Even though Judge Joëlle Roy made several errors in imposing a very lenient sentence on a man who had attacked a former SPVM investigator, the Quebec Court of Appeal maintains her decision. The young assailant gets away with a sentence half as high as his accomplices.
Former police officer Pietro Poletti suffered a violent beating at his home in June 2020, while he was with his 82-year-old mother. Three men showed up unexpectedly, hitting the ex-investigator with kicks and punches, and even with bricks and snow brushes. Pietro Poletti was very damaged. An assailant closed a door on the old lady.
Mitchaino Bruno and Yadley Deutz-St-Jean were sentenced to 9 and 8 years in penitentiary by judge Alexandre Dalmau. But before judge Joëlle Roy, the third assailant, Sandel Pierre, was luckier: he was sentenced to four years of imprisonment, while the Crown demanded double that.
The judge of the Court of Quebec noted surprising arguments in her decision, for example by emphasizing that the attackers had not stolen anything, had not used other objects within reach to attack the victim and that M Poletti suffered “minor” injuries.
PHOTO FILED AS PROOF
Pietro Poletti was hit in the face with a brick
In a decision rendered Thursday, the Court of Appeal upheld the sentence imposed. The Crown was now seeking a six-year sentence. The judgment, however, lists several errors of “principle” committed by Judge Joëlle Roy of the Court of Quebec.
Firstly, the judge said she did not believe in “sentence ranges” (a summary of the minimum and maximum sentences already imposed serving as a guide to judges, without being a straitjacket). She then refused to take into account the sentences already handed down for violent home invasion. An error, according to the Court of Appeal, since it thus failed to take into account the “principle of parity” of sentences.
PHOTO OLIVIER JEAN, THE PRESS
Judge Joëlle Roy in 2016
Judge Roy also affirmed that the principle of individualization was the “cardinal principle” in matters of sentencing. The Court of Appeal reminds him of this basic rule: the fundamental principle is rather the “proportionality” of the sentence in relation to the seriousness of the crime and the responsibility of the offender, while individualization is a secondary principle.
But in separate reasons, Judge Martin Vauclair is more nuanced than his colleagues: Judge Roy could “express her dissatisfaction” with the concept of “sentence ranges”. And it is not necessary, according to him, to grant “exaggerated importance” to the judge’s choice of words in relation to these principles.
When a judge imposes a sentence, he must take into account mitigating and aggravating factors. Here, Judge Roy only focused her decision on the circumstances that made it possible to mitigate the accused’s responsibility. Important aggravating factors, including the premeditation of the attack and the fact that it was a common criminal, were omitted, underlines the Court of Appeal.
“However, here too, the law is clear: the sentencing judge is required to take into consideration not only the mitigating circumstances, but also the aggravating circumstances,” recalls Judge Frédéric Bachand.
However, it is not “justified” to impose a more severe sentence on Sandel Pierre, concluded the Court of Appeal. The judges emphasize that the 4-year sentence remains at the “lower threshold” of the range. Then, even if there are several aggravating circumstances, the mitigating circumstances are important, especially the very young age of the accused (18 years old).
“It follows that the emphasis must also be placed on the objective of social reintegration, which is all the more relevant, the file demonstrating a certain potential for rehabilitation in the respondent,” concludes the Court of Appeal .
The only change to the decision: Sandel Pierre will have to provide his DNA. Judge Roy in fact made another error by not responding to the Crown’s request to this effect.
Me Philippe Vallières-Roland and Me Julien Fitzgerald is leading the case for the public prosecutor, while Me Kristina Markovic defends the offender.