Families For Justice Alberta Prepared for the: Standing Committee - - PDF document

Families For Justice Alberta

Prepared for the: Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security

Submitted and prepared by: Sheri Arsenault

FOREVER YOUNG- Impaired Driving Tragedy-A True Story JEUNES POURTOUJOURS- Conduire en état d’ivresse –

Une histoire vraie A Five Minute Video to Symbolize the Inconceivable Heartache and Sorrow that FOUR Canadian Families Experience Every Single Day in our Country. Une vidéo de cinq minute pour Symboliser le chagrin et la peine inconcevables dont QUATRE Familles Canadiennes Souffrent Chaque Jour dans notre Pays. (To be viewed prior to presentation) (À visualiser avant la présentation)

Presented and submitted in both official languages. Présenté et soumis dans les deux langues officielles.

YouTube Link / Lien You Tube: https://youtu.be/srxETxEWvsk By/Par: Sheri Arsenault ~Dedicated to Bradley Arsenault, to all our angels~ ~Dédié à Bradley Arsenault, Dédié à tous nos anges~

Special acknowledgments to KewProductions and Ines Tyler Remerciements spécials à KewProductions et Ines Tyler

• 1 -

Families for Justice (Alberta) Sheri Arsenault Brief To The House of Commons/Chambre Des Communes CANADA Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security February 6, 2017 Firstly, I want to thank you for inviting me to speak to you on what is to me, and likely our whole country, one of the most important decisions a Government and Parliament could make during our lifetime. Safety is a non- partisan issue; and everyone’s concern. I speak to you today not as a legal expert, or as an organization with vast resources, but as a common citizen and a real victim. I also want to thank you for watching the video of my personal

• tragedy. What you saw there is not just my own heartbreaking story but a video meant to

depict what on average 4 families go through every day in Canada. We bury our children, and loved ones and continue our lives in sorrow forever. It’s not a matter of when an impaired driving tragedy will occur, but is a matter of who is next. On November 26th, 2011, my 18 year old son Brad, and his two good friends Kole Novak and Thad Lake were violently killed by a drunk driver that was 3 times over the legal limit. The

• ffender mowed through my son’s car with his heavy pickup truck travelling at 200 kms/hr in

a 70 km/hr zone. I can attest that it was an extremely horrific experience. My son Bradley could only be identified by his dental records. There was nothing left of him. Every parent’s worst nightmare is that knock on the door by that stranger, in a uniform with his hat off. I had that knock on my door and my life will never be the same. It’s hard to find joy in life when you lose a child, especially so horrifically, and violently for a crime that is so preventable. The impaired driver, Mr. Johnathan Pratt, was subsequently charged with 3 counts of impaired operation of a vehicle causing death, 3 counts of driving over the 0.08 BA limit causing death and 3 counts of manslaughter for a total of 9 charges. He was found guilty and convicted on all 9 charges. He was then sentenced on August 28, 2014, to 3-five year concurrent sentences for the manslaughter charges, and 3-three year concurrent sentences for the impaired driving causing deaths (a total sentence of 8 years). Attaching manslaughter to this crime is rare as it has only been done 14 times in Canada and three times in Alberta. I have recently been advised by Correctional Services Canada, that Mr. Pratt will be eligible for full parole on April 28, 2017 which is only 2 years and 8-months of his 8-year sentence. He killed 3 young men! It was while I was suffering from extreme grief that I had a vision, a vision that every child, every parent, every man and women would someday be able to get home safely; I had a

• 2 -

dream that everyone could come home on our streets and roadways without the fear that they would be killed or injured by the actions of an impaired driver. I knew that I could never bring my son, Brad, back but that I could possibly do something positive that would prevent other mothers from going through a similar tragedy. It was at this time that I joined forces with another grieving mother from Surrey, British Columbia who founded ‘Families for Justice’ and who had suffered a similar loss. We and a small group of other grieving mothers felt strongly that the sentences given to impaired drivers causing death(s) were much too lenient to act as a deterrent for preventing this crime from happening in the first place. We also felt that the sentence given to impaired drivers causing death(s) was not at all commensurate with

