Décision

R. c. Worrell							2010 QCCQ 9766
COURT OF QUEBEC

CANADA
PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
DISTRICT OF					LABELLE
CITY OF				MANIWAKI
Criminal Division
No:		565-01-000510-081


DATE:			November, 12, 2010
______________________________________________________________________

BY	THE HONOURABLE					RÉAL R. LAPOINTE, J.C.Q., PRESIDING
______________________________________________________________________


HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Prosecutrix
v.
LOUISA WORRELL
Accused

______________________________________________________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF JULY 29, 2010
______________________________________________________________________

[1] Louisa Worrell admitted to committing a mischief on November 19, 2008, in Lac-Rapide. The charge was laid by way of section 430, 1), c), 4), b) of the Criminal Code; it is the summary conviction offence of having obstructed, interrupted or interfered with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property.

[2] As a result of the same sequence of events, Louisa Worrell was also charged with three counts of assaulting a peace officer, the offence provided by section 270, 1), a) Criminal Code. These charges were again laid by way of summary conviction as opposed to indictable offences.

[3] Stated as briefly as possible, Ms. Worrell participated in a citizen’s demonstration in order to express her support of an Aboriginal community protest. The initiative consisted of erecting the blockade of a Quebec highway running by or through a Native Reserve in order to bring attention to the community’s claim.

[4] More specifically her role was to act as a “designated medic” in case of such a need.

[5] After what seems to have been a full day of “peaceful obstruction”, police authorities decided to dismantle the blockade in order to allow car and truck traffic to resume normally along this highway. Participants who did not abide by police orders to quit the premises were physically removed.

[6] While attempting to respond to an individual who was crying out for medical attention Louisa Worrell defied police orders in trying to reach the latter. She was physically seized by the men whom she fought uselessly to break away. She did so by kicking and biting. She continued to display an aggressive behaviour throughout the travel time until she arrived at the police station where she was detained.

[7] These details appear from the joint submission on facts and from the pre-sentence report. There was no specific notice of disputed facts in regards to the latter.

[8] The Prosecutor requests a conditional sentence of imprisonment for a term of three months, based on the principle provided by section 718.2, b) Criminal Code, according to which “a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances”.

[9] Indeed, others who participated at the demonstration were also declared guilty of such offences, including the three co-accused. One of these received a three months conditional sentence of imprisonment though he or she had no prior convictions such as the actual offender.

[10] But Court is also informed that another offender was sentenced to a 30 days imprisonment sentence, although this man was the initiator of the protest and one who had prior convictions. Consideration was given to his pre-trial custody of fifteen days, which amounted to 30 days detention according to the rule in application at the time.

[11] One last co-accused received a 45 days conditional sentence, taking into account one other concurrent charge.

[12] Defence counsel seeks a conditional discharge. He explains that two other Defendants received such sentences for similar charges involving members of the same native community who protested by way of a blockade of the same highway several weeks earlier. They had aggravated the mischief by chaining themselves to cement barrels thereby blocking the roadway. They were demonstrably uncompromising.

[13] Defence counsel points to several mitigating factors. Louisa Worrell has no prior convictions and has been a most exemplary 21 years old adult. She was at the time abiding by police orders and attempted to cross the police established perimeter only to furnish help and/or assistance to one protester who claimed to be in need. As to her atypical display of defiance and her aggressive behaviour, she got carried away by the event, which was emotionally-charged, and the collective turmoil when police decided to break up what was until then a peaceful demonstration. She became upset only when “grabbed by three people at once” as she puts it. She nevertheless acknowledges her behaviour and takes full responsibility.

Analysis:

[14] The similarity sentencing rule is one of several sentencing principles that a Court shall consider in order to attain the purpose and objectives set by our Legislators, and developed by our Courts.

[15] The similarity rule should not overshadow the principle providing that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

[16] Likewise it should not prevail over the rules providing it should be adapted to aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender. Lastly, a sentence should not be unduly long or harsh.

[17] Recently, the Quebec Court of Appeal[1] wrote in regards to sentencing principles and particularly with the similarity rule in view :

« … la question n’est pas de savoir si la peine s’inscrit dans une moyenne, mais plutôt si elle s’écarte de façon marquée et substantielle des peines infligées à des délinquants similaires pour des crimes similaires. »

[18] Various considerations call for an absolute discharge in this matter especially seeing that three important sentencing objectives have already been attained. The punitive measures have been sufficiently important to firstly denounce unlawful conduct and secondly to deter both the offender and others from committing such offences.

