The Director of Penal and Criminal Prosecutions (DPCP) will appeal the sentence imposed on an engineer for sexual assault and voyeurism: he had been granted a conditional discharge because the judge considered that a conviction would have had “negative consequences and disproportionate” on his career.
Since the judgment was reported by Radio-Canada on Monday, many voices have criticized this sentence considered lenient.
Tuesday afternoon, the DPCP quickly let it be known that it would appeal the sentence imposed on Simon Houle by Judge Matthieu Poliquin of the Court of Quebec on June 21.
“A motion for leave to appeal is being drafted and will be filed with the Court of Appeal by July 21,” said on Twitter DPCP spokesperson Audrey Roy-Cloutier. The public prosecutor had instead asked for 18 months in prison.
The victim was notified of his intention, she adds.
Sexual assault and voyeurism
In this case, Simon Houle had pleaded guilty to charges of sexual assault and voyeurism.
According to the evidence reported by the magistrate in his judgment, the victim fell asleep in a room after a party with friends. She woke up as Simon Houle moved back and forth in her private parts and undid her bra to expose her breasts. He took photos of her, which were later recovered by the police.
“There is a victim and a single event, which takes place after all quickly”, writes the judge.
On the other hand, the nine photos make it possible to establish that the accused nevertheless had time to take pictures of the private parts of the victim in two different places in the apartment, and show the intrusive and serious nature of the gestures made. by Simon Houle. He also admitted having committed similar acts on one occasion in the past, “disturbing” facts, according to the magistrate, but which “also demonstrates his transparency and the seriousness of the psychological approach he is undertaking”.
Judge Poliquin notes that he collaborated, recognized the facts and his wrongs from the outset, is undergoing therapy and has a “strong potential for social reintegration”. He notes his “young age” at the time of the events — he was 27 — and his lack of a prior record in such matters.
Given these factors, the judge felt that a conditional discharge was the appropriate sentence in his specific case “even though it could be argued that a discharge is a sentence rarely imposed for this type of offence. »
Although not perfect, he is a person of good moral character, the judge said, ruling that a “conviction would have particularly negative and disproportionate consequences for him, when he could hardly travel outside the country, which could possibly hamper his career as an engineer”. However, he has not had to travel for his job until now.
To refuse to order that the accused be discharged in this case would amount to saying that a discharge is never possible in the presence of an offense of sexual assault, concluded Justice Poliquin.