• ther sentences given for similar serious offences. Our group became larger and larger every
• week. Families for Justice was able to gather in excess of 117,000 signatures on their Petition

which recommended changes be made to the Criminal Code. Most significant was the Petition’s recommendation to include “a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years for impaired driving convictions causing death(s). The Petitions were all presented and tabled in the House of Commons. Current Legislation The early suffering from my loss was in itself very difficult but the attendance to some 31 Court related appearances only compounded my difficulties. It took almost a period of 3 years from the date of the tragedy to the date of sentencing. The offenders have many rights that include the right for bail, the right to expert defence, the right to a Preliminary Hearing, the right to a full trial and some have the right to receive Gladue Report considerations prior to sentencing. Then after being convicted the offender has the right to an Appeal, a right for passes to leave prison, a right for temporary escorted passes for personal development, the right to apply for day parole after serving 1/6 of their sentence, the right for full parole after serving 1/3 of their sentence and the right for Statutory Release after serving 2/3 of their

• sentence. The victims’ only right is to prepare and present a Victim Impact Statement. Period.

The justice system seems almost biased in favour of the offender. Understandably, Court

• fficials seldom have to view the scene of an impaired driving disaster involving death. It is
• nly the family victims, the first responders and law enforcement who are visually impacted

and can fully appreciate the destruction done by an offender. People of all statures and walks of life are willing to get behind the wheel of a vehicle and drive while impaired. The risk of being caught is very low and when a fatal collision happens, the sentences are extremely lenient compared to other crimes that cause death. Death(s) caused by an impaired driver are still often perceived as an unfortunate accident by

• ur current sentencing practices. The inconsistencies among similar offences, with similar

circumstances, the same offence with different judges, and the same offence in different geographical locations is simply staggering. I have seen sentences as low as “house arrest” and have personally attended dozens of Court cases that included trials, plea bargain deals, sentences and parole hearings of others that are walking in my same painful shoes. My attendance was not only to support someone that I could relate with but was to help navigate them through our extremely complicated justice system. The one common theme that’s found in all cases was the lenient sentences given to the offenders. The lenient sentences do not reflect the seriousness of this crime, the loss of life, and the trauma it caused to the victim

• families. The general public feels that the sentences given for these horrific crimes that cause

death(s) are “a joke” or “a slap” on the wrist”. The public wants stiffer penalties. I do believe

• 3 -

there is a need to balance all sentencing goals to include deterrents, restitution, and

• rehabilitation. For anyone who ever considers the consequences of driving while impaired, the

deterrence goal is so important in setting an example. The Proposed Legislation I want to give you a victim’s perspective of why I feel that Bill C-226, “The Impaired Driving Act” will be very good legislation. Our Government’s main role is to protect and ensure the safety of all Canadians and this “Bill”, I believe, will accomplish that objective. I am not speaking only for myself but for all parents, siblings, relatives and friends of anyone who has fallen victim to this crime and has witnessed its’ devastation first hand. I’m speaking for the general public. Through the unbelievable grief of losing your child, to being dragged through the Courts, and with the disappointment with lenient sentences and release practices and norms, it is a process of continual victimization. The proposed legislation will save lives and spare families and communities from the devastation and carnage that drunk drivers leave

• behind. It will help protect the public from the very losses that occur on a daily basis. There

are on average 4 innocent lives lost in Canada every day! It is the #1 cause of criminal deaths in Canada and it is 100% preventable. There are more lives lost and injuries caused by impaired drivers on an annual basis in Canada than lives lost and injures caused by recent

• wars. This crime claims more lives than twice all other forms of homicide combined! Our

Courtrooms are overflowing with these tragic cases and what is truly distressing to victim families is the complex legislation and the many loopholes that exist that allow offenders to walk free. Approximately 78% of impaired drivers that cause death(s) are never charged because of loopholes. Of the 22% that police and Prosecutors are able to charge only 11% are

• convicted. I fell into that 11%, I’m considered lucky, I don’t feel lucky. Bill C-226

addresses these loopholes, strengthens our current legislation and will deter the segment of the public that considers driving a vehicle after consuming alcohol. Also, Bill C-226 addresses the need for consecutive sentences which I fully support as this has been unjust to Canadian

• Society. I understand legislation will not be the total answer to crime prevention, but coupled

with education and other preventative measures it may be possible to effect behavioral and cultural change and realize my dream. Mandatory Minimum Sentences The effectiveness and benefits of mandatory minimum sentences has been controversial among lawmakers. It is our understanding that the Government is committed to a review of all mandatory minimum sentences. We agree with this commitment for possible mandatory minimum sentences for exceptionally minor, non- violent offences. Likewise, we believe that the need for mandatory minimum sentences for all major serious crimes should be reviewed for their appropriateness. Sentencing is considered the most difficult and important stage in

• ur criminal justice system. Principles of good sentencing include the protection of the public

and the reduction of crime, to serve as a deterrent to commit or re-commit a crime, to exact retribution for the affected victims and community and to help in the rehabilitation of

• ffenders. A sentence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime and the degree of

responsibility of the offender. We do not feel that these principles are being followed with respect to the lenient sentences given to impaired drivers causing death(s).

