This is the sentencing case for a 34-year-old man who had pleaded guilty to the sexual assault of the family dog, Tucker, after his wife found him committing the act in the backyard while their two young children slept inside their home. She contacted the RCMP, who arrived and arrested the offender for bestiality after he informed officers, “I f***ed the dog” (para. 21).
The wife’s statement to officers that evening indicated that when she found them outside, the offender told her that “he was killing Tucker because the dog had been problematic”, but when Tucker ran away she noticed that he was yelping and had lotion on him, she asked if the offender had been having sex with the dog. The offender denied the allegation and showed the wife his penis, which she recognized as a lubricant he had tried to convince her to use previously. She went inside to examine Tucker, observed blood on his anus and lubricant all over him. When she asked the offender to leave, he became defensive and angry and said he would not leave. She called the RCMP, and then called her mother to come over to the residence because she was scared of what M.K.V. would do in angry state. The offender admitted after she called authorities that he did sexually assault Tucker and that it was the first time, but it was not a big deal and said she should not involve the police (para. 23).
Tucker was taken that evening to a veterinarian, who examined him under sedation because he “was visibly uncomfortable and kept pulling away when his anal region was touched”. The veterinarian noted that there was visible trauma to the dog’s anus and that Tucker displayed extreme avoidance behaviour atypical of a heavily sedated animal, and went further to state that dogs do not copulate anally and therefore the forced penetration by the offender would have produced fear and pain in Tucker. She wrote in her report: “In conclusion, there are physical, behavioural and radiographic signs that are consistent with sexual abuse. Animals that experience trauma have both physical and emotional changes. The impact of psychological trauma will far exceed beyond the duration of the physical experience. It is important to consider the long-term impact of pain and suffering on an animal that has experienced the trauma of sexual abuse” (para. 26-27).
The pre-sentencing psychiatric/psychological assessment written by a registered psychologist from Forensic Psychiatric Services indicated that the offender exhibited signs of moderate Bipolar Disorder and Panic Disorder as well as some Alcohol Use Disorder and Hallucinogen Use Disorder (psilocybin), both in Sustained Remission. He met virtually with the offender, who had missed two appointments for further psychological testing to determine risk and address the causes of the offence, and wrote in his report that “It is difficult to explain the “causation” of the abuse of the family dog as M.K.V. stated that he had no memory for the event. He stated that he was ‘out of it’ having ingested mushrooms (psilocybin) and consumed a significant amount of alcohol. It may have been an isolated incident related to the active effects of a hallucinogen” (para. 45) and that he believed that he would likely not reoffend sexually, either with animals or humans but was more likely at risk for future self-harm than committing harm to others (para. 46). The psychologist highlighted three contributing factors to the offender’s behaviour: bipolar disorder; history of childhood trauma involving emotional abuse from father and an incident of sexual abuse from an older male relative at age 3 or 4, and alcohol use disorder.
The Crown sought a carceral sentence followed by at least 18 months of probation and a 10-year prohibition against care and control of any animals and registry under the Sex Offender Information and Registration Act (SOIRA) for a period of 10 years. Defence counsel was not opposed to the ancillary orders, but asked the Court to impose a conditional sentence order which the offender would serve in the community.
The Court found it most aggravating that the offender had “violently abused, and physically and emotionally harmed, the family dog he was entrusted to care for. The dog was vulnerable and helpless to defend itself” (para. 70). Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, no prior criminal record and compliance with bail conditions, as well as the possible reduced moral culpability due to the psychological assessment and “collateral consequences” of a large number of very negative posts on social media about this case and about the offender in particular that have caused difficulties in his employment and finding accommodations (para. 74-75).
The Court quoted from the Chen decision submitted by the Crown, agreeing that the statements and principles outlined there relating to cases of animal cruelty are applicable to bestiality cases (para. 94-102). However, what the Court struggled with most was whether, because of the offender’s history of bipolar disorder, childhood trauma, and alcohol use disorder together with the fact that he had consumed alcohol and psilocybin before committing the offence, his moral culpability is to be reduced (para. 103).
The Court found the RCMP constable’s testimony most important in this respect, which indicated that the offender was not grossly intoxicated; he was stable on his feet, did not slur his words, seemed able to understand the officer and was able to engage in meaningful and coherent communication with him, saying nothing unusual to suggest he was suffering from hallucinations or delusions and was in a state of altered reality (para. 110). In addition, the use of lubricant “in the commission of the offence shows a certain amount of pre-contemplation and planning” (para. 112). The Court ultimately agreed with the Crown’s submissions that the offender had exaggerated the role that intoxication played in the offence (para. 107) and that “the evidentiary record in this case does not support a finding that mental illness and intoxication played such a significant role that the [the offender]’s moral culpability is significantly reduced” (para. 114).
The Court ultimately determined that a non-custodial would not adequately serve the objectives of denunciation and deterrence, and imposed a nine-month jail sentence, to be served in a correctional facility, followed by two years of probation which include no contact orders with his wife and children except as allowed by a family or child protection order made by a judge or associate judge who has been given a copy of this order, and not to reside with or be in the presence of any dog or other domestic animal except if in the company of another adult and only if in the course of the offender’s employment.