A judge is recommending that a man with a long criminal history who falls short of being declared a dangerous offender should reside in Sudbury once he's released so he can receive treatment.
The man, David Daniel Carrie, 50, was most recently convicted in 2012 on charges of sexual assault, assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm for incidents that took place in Sault Ste. Marie.
It was those convictions that prompted the Crown to apply to have him designated as a dangerous offender. But Carrie has a record dating back to 1983. Most of the offences took place in the Sault, and involve theft, drug possession, break and enter, mischief and breaking bail conditions. However, there are also three sexual assault convictions.
The first took place in 1991, for which he was sentenced to two years in jail. More assault and other convictions followed after his release.
In 2001, he was found guilty in Sault Ste. Marie of sexual assault, forcible confinement, uttering threats and causing bodily harm. He was found guilty in 2006 for breaching his probation conditions. He was convicted of theft and drug charges in 2009, before his 2012 conviction for sexual assault.
At a hearing in March of this year, the Crown called a forensic psychiatrist, as well as family members and others who have been involved in Carrie's treatment over the years. It wanted him jailed for 10-12 years, with a long-term supervision order in place after his release.
But the defence argued that a normal sentence was appropriate for Carrie, and argued for three years of probation after his release. The probation order should include treatment to minimize the risk he will re-offend, the defence argued.
In a decision released in June, Justice Edward Gareau wrote that the criteria to declare someone a dangerous offender includes: a conviction for a serious personal injury offence and “the offender constitutes a threat to the life, safety or physical or mental well-being of other persons.”
To be considered a threat, there must be a clear pattern of repeat offenses showing no desire or ability to restrain themselves. Or the offender must show “a substantial degree of indifference” about the consequences of their behaviour. Or the crime they are convicted of “is of such a brutal nature as to compel the conclusion that the offender’s behaviour in the future is unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint.”
If sexual assault is involved, the criminal can be declared dangerous if the offender “has shown a failure to control his or her sexual impulses and a likelihood of causing injury, pain or other evil to other persons through failure in the future to control his or her sexual impulses.”
An expert testifying for the Crown said Carrie's underlying problems aren't sexual, but he has “a prediction for hyperdominant behaviour, aggressive pursuit of self-serving interests, devaluation of others around him, and disinhibition in the context of substance intoxication.”
Given his history and underlying psychological state, the expert said Carrie was at a high likelihood to engage in “some kind of interpersonal violence” after his release.
However, a defence expert argued that the testing used by the Crown expert assumed that people are all the same and can never change. In this case, however, he said Carrie is motivated to change and was a good candidate for specific treatment programs.
“Given that Mr. Carrie, at least in my clinical judgment based on the information available to me at this point in time, his present Clinical and risk realities provide an optimistic sense of his positive response to treatment moving forward, notwithstanding his significant historical issues,” the court transcripts say.
“Where I believe he is today is different than where he was four, five or 10 years ago … I believe he has made a real shift, he turned the corner. It seems like there has been a real change there.”
The defence expert testified that the effect of Carrie watching his alcoholic sister die of cirrhosis of the liver “changed Mr. Carrie's attitude about his life.
“This for the first time in his adult life generated a realistic appraisal of where his life was and what his future would look like. His words were 'I was scared straight,' and while I believe that expression is overused and misunderstood, for the first time it shook him from his psychological perch and induced a sense of anxiety that worked to dispel his earlier feelings of social dominance bordering on invincibility.”
But the Crown expert argued the chances of someone in Carrie's position ending more than 30-years of anti-social behaviour are low.
“My preference would be to manage this person from a position of security as opposed to a position of low security and essentially banking on the fact that his aspirations will be realized, as opposed to the possibility that his prior criminal behaviour again be triggered in some way.”
However, the Crown expert did allow that a dangerous offender designation wasn't necessary to keep the public safe, but rather an extremely structured release and rehabilitation program.
In his ruling, Gareau wrote that a dangerous offender designation is reserved for people who are likely to “inflict death, injury or severe psychological damage to others in the future by the failure to restrain his behaviour.”
That's something the evidence in this case doesn't support, he wrote. However, he imposed three years of probation upon his release, along with 17 conditions, including that the stay out of the Sault, take a variety of appropriate counselling and training programs, take no drugs or alcohol, stay of of trouble with the law and report any new intimate relationships to his probation officer.
“Although I cannot order it, I am requesting that any counselling or treatment that Mr. Carrie is involved in be directive in nature and on a one-on-one basis wherever possible, as there is evidence that Mr. Carrie responds best to this type of intervention,” Gareau wrote.
“Additionally, although I cannot order it, it would be advisable if Mr. Carrie resided in Sudbury, Ont., during the period of his probation as programs would be available for him there and he would be close in proximity to family members who could assist him.”