• 4 -

There are two main factors that are contributing to lenient sentencing in our justice system. Firstly, under the Criminal Code, the mandatory minimum penalty given for a convicted impaired driver causing death(s) is a thousand ($1000) dollar fine. With the much higher disposable incomes, this penalty is laughable. It is viewed as a “credit card fine” and it provides absolutely no deterrence for driving impaired and causing a serious death crime. Secondly, judges are viewed to have a much too wide area of discretion, particularly at the lower levels of sentencing. The public does not always support their decisions. With all due respect for our judges who have a very difficult and complex job, they are only human. It seems many judges still view an impaired driver tragedy as an accident, and a one-time-

• ccurrence which is not likely to be repeated. At times the offender seems to become the
• victim. It seems that more emphasis is placed on rehabilitation and less on deterrence. Judges

seem reluctant to give first-time offenders lengthy prison terms. The majority of sentences are in the order of two to three years but some may be much less or much greater for the same crime under the same circumstances. There are reasons for these inconsistencies and disparities other than the consideration of mitigating or aggravating factors. Judges base their decisions often on outdated case law and precedent. Possibly their hands are tied. Times have changed; alcohol is more readily available, vehicles are more powerful, roadways are paved and speeds are higher and impaired driving collisions are more deadly. The judges’ background, personal attitudes and penal philosophies can differ, they may operate in different geographical areas where conditions are different and their experience may be from different Court systems. This all leads to judicial inconsistencies. Mandatory minimum sentences would probably not be required if the Criminal Code was more stringent and if the judges were given guidelines and consistently imposed higher sentences for impaired drivers causing death(s). This does not seem likely to happen under the present indeterminate sentencing model. A more structured sentencing model is needed. The proposed 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for convicted impaired drivers causing death(s) provides a more structured approach to sentencing. An amended Criminal Code would provide a basic benchmark for this crime. It would reduce judicial inconsistencies in sentencing; it would still allow judges a considerable area of discretion for other sanctions such as rehabilitation, restitution, etc.; it would keep sentences more congruent with other sentences given for crimes of similar gravity and most important it would greatly strengthen the deterrence goal in sentencing. Meaningful mandatory sentences conveys the message to the public that certain crimes are deemed especially grave and that people who commit them deserve and can expect harsh sanctions. It is anticipated that the recommended mandatory minimum sentence of 5-years would not violate Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedom as it should not be construed as being cruel, excessive, disproportionate and beyond standards of common decency when compared to similar crimes and sentences. Deterrence is one of the more rational goals for sentencing because it is so easily articulated and understood and because the amount of punishment required to effect deterrence can be established effectively. General deterrence helps prevent the general population from committing a crime similar to the one for which a particular offender has been sentenced. The reasoning is that the general public learns what follows a criminal activity by observing how

• thers are being punished for such behaviors. If the ultimate goal of good sentencing is to

reduce crime the general deterrence component of sentencing is most effective because it focuses on a large segment of society. That is the reason we feel it is so important that first

• 5 -

time offenders of impaired driving causing death(s) be subjected to a mandatory minimum sentence of 5-years which should help to prevent many of these crimes from occurring in the first place. It would not appear likely that a “five year mandatory minimum sentence” for impaired driving causing death(s) would be challenged under Sec. 7 of the Charter of Rights and

• Freedoms. Again, this sentence should not be considered excessive, too stringent, cruel and

unnecessary for vehicular homicide (manslaughter). It would commensurate with other mandatory minimum sentences given for other similar violent crimes. From my personal

