Caution: This story contains some graphic details. Discretion is advised.
An Ontario Superior Court justice has released his reasons for sentencing three men to 10 years for the murder and dismemberment of Wesley Hallam in January of 2011.
With credit for time served, the three could be out of jail in less than two years. The sentence outraged Sault Ste. Marie Police Chief Bob Keetch, who was upset Crown prosecutors didn't consult police during negotiations with defence lawyers.
Keetch told The Canadian Press on Aug. 3 his force only found out about the plea deal after officers who were escorting the men to and from their court appearances overheard them discussing it.
"We were hearing these rumours and we were asking the Crown if there was a resolution in the works and we were told there was no deal," Keetch said.
On Aug. 23, Justice Ian McMillan explained his reasons for accepting the plea agreement to sentence Ronald Albert Mitchell, Eric Shane Joseph Mearow and Dylan Albert Jocko for the lesser offence of manslaughter, rather than proceed to trial on the original charges of first degree murder.
In summarizing the history of the case, McMillan said all four were at a flop house in Sault Ste. Marie the night of the murder.
“Drugs and alcohol were consumed by various individuals in attendance,” the judge wrote. “Mr. Hallam possessed a double bladed knife engraved with a swastika and housed in a metal sheath. The offenders also possessed knives.”
Mitchell, Mearow and Hallam were doing lines of cocaine when Mearow went downstairs to get Jocko so he could join in. At that point, Hallam complained about Jocko, calling him a “goof,” which can be taken as street slang for child molester.
Mitchell got upset at the characterization and began arguing with Hallam.
“The exchange escalated and became very heated,” McMillan wrote. “Hallam was larger and more muscular. He forcefully pushed Mitchell’s chest, causing him to stumble backwards. Mitchell took a swing at Hallam. A fight ensued with Hallam pinning and punching Mitchell repeatedly.
“Observers shouted at Hallam to stop. Mearow reappeared; shouting stop and he separated the two combatants. Hallam produced his large knife and directed himself at Mitchell who said, 'Wes, you pulling a knife on me?'”
Mitchell took out his knife and the fight escalated. Eventually, the trio attacked Hallam, with Mitchell stabbing him in the jugular vein and carotid artery. While Hallam initially said he was fine, blood pooled around him and the three attackers dragged him to the bathroom.
“The three placed Hallam in the bathtub,” McMillan wrote. “Mearow checked Hallam’s eyes and throat looking for a pulse. He told the other two that he believed Hallam to be dead. Their voices were raised as they argued what to do. Significant amounts of blood were seen on the hallway floor from the bedroom to the bathroom and it appeared smeared as though someone had been dragged.”
Mitchell convinced the other two men to dismember Hallam's remains, which they did using an electric saw, all the while still consuming cocaine. They deposited the body parts in dumpsters and a creek.
On Jan. 11, Hallam's torso was discovered and other remains were discovered in March. The three were eventually charged with first degree murder, and their trial was supposed to begin in October.
In explaining why he accepted the July 28, 2016, joint submission on sentencing from the Crown and defence, McMillan wrote that legal precedent encourages judges to accept joint submissions, unless doing so would “bring the administration of justice into disrepute or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest.”
Crown prosecutor Philip Zylberberg explained that the level of intoxication of the three meant that getting a first degree murder conviction would be unlikely.
“I can indicate that in agreeing to accept the plea of guilt to manslaughter, with a joint submission on sentence, rather than proceeding to trial for murder, the Crown has taken into consideration that there are potential frailties in its evidence and triable issues as to whether the accused persons had the necessary mental element needed for murder, considering, among other factors, provocation and their level of intoxication," Zylberberg told the judge, when asked to explain the plea bargain.
“In those circumstances, and after broad consultation with the Criminal Law Division, we have decided that it is appropriate to proceed as we are proceeding today.”
McMillan cited several examples in which similar brutal killings resulted in manslaughter convictions and subsequent jail sentences of between 8-12 years. And when the mitigating and aggravating factors are all weighed, he concluded the 10-year sentence was reasonable.
While dismembering the body was repugnant, it took place after the killing, McMillan said, and Hallam's death is the central crime in this case.
“As gruesome and morally reprehensible as the dismemberment of Mr. Hallam’s remains may be to all of us, it is the killing of Wesley Hallam that is the predicate and paramount offence in this case,” he wrote.
“The abhorrent events of Jan. 7 and 8, 2011, should serve to demonstrate the inherent hazards and risks of the culture and lifestyle arising through the abuse of illicit drugs in a subculture that all too often ends in violence and tragedy. Some lives do not get to be lived; some are irreversibly shattered; some are permanently lost in the depths of despair; while others simply put forward a brave front to mask their inner turmoil. In this case, the tumultuous effects were evident from the Victim Impact Statements presented to this court regarding the event and the fallout to the surviving victims.”
