Despite a joint submission of one year in jail and 18 months probation, a Chilliwack provincial court judge sentenced Andrew Mullaly to 18 months jail and three years probation for the ongoing sexual assault of a girl between the ages of 11 and 16. (Facebook)

B.C. judge defies lawyers and adds six months to man’s sex assault sentence

‘I find the joint submission is contrary to the public interest and I’m rejecting it’

A man convicted of sexually and emotionally abusing a teenaged girl for years was handed a sentence 50 per cent longer than requested in a joint submission by Crown and defence in a rare decision by a provincial court judge.

Andrew Mullaly elicited no emotion in courtroom 203 at the Chilliwack Law Courts on June 21 as Judge Andrea Ormiston sentenced him to 18 months jail followed by three years probation, the maximum allowed under the charge conviction.

Crown counsel Grant Lindsey and Mullaly’s lawyer Darrel Schultz had put forth a joint submission in April for one year in jail followed by 18 months probation.

Judge Ormiston decided that sentence for Mullaly who committed as many as two dozen acts of “sexual humiliation” on the girl between the ages of 11 and 16 was “not only unfit but one that is contrary to the public interest.”

In rejecting the joint submission, the judge pointed to a Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision that said joint submissions should not be rejected unless that sentence would be contrary to the public interest. In R v Anthony Cook, a decision delivered by Justice Michael Moldaver of the SCC, it was made clear that a joint submission should not be rejected lightly.

“Joint submissions promote the smooth operation of the criminal justice system,” Moldaver wrote. “The appellant gave up his right to a trial and any self-defence argument he may have had. In the end, the trial judge’s deviation from the recommended custodial sentence — by only six months — amounts to little more than tinkering.”

In Canadian law, judges are not bound by joint submissions, however, the courts are generally reluctant to divert from what is proposed by both Crown or defence assuming there is case law showing similar sentences for similar crimes.

Ormiston decided, however, that in this case the submission was indeed not in the public interest.

“I find that under the specific circumstances of this plea agreement, one year cannot be reconciled with the principles and ranges established in the authorities,” she said.

“I find the joint submission is contrary to the public interest and I’m rejecting it.”

Mullaly was charged with sexual assault, extortion and possession of child pornography for ongoing abuse of the girl from the time she was 11 until 16. The multi-year abuse and humiliation began with emotional “punishment” that expanded to repeated instances of sexual touching and sexual assault.

During the brief hearing on April 12, Lindsey read parts of a victim impact statement from the girl, in which she said she felt “used, manipulated, hopeless, ashamed.”

• READ MORE: Judge questions joint submission for Chilliwack man who sexually assaulted girl

It was then in court that Judge Ormiston first raised the spectre of rejecting the joint submission, based on her concerns about the serious nature of the facts, the brevity with which case law was presented, and the rushed nature of the hearing late on a Friday afternoon.

As part of the plea agreement, Crown proceeded summarily rather than by indictment, which meant the conviction to which he pleaded is substantially less serious than if it were to be heard in BC Supreme Court.

As the sentence was read out and he was taken away by a sheriff to jail, Mullaly expressed no emotion.

Another wrinkle in the case occurred after the April sentencing hearing when local Crown counsel — ordered by the provincial Public Prosecution Service — applied to extend the standard publication ban name on the identity of the victim to include Mullaly’s name.

• READ MORE: OPINION: When observation affects what is observed

The application, unsurprisingly supported by Mullaly, was left undecided upon between April and the June 20 appearance. In the interim, Judge Ormiston asked Crown to ask the victim her perspective on extending the publication ban to Mullaly.

“They are not concerned with the mentioning of his name in the newspaper,” Lindsey said in court on June 20.

Ormiston then explained how the singular concern of the court is of the privacy of the victim. She pointed to the fact that the Crown was not seeking a remedy for past instances when Mullaly’s name was used, and no evidence of a publication ban violation was presented in court.

“Today I have the added evidence that the victim does not share the Crown’s concerns,” she said, adding that there was nothing presented to her to explain why Mullaly’s name should not appear in print.

“I simply cannot make that finding on the specific evidence that has been heard here in court.”

She left the original publication ban on any information that could identify the victim in place, thereby leaving the onus on the media to not reveal her identity.


@PeeJayAitch
paul.henderson@theprogress.com

Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Just Posted

COTR Avalanche volleyball teams in fine form heading into season opener

Men’s and women’s teams square up against the Douglas Royals on Friday, Saturday

Josh Dueck elected to Canadian Paralympic Hall of Fame

Born and raised in Kimberley, he credits his supportive home town and family for making him who he is

Cranbrook Mountie gets peacekeeping award in Kelowna

On October 11, 2019, several awards were given out in Kelowna by… Continue reading

Old willow collapses in Spooner Park

A willow tree that has long stood in Rick Spooner Memorial Park… Continue reading

Kootenay-Columbia candidate cautious after getting threats

Trev Miller of the Animal Protection Party carries on campaigning under shadow of threats, abusive emails

Scheer, Trudeau, Singh haggle over potential minority government outcome

If you believe the polls, it appears the Liberals and Conservatives are neck-and-neck

Canucks beat Stanley Cup champs 4-3 in a shootout

Leivo nets winner, Vancouver dumps St. Louis for fourth straight win

‘The more you test, the more you find’: Beef recalls a sign of success, experts say

Despite appearances, experts say a recent rise in major recalls is not a sign of food supply problems

Two years later, City of Fernie remembers

Oct. 17, 2019 marks two years since the tragic ammonia leak at Fernie Memorial Arena

Japanese buyer expands wood pellet contract with B.C.’s Pinnacle

Mitsui and Co. increases contract with Interior energy producer

ELECTION 2019: Have Justin Trudeau’s Liberals really cut middle-class taxes?

Conservative Andrew Scheer vows to cut bottom bracket, NDP’s Jagmeet Singh targets wealth tax

B.C. RCMP officer suing the force for malicious prosecution

Cpl. Tammy Hollingsworth cleared of wrongdoing after misconduct hearing

Talk to your kids about vaping, B.C.’s top doctor says

B.C. health officials have discovered the first vaping-related illness in the province

Alberta truck convoy plans counter-protest at climate rally with Greta Thunberg

United We Roll organizer says similar protest planned for Swedish teen’s event in Edmonton

Most Read