chest and cheek amidst many bystanders. He claimed that he should only have been found guilty of manslaughter based on the fact he was provoked. The Crown accused Ponce of distracting Huynh on the street prior to the stabbing. His defence lawyer argued that Ponce was just another victim of Huynh's, as Huynh was intoxicated, aggressive and had started verbal disputes with numerous people that night. Huynh's girlfriend Angie Pfiefer testified that he used steroids and cocaine and was severely intoxicated on that night. The Crown accused Tavares of driving a getaway vehicle away from the stabbing. Lawyers for Ponce and Tavares argued that there was no credible evidence linking them to the attack and that they should have been acquitted. No murder weapon was ever recovered, but Monkman's blood was found inside the getaway vehicle.  

            The key issue during the trial was related to the testimony of the Crown's key witness, Danny Simao. He claims that the men discussed an attack on the victim prior to arriving at the club. He also claims that the murder weapon was dumped in a river, after the group fled the stabbing. The Crown argued that they planned the attack as revenge for another stabbing where Monkman was the victim, at a wedding social in March 2006. However, defence lawyers argued that the testimony was inconsistent as Simao changed his story repeatedly about what he saw and heard. They argued that his vomiting and retching on the witness stand was a good indicator he was lying. Monkman's lawyer claimed Simao was a 100% untrustworthy witness whose evidence should have been rejected. Simao had been intoxicated and admitted that much of that day was a blank to him and that doesn’t remember the details of the vehicle conversation. Defence lawyers questioned why Simao was seen purchasing food after arriving at the club, if he had actually heard of the harmful plan. All three lawyers suggested that it is because the conversation never took place and accused Simao of fabricating his story.