The accused was convicted of sexually assaulting a child contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code and while awaiting sentencing for that conviction, attempted to commit bestiality with a dog by anal intercourse three times contrary to s. 160(1) of the Criminal Code. The accused initially denied the offence, but later confessed to police and plead guilty to bestiality.
The Crown argued that the accused’s rehabilitation was best met by incarceration and cited the accused’s lack of empathy and victim-blaming regarding the sexual assault, that the accused committed bestiality in a public place, and that the accused had re-offended. The Defence argued that the accused would best serve his sentence in the community, but the judge was not satisfied that the safety of the community would not be endangered.
The accused was sentenced to eighteen months’ incarceration for the sexual assault since the Crown elected to proceed summarily. The accused was also sentenced to six months’ concurrent incarceration for the bestiality conviction. The sentence was concurrent because in January 2005, the Crown had represented to the court it would be seeking concurrent time.