R. v. K.D.H., 2012 ABQB 471

The accused was initially charged with 40 counts of criminal misconduct and pled guilty to 27 of the charges, including compelling to commit bestiality and bestiality in the presence of or by a child under s 160 of the Criminal Code. The judge noted that although the accused had pled guilty to s 160(1), there was no indication that he himself had committed bestiality, therefore he interpreted the bestiality charge to include section 160 as a whole (para. 6-7).

The accused’s first victims were his own children, KH1 and KH, who were 6 and 10 years old at the time the abuse began. KDH increased the sexual abuse of his daughter KH1 gradually over time, beginning with shared showers and progressing to sexual touching and a range of sexual abuses including intercourse beginning at age 11. The accused’s son, KH, had been subjected to less sexual abuse from the accused. However, he directed KH and KH1 to have sex with each other and attempted to involve the children in sexual activities with his adult partners and their children on a regular basis. Later, the accused’s relationship with RA resulted in a significant increase in the scope of his illegal sexual activities, including bestiality and providing MA, RA’s then-13-year-old daughter, to a friend for sex.

The accused also had an extensive collection of pornography comprised of images (28,500 total 4,760 unique) and videos (9,341 total‑ 4,355 unique), much of it child-related, but of the 4,760 unique images and 4,355 unique video recordings included in the non-child-related material a large portion involved bestiality (dogs and horses), scatological acts, or suggested rape and violence.

The accused’s conduct was shown to be planned and organized; the sexual abuse misconduct escalated over time where he groomed his child victims and exposed them to many forms of pornography including child pornography, fetish activities, incest, and bestiality (para.24). He was the household’s Master, and the other household members were expected to fulfil his desires at all times. According to the agreed statement of facts, the accused and RA planned to knock MA out so that he could have sexual relations with her. MA was then directed to participate in a variety of sexual and fetish activities involving RA, the accused, and AH, a friend of his. The accused whipped MA both sexually and nonsexually and directed MA to engage in bestiality. RA was told to restrain MA – her daughter – during sex, an order with which she complied.

The judge indicated that due to the relative lack of case law, the bestiality portion of the sentencing was difficult to assess, but noted that even single instances of bestiality warranted at least a one-year sentence (para.136). KDH was ultimately sentenced to a total of 18 years in prison, which was reduced by 1,137 days for time served.