A 57-year-old man convicted of committing indecent acts on a footpath in the presence of three women has been denied the conditional discharge he sought to prevent his sentence from interfering with his work.
Gaétan Devost, however, avoided prison since the Court chose to impose a suspended sentence, in addition to two years’ probation and 240 hours of community service.
In this legal case, three friends on summer vacation in the Bas-Saint-Laurent region were hiking in 2021 on a public trail that runs along the Trois-Pistoles River. They decided to go and cool off there. Then, they saw a naked man sitting on a rock near the waterway. They settled down further away.
“At one point, one of them noticed that he was masturbating while watching them. She informed her friends. Subsequently, he moved twice and continued the same ploy. Before leaving, he approached, proud and smiling, completely naked and semi-erect,” wrote Judge Luce Kennedy of the Court of Quebec, who handed down his sentence at the end of July.
At trial, he admitted to bathing naked, but denied masturbating. The court did not accept his version and found him guilty of “voluntarily committing an indecent act in any place with the intention of insulting or offending the three victims”. This offence carries a maximum sentence of two years in prison.
When it came time to determine sentencing, Mr. Devost’s lawyer suggested a conditional discharge — which would spare him a criminal record if he complied with the conditions imposed.
Because a prison sentence would harm his work: as an administrator and co-owner of a company that installs electronic security systems, it is in his best interest, without harming the public interest, to benefit from such a measure, he argued. Moreover, the conviction has already had an impact on his livelihood: the Private Security Bureau revoked his license, considering that he was found guilty of indecent acts. Since then, his company has lost several contracts and is experiencing financial difficulties.
He argued that he must absolutely be granted an absolution so that his company can resume operations as soon as possible.
Aggravating factors retained
The Crown attorney instead proposed a prison sentence of four to six months, emphasizing that the man still admits nothing — despite his conviction — and that his pre-sentence report, like the specialized sexual delinquency assessment, are “not positive.”
Justice Kennedy weighs a host of factors.
She noted as “mitigating circumstances” that the man has no criminal record in such matters, that he is an asset to society and that this is an isolated event.
On the other hand, there are aggravating factors, she writes: the number of adult victims and the consequences of his actions on them, the risk of reoffending “which is average” and the fact that he trivializes the act of undressing in a public place.
Then the magistrate must determine whether it is a case where an accused can obtain an absolution.
“In very rare circumstances, an accused who has committed this type of crime could be granted an absolution,” she wrote. But not here: it is not the appropriate measure, she ruled.
She also rejects the prison sentence suggested by the Crown: “It is a mistake to believe that only imprisonment can adequately meet the objectives of denunciation and general deterrence, severity not being the prerogative of imprisonment.”
Justice Kennedy instead chose to suspend the sentencing for a period of 2 years and issue probation for the same period, as well as an obligation to perform 240 hours of community service. Such a sentence “promotes his accountability, his social reintegration and his rehabilitation, while also contributing to the objective of individual deterrence,” she wrote.
Mr. Devost may choose to appeal this sentence.