Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada published the decision in Friesen and both summarized and clarified sentencing considerations in cases of sexual interference and sexual assault of a minor.
Friesen had been sentenced to six years in prison for sexual interference of a four-year-old girl, as well as attempted extortion of her mother. He appealed the sentence on the basis that it was too high given there was no position of trust between himself and the victim. Friesen’s sentence was reduced to six months for the sexual interference charge and 18 months for the attempted extortion charge. The Crown then appealed that sentence reduction and took it to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the initial six-year sentence. In doing so, the Court stated that even though Friesen himself did not have a position of trust with the victim, he exploited the position of trust that her mother had, since they took part in the abuse together. The Court also went through a number of sentencing principles that will apply to many other sexual interference and sexual assault cases:
- Courts must recognize the inherent wrongfulness of these offences, the potential harm to children and the actual harm that children suffer
- Parliament’s decision to increase maximum sentences for sexual offences against children shifts the distribution of proportionate sentences for these offences
- Courts can and should impose higher sentences than were imposed in prior precedents that occurred before Parliament increased maximum sentences
- Sexual offences against children should be punished more severely than sexual offences against adults
- Sexual interference is not less serious than sexual assault of a minor
- Courts must consider a number of factors in sentencing, including the offender’s risk to reoffend, abuse of a position of trust, the number of times the offence occurred and the length of time over which it took place and the age of the victim.
- Courts should avoid attributing significance to certain sexual acts over others or seeing the victim’s participation as a mitigating factor
The Court admonished lower courts for continuing to rely on “myths and stereotypes” despite various legislative amendments that have taken place over the years to prevent this. The main take-away from this case is that sentences for sexual interference and sexual assault of a minor will likely increase as a result of the numerous directives to lower courts in Friesen.
Nonetheless, every offender is unique and there are many considerations that courts must consider when sentencing an offender for any criminal charge. Your lawyer can help you obtain a fair sentence if you are being sentenced for sexual assault or sexual interference.