Editor's note: This story includes graphic descriptions that some readers may find disturbing.
In what the judge proclaimed “a prolonged campaign of violation,” a 44-year-old Sudbury man has been sentenced to almost 18 months on voyeurism and theft charges after he was found in possession of more than 1,100 images of adults and children, both male and female.
The images were taken “surreptitiously, and for a sexual purpose,” stated Justice Graham Jenner in his Jan. 22 sentencing decision.
After submissions were made Dec. 13 by assistant Crown attorney Alayna Jay and defence counsel Jacqueline Boutros, the man known only as TO in the court documents (to protect the identities of his victims) pleaded guilty to four counts of voyeurism and once count of theft.
In his decision, Jenner said TO used his mobile phone to photograph children and adults, of both sexes, in a manner which focused on areas including their buttocks and anal region, breasts and genitalia. In some of the photographs, the victims are nude.
The judge described the images and videos TO possessed as “voyeuristic in nature or involving sex acts he was performing using children’s underwear as a prop.” Some of the victims have been identified. Others have not
The theft charges stem from stealing the underwear from two of his victims, which he later photographed himself ejaculating into.
The details of the crimes were read onto the court record through an agreed statement of facts. The victims are not named, only referred to as CV (Child Victim) or AV (Adult Victim) and then a number assigned by the court.
The decision states that in September, 2022, TO was at Science North and used his mobile phone to photograph seven-year-old CV1, “whom he did not know.” The photographs focused on her buttocks.
CV1’s father saw what TO had done and confronted him before calling police, who then executed a search warrant at TO’s residence and seized several electronic devices. The court documents state the investigation revealed TO’s voyeurism victimized members of his now-ex-spouse’s family:
- In the summer of 2022, while AV2 was visiting TO**, “he surreptitiously recorded her while she was wearing a bathing suit.” The photographs focused on her breasts and buttocks.
- In the summer of 2021, at his own home, TO surreptitiously photographed 11-year-old CV3 while the child’s genitals were exposed. His genital area was the focus of the image.
- In the summer of 2021, at his own home, TO surreptitiously photographed 10-year-old CV4. The images depict her in a bathing suit, and focus on her anal region.
- TO stole the underwear of CV4 and that of her mother, AV5. He photographed himself masturbating while holding the stolen underwear, and then ejaculating on the underwear.
In addition to these specific instances involving known victims, TO’s mobile phone was found to have a total of 1,158 relevant images on it, taken between January 2018 and December 2022. Most of the images were photographs of children’s underwear, state the court documents, “some of which appeared soiled.”
Some of the images incorporated TO’s penis and ejaculation.
There were also many voyeuristic images, said the court documents, “some of which were close-up or cropped pictures of genital areas, buttocks or breasts of the subjects.”
“The images were taken surreptitiously without the subjects’ knowledge and were made for a sexual purpose.”
A small number of the images were attached to GPS data which indicated they were taken at (i) a public park near Peterborough, (ii) a splash pad in Sudbury, and (iii) inside a large store in Sudbury.
Jail time or house arrest?
Jenner wrote in his sentencing decision that he considered, as a mitigating factor, TO’s lack of criminal record. He noted that there was a breach of a release order related to this case on TO’s record now, but as the breach occurred after the voyeurism charges, Jenner writes that he must consider TO a “first-time offender.”
Jenner also credited TO for pleading guilty, showing remorse and “deep regret and shame,” noting that TO “demonstrates some insight into the issues that brought him before the court, and has of his own accord taken the first steps towards addressing those issues. His path of rehabilitation is far from complete, but it is mitigating that he has retained a psychotherapist and actively commenced treatment.”
TO also indicated to the court that he has learned to “completely refrain from using pornography or masturbating,” and that he feels celibacy is the only method “he is comfortable with to limit his sexual urges.”
A factor which does not fit neatly into the aggravating or mitigating categories, but nonetheless bears recognizing, states the decision, “is the devastating impact that TO’s conduct has had on his family.”
Jenner writes that TO’s ex-spouse “finds herself struggling to financially support herself and their two young children, who themselves struggle with the loss of any relationship with their father, without — given their age — the maturity and ability to fully process the reason why.”
The decision states that TO’s ex-spouse has not spoken to him since learning of the charges, and their children have no contact with him. Jenner noted that any contact between TO and his children in future should be handled by family courts.
As to TO’s sentence, the Crown submitted he should serve two years less a day in jail, with three years probation after his release, and an order that TO add his name to the Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA).
Though not rising to the level of sexual assault, Jenner did order TO to register under SOIRA. Given the high number of victims and the variety of public and private spaces in which TO offended, “the impact of an order on TO’s privacy and liberty would be entirely proportionate,” Jenner wrote. “A SOIRA order will be issued, effective today, for the duration of 10 years.”
TO’s defence counsel asked for a conditional sentence, meaning he would serve his sentence “in the community”, including house arrest under “strict terms.”
The decision notes that the author of the pre-sentence report submitted to the judge to aid in his decision-making found TO to be a suitable candidate for community supervision.
But Jenner disagreed.
He stated that, in his judicial opinion, serving a sentence in the community would not be “consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.” and that jail time was needed to “convey the serious gravity of the offence, and to deter other potential offenders.”
Taking into account TO’s presentence custody of 36 days, which counts as 54 days as those who serve time at Sudbury District Jail are accorded 1.5 days for each day in jail before sentencing, Jenner sentenced him to a total of 18 months, to be served concurrently. The individual sentences are as follows:
- On the first voyeurism charge “which groups together the unidentified child and adult victims,” Jenner allotted the presentence custody, and sentenced TO to an additional eight months’ custody;
- For two voyeurism charges (relating to 11-year-old CV3 and 10-year-old CV4) the sentence will be four months’ custody for each.
- On the voyeurism count relating to AV2, the sentence will be three months’ custody concurrent.
- On the theft count, the sentence shall also be three months’ concurrent. Jenner noted that while it is unusual for a first-time offender to receive jail time for theft, “TO’s sexual incorporation of the stolen garments is a significant aggravating factor.”
Jenner further ordered TO to stay 100 metres from his known victims (along with a no communication order) and not to attend any public park, swimming area, daycare centre, schoolground, playground, community centre, or education centre, including Science North, where persons under the age of 16 are present or can reasonably be expected to be present. TO is also not to seek, obtain, or continue any employment or volunteering that involves being in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of 16.
**Clarification: A reference to one of the victims has been altered to anonymize their relationship to the perpetrator.
Jenny Lamothe covers court for Sudbury.com.