• bservations while touring one of our Federal prisons the inmates, many of which were

serving impaired driving causing death sentences, appeared to be well cared for and suffered very few hardships other than their loss of societal freedoms. Also with the early parole eligibility and the Statutory Release provisions most offenders would be required to serve much less than the five year mandatory minimum sentence. In closing, impaired driving is of great public concern to all Canadians. No one is immune to this crime; this crime simply does not discriminate. We all know it is senseless and we all know it entirely preventable. We have all been educated about the horrors of impaired driving for well over 3 decades now. This is 2017 and the choice to drive while intoxicated is a wilful and dangerous. Unless you are a victim, it may be hard to fully understand or imagine how horrific and devastating these tragedies can be. Sadly, as I speak to you, close to 200 parents are rushing to the hospital. Will their child survive, what life altering injuries, brain injuries, loss of limbs, will they have? Today there will be 4 new mothers being told their loved one or their child is not coming home, ever. How little value will be placed on their loved one? You would be hard pressed to find Canadians that believe our current sentences for impaired drivers that cause death (s) are anywhere close to where they should be. In conclusion it is recommended that section 320.21 (1) mandatory minimum sentence of five years for Impaired Drivers causing death(s) and also section 322.22 (2) sentences to be served consecutively remain in the Act for Impaired Driving without amendments. Since this is a non-partisan issue, I would hope that all the members of the Committee will review the need for the inclusion of the 5 year mandatory minimum sentence with an open mind and on its

• wn merit. Despite what lawyers, civil rights groups and even MADD have said in regard to

the effects of mandatory minimum sentences I ask that you refer to the public, the people who signed the Families for Justice Petition, the people who have no investment in this crime, but

• nly want safe roadways and the ability for everyone to get home safely. Canadians want

stronger sentences for those that cause serious injuries and death(s). If our current Government will not take this opportunity to improve public safety, than I can

• nly hope future Governments will help me realize my dream. It’s what the people want; it’s

what Brad would want. Submitted and prepared by: Sheri Arsenault References: 1.- Canadian Criminal Justice (3rd Edition) Curt T. Griffiths 2.- Fundamentals of the Criminal Justice System (2nd Edition) Donald A. MacIntosh

Government of Gouvernment

Canada Canada

October 16, 2014 Robert and Sheri Arsenault 70- 49547 RR243 Leduc AB T9E 2X2 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Arsenault: This letter acknowledges receipt of your request for information concerning Johnathan PRATT. The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and the Parole Board of Canada (PBC) have registered you to receive ongoing information specific to Johnathan PRATT's case. The information that may be provided to you in accordance with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) is outlined in the enclosed summary of CSC and PBC responsibilities. Johnathan PRATT is incarcerated at Drumheller Institution which is a minimum and medium security facility in Drumheller, Alberta. Offences: Court of Conviction: Sentence Start Date: Length of Sentence: Eligibility Dates: Escorted Temporary Absences: Unescorted Temporary Absences: Day Parole: Full Parole: Statutory Release Date: Warrant Expiry Date (end of sentence): Manslaughter x3

• Impaired Driving - Cause Death x3

Court of Queen’s Bench, Wetaskiwin, Alberta August 28, 2014 8 years May occur at any time during this sentence December 28, 2015 October 28, 2016 April 28, 2017 December 28, 2019 August 27, 2022 The CSC and the PBC will contact you as developments occur in this case at the contact information that you provided in your application. In order to ensure you receive this information promptly, please advise one or both of us of any change to your telephone number or address. A Victim Services Officer (VSO) with the CSC will keep you informed of the current location and movements of the offender while incarcerated or on conditional release in the community. A VSO will be contacting you in the near future to discuss your preferences about how to receive the information. In the meantime, should notification be required outside of regular business hours, you will be contacted by a Duty Officer from CSC’s National Monitoring Centre. A Regional Communications Officer (RCO) with the PBC will keep you informed of scheduled parole reviews and all decisions made by the PBC concerning this offender. You may also observe this

• ffender's hearings, present a statement to the Board members at hearings, and receive copies of

decisions made by the Board.

Dear Sir/Madam: As you can see in the attached October 16, 2016 letter to myself from Corrections Service Canada the lives of 3 young men at MOST is worth approximately 18 months each, if the

• ffender is to serve their sentence to their Statutory Release Date it would be 2/3 of their

sentence. It is very rare for these offenders to serve even 2/3 of their sentence. Serving 1/3 of the sentence is the norm. Five year mandatory minimums would not be considered too harsh or unjust for this crime considering the loss of life, parole eligibility, and in comparison to other serious crimes. 4 innocent Canadians a DAY die a horrific death at the hands of a impaired driver! We need deterrent, we need protection, most of all we need Political Will. My son’s life is worth 11 months, at the very most 18 months. This is with an 8 year sentence. What’s your children’s life worth?” Brad’s mom, Sheri Arsenault January 30, 2017 www.bradkolethad.com