[19] Court can appreciate that the pre-plea circumstances have been subjectively difficult and painful for Louisa Worrell. Her unexpected two day pre-appearance incarceration along with its trying requirements was quite understandably an un-enviable experience for one young woman of less than twenty years old. She has complained to the probation agent of extensive stress suffered following her arrest and search. She has sought professional counselling in order to cope with stress associated disorders.

[20] Also, appearance in Court under custody for a first time offender is a humiliating event. A strict undertaking as a pre-requisite for release, including a curfew also constitutes non-negligible punishment for an active university student, where such a curfew seems not even remotely related to the offence and unwarranted. She lived hundreds of kilometres away from the area where the daytime demonstration took place. Further, she travelled several times a long distance from the Toronto area to Maniwaki to deal with this matter.

[21] The Offender must be granted fair credit for these measures, some of which undoubtedly have a punitive value. This appreciation does not entail any form of criticism of the adopted process, which has not been examined. It simply arises from the application of penal principles to the specific Offender. However, it flows from these observations that the Offender has been clearly deterred and the sentencing objectives rightly attained.

[22] The foregoing, along with the fact that Louisa Worrell pleaded guilty to the charges thereby eliminating the need for a trial along with the costs and disturbances to various witnesses demonstrate that she has assumed full responsibility for her wrongful behaviour. Another sentencing objective is thus reached.

[23] This Court believes that the other applicable objectives can be attained through absolute discharge of the accused. The Court considers it to be in the best interests of the accused and not contrary to the public interest.

[24] The following reasons have direct implications for the accused:

- Louisa Worrell has her grandparents and other family members living in the U.S.A.; a criminal record would most seriously hinder prospective visits in foreign countries whether for visiting relatives, for education purposes or her plans to invest herself in a teaching career abroad;

- Ms. Worrell also entertains the idea of working with children perhaps in education and such candidates are subjected to a thorough background examination; a criminal conviction would not favour her employment;

- more generally, it is fair to say that judicial notice encompasses the limitations that arise from criminal convictions in regards to a great number of employment opportunities for which a talented young woman like Louisa Worrell would show interest.

[25] The second criteria guiding the award of discharges is also present. It would not be contrary to public interest that the Offender be discharged. In fact, there is good reason to believe that a discharge would be in the direct interest of community and society.

[26] Firstly, a very thorough pre-sentence report has been made available to the Court. Abundant and impressive character reference letters have been filed in Court record.

[27] These documents portray at length Louisa Worrell as a gentle, bright and gifted as well as kind and passionate young woman. She is also described as an articulate and calm person well surrounded with friends and having a very supportive family who share pro-social values.

[28] She is also said to be helpful and sensitive reaching out to others throughout college and university in regards to her peers. She is socially well committed in her religious and/or spiritual involvement as a teaching assistant. More generally she has been involved in local community work since the age of thirteen. An idealistic person, committed to social justice issues, she has travelled to both Latin and South America to volunteer her services for specific humanitarian causes. Recent employment (while attending college) is with a national organization that fundraises for different charities and her position is that of fundraiser and canvasser. She is a strong believer and advocate of Aboriginal American’s rights and culture.

[29] This Offender does not have to be deterred any further. And because of her generous social conduct, it is not necessary to ensure that she provide reparations for harm done. Finally, there is no necessity to promote a greater sense of responsibility upon Ms. Worrell. In addition to what has already been stated in regards to this objective, it suffices to say that she has demonstrated an enviable sense of social responsibility from an early age and on.

[30] This young person deserves a sentence, which will allow her to continue in the path she has chosen. She should be allowed to pursue her interests with the exceptional potential and talent she has demonstrated over the years, with as few obstacles as possible proceeding from her behaviour linked to the November 2008 incidents.

[31] Our community and society more generally have a clear interest in encouraging youth to connect to social justice issues. Strong progressive values can be cherished and conveyed and must be promoted legally in everyone’s interest. Ms. Worrell will be an important social asset in this regard.

[32] For these numerous reasons, it appears by no means contrary to public interest that Ms. Worrell be absolutely discharged and clearly in her personal best interest.

[33] For the above reasons, Court directs that Louisa Worrell be absolutely discharged.


		__________________________________ Réal R. Lapointe, J.C.Q.

Mtre France Deschamps
Crown prosecutor
Office of the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions


Mtre Nicolas St-Pierre
Counsel for the accused


Date of hearing:	July, 2^nd, 2010

[1] Ferland c. R., 500-10-004246-086 (450-01-041710-059), [2009] J.C. no 5941, 2009 QCCA 1168 , EYB 2009-160372 , J.E. 2009-1215 .