After terrorizing and beating his partner and children for years, a violent and hyper-controlling man spent only nine months in prison. The sentence, described as “lenient” by a judge, was negotiated between prosecutors, in exchange for a guilty plea avoiding the terrified victim to testify. However, she agreed to deliver her testimony to the Duty in a text published Friday, in the hope of preventing others from suffering a similar fate. Today, while she is considering leaving the shelter for victims of domestic violence, she comes up against a wall: she wants to protect herself by finding accommodation as far away as possible from her ex-partner — except that ‘she is unable to get his address.
Pink [nous utilisons un nom fictif pour la protéger] could therefore rent an apartment on the same street as him, without knowing it, and then come across him repeatedly.
This mother’s journey through the legal system helps illustrate the difficult choices that victims of violence must face and their attempts — sometimes undermined by the law itself — to protect themselves.
To live without fear, Rose contacted her ex-partner’s probation officer to find out his address.
The agent explained that he cannot reveal it: the law prohibits it. We are not here in a context of parole.
“This is information considered private,” confirms Me Michèle Lamarre-Leroux. The lawyer specializing in criminal law, who also supports victims in the legal process, confirms that there “is nothing that allows the victim to have access to that”.
The situation revolts Arianne Hopkins, vice-president of the board of directors of the Alliance of shelters of 2e stage for women and children victims of domestic violence, which has 38 member centers in 15 regions of Quebec. She also made arrangements for Rose, using a different approach.
“Forget the address!” Just tell us in which half of the island of Montreal he lives and Madam will go to the other,” she exclaimed, recounting her conversation with the probation officer. She received another refusal.
Discouraged, she asked this question in an interview: “Can we go further in the justice system to protect women? » The precise address does not have to be given directly to the victim, she offers as a solution: an intermediary could take care of obtaining and providing a perimeter to avoid.
The provincial coordinator for domestic violence at the DPCP (Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions), Ms.e Isabelle Dorion indicates that the probation officer is also not required to provide this address to Crown prosecutors.
But could they then ask a judge to order the offender to provide the address?
This is not part of the practices. “I don’t really have an answer,” said M.e Dorion. Perhaps the judge could use his discretionary power to order it: we would have to explore the question” and “see legally what would allow us to force the attacker to make this information available”. This could “be the subject of better practice,” she adds.
An ignored protection mechanism
As for the anti-reconciliation bracelet, it is now available everywhere in Quebec and it can be part of the conditions of probation. The system includes two geolocation devices linked together, a bracelet permanently attached to the offender’s ankle and a cell phone given to the victim. If the offender approaches, a signal will be sent to a central unit, in contact with the police.
“If I could have had it, I would feel a lot safer,” Rose said in an interview.
Despite years of violence and coercive control, the bracelet “wasn’t really discussed” as an option, she said.
The system is relatively new, and it is “seen as a very restrictive condition by the courts”, explained Me Dorion. Before the judge, it must be demonstrated that it is “necessary” in the circumstances. This is done in various ways, by proving the criminal history of the offender, by pleading that he risks not respecting the conditions imposed by the judge or by arguing that it was a case of coercive control, described -She.
However, Rose’s ex-partner has a criminal record and had been detained awaiting trial for not having respected the conditions of his release and having given an invalid address. In addition, he had been wanted by the police for more than ten years under an arrest warrant issued in another province.
Fear of testifying
The man faced eight charges — assaulting Rose and their children, criminal harassment and threats — and was scheduled to stand trial earlier this year.
Rose says she felt like she could testify from another room in the courthouse — a method called teletestimony — so she wouldn’t be in the same room as him.
But shortly before the trial, she realized that wasn’t going to happen. Instead, she was offered to deliver her story behind a screen, where she could not see it. It wasn’t enough for her. “I was afraid to be in the same room with him. » Traumatized by everything she experienced, she feared panicking, losing track and even that “her brain would shut down” if she heard the sounds or mouth noises he made at home to call her home. ‘order.
The court file does not reveal why teletestimony was not possible.
However, in theory, it is quite easy for a victim to obtain the right to testify behind a screen or remotely. It’s not automatic, but the criteria are quite easy to meet, explains Me Lamarre-Leroux. Defense lawyers are less opposed to it than before and judges are more inclined to grant one of these measures, she notes, as is Me Dorion.
Sentence negotiations
Sensitive to Rose’s fears, the Crown prosecutor then set about negotiating with the defense to see if she could get the accused to plead guilty — and avoid trial. There is no question of putting pressure on a victim to testify, underlined Mr.e Dorion.
Result ? He pleaded guilty to four out of eight counts — the others were dropped during negotiations. The agreement also provides for a “common suggestion” of sentence which must be presented to the judge: 12 months in prison. In addition, to protect Rose, the Crown prosecutor obtained three years of probation, which is the maximum.
The length of the suggested prison sentence, however, “surprised” the judge called to ratify it.
“Why just 12 months? The public needs to understand why it’s just 12 months. It’s a terrible situation that was experienced by the children and the lady,” he told the Crown prosecutor, demanding explanations.
The guilty plea weighed heavily in the balance, she justified. “This saved the trial and the victim from having to testify. »
The judge described the sentence as “lenient” and told the man that if he had been found guilty after a trial it would have been “much longer”. The magistrate did not even have the whole picture: he had only received a brief statement of the facts admitted by the man.
Since each day of pretrial incarceration counts as 1.5 days, his 9 months in prison amounted to 13.5 months. So he had already served his sentence that day and left the courthouse a free man.
In domestic violence, one of the issues is that, often, the threats and attacks are carried out over several years. It can therefore be difficult for the Crown to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the unlawful acts. We don’t necessarily want to put the victim back into all that and the trials would be endless, explains M.e Lamarre-Leroux. Which means that often, “the entire context is not considered”, and the sentence is not proportional to all the violence suffered, she adds.
Several victims’ rights organizations are campaigning for “coercive control” to be recognized as an offense in its own right in the Criminal Code, which would make it possible to take into account various behaviors and not just certain specific violent acts. . Ottawa is currently reviewing this request.
If this had already been integrated into the Criminal Code, it would have allowed the sentence “to live up to what he did,” believes Mr.me Hopkins.
For Rose, the three-year probation — during which her ex-partner will be monitored — was very important so that he “would not do the same thing to another woman.”
Then it gives her time to prepare, she said. She wants to find a job, save money and get a car: “If he comes back, I’ll put the children in the car and leave. »
This text is the second in a series of three.
Read Monday: After violence, a mother’s obstacle course to help her children