Defending the indefensible
(Sun News Network)
Our nation’s system of justice is stronger because of defence lawyers like Evan Roitenberg.
Yes, that’s bound to be an unpopular viewpoint, especially today.
But that’s the truth, as uncomfortable or inconvenient as it may seem.
Because it’s also equally true (however unheralded or swept under the rug) that each person in Canada — no matter how justifiably vilified, loathed or downright nasty their conduct — has the right to be represented and defended to the lengths the law will allow.
Although I personally have never been, nor plan to be, in such a position, I’m glad for this.
As we all should be.
Roitenberg (if you don’t know by now) is the defence lawyer for disgraced hockey coach Graham James.
The facts disclosed by the Crown at James’ sentencing hearing Wednesday regarding his abusive and reprehensible treatment of Theo Fleury and his cousin Todd Holt years ago were difficult to hear.
After years now of observing and writing about all manner of serious and sick crime of all kinds, Wednesday’s hours-long hearing was, in part,, a cut above when one considers the depth of the described betrayal.
James’ conduct was and is indefensible on any level.
Cries for him to be locked up for a long time have reverberated loudly.
The Crown has requested he serve six years of prison.
Roitenberg, as all expected, sees things differently.
He spent hours Wednesday explaining to Judge Catherine Carlson why that is; why he feels the law should grant James a conditional sentence to be served in the community of 18 months or less.
Roitenberg, a skilled public speaker with a clear flair for rhetoric, rose to speak after James himself delivered a carefully-prepared apology from the prisoner’s box.
Here’s a taste of his first few minutes of submissions Wednesday, verbatim.
“Your Honour, if it were up to Graham James, that would be it … he would throw himself on the mercy of Your Honour — recognizing the depth of his actions, recognizing the effect of his actions and recognizing how wrong he was,” he started.
“But Mr. James was foolish enough to hire me, and I can’t allow him to do that,” he said.
“Because his crimes, regardless of the insight that he recognizes now, have legal repercussions. And it’s not just for him to say, ‘I know I was wrong and I accept what the court will bring.’”
“And in that vein, I’m hoping to persuade you this afternoon, that the Crown’s submission as to what would be the appropriate and just disposition here is anything but appropriate and just. I’m hoping to persuade you that if a court in Alberta some 15 years ago had all the facts, the principles of totality would have kicked in. They would have kicked in to a certain degree as would factors as they pertain to rehabilitation and restoration.”
“The man who stands before you today stands before you rehabilitated as far as anybody could be having done whatever was asked of him for a number of years, to develop the insights that he now has. To have put in place strategies to ensure he doesn’t put himself in a situation where he’s tempted to offend, strategies that take away the temptation to offend, and insights to allow him to channel his energies otherwise.
“Because that’s all been accomplished already,” he said.
“But to do that, I have to tell you some things about Graham James. I want to share with you the man, because with the greatest of respect — having sat here all morning and having been Mr. James’ counsel for some two years now or so, I can tell you it’s like representing young women in Salem, Massachusetts centuries ago who were wrongly accused of being witches.
“Because there’s really nothing in many people’s eyes that I can say today that will change their opinion of Graham James. There’s very little I can do to dispel the myths and the notoriety of the monstrous nature of the beast that has been built up in many people’s eyes. But I can’t do that. I don’t have to do that.
“My task is to enlighten one jurist.”
And there’s the rub, that sharpened point — one, I’m sure, causes countless law-abiding citizens to gnash their teeth in frustration and take to the comment sections on news websites in droves.
The hard truth is it matters not what people think of Graham James, what they may want to see happen come his March 20 day of reckoning; what punishment they feel befits his despicable conduct.
It matters what Carlson thinks. It matters what the law says she must do in this case, which in legal terms is very unusual for a number of reasons.
Despite what some may personally think about Roitenberg’s vigorous defence of a man dubbed “the poster boy for parole reform” or “possibly the most hated man in Canada, certainly the most hated man in hockey” (Roitenberg’s own words as he derided the media glare over the case) — his job, his duty — is to defend James to the best of his abilities.
Because that’s the law. And Roitenberg knows all about that. He’s very good at what he does.
And regardless what one thinks about Graham James and his hideous and evil conduct — he — like you, me and everyone else in this great country — is entitled to present the best defence one can get within the bounds of the law.
Got a problem with the law?
Think sentences for child abuse are too soft? Think it’s wrong, as Greg Gilhooly does, that drug-traffickers can get more jail time than child-molesters?
Call or email your MP and demand change.
That’s your right as well.
-30-
*** As a note, I don’t know Roitenberg. I’ve never once had a personal conversation with him.
Any opinion expressed above about his work is based on my experience of it in court over the years, and is just that — my opinion.
Other notable cases of his in recent times: Here, Here and Here.
Manitoba kids ‘in custody’: The numbers
Manitoba was the only province in the *country* where the average count of youths in provincial custody — read: on remand in jail, serving sentences or in the community on probation or community supervision — went up in 2010, the latest data available from Statistics Canada.
The data was released by the federal agency last week, and appears to show Manitoba being a leader when it comes to the number of criminally-involved kids in the system.
The data is an average monthly “in count” of youths in custody: Here’s what it measures, according to Stats Can
Total actual-in counts represent the sum of sentenced, remand and other status counts and exclude inmates temporarily not in custody at the time of the count. Total actual-in counts include provincial director remand not included in the remand and other temporary detention counts.
I make no assumption of what this data actually means, other than it appears to reflect to some degree the seriousness of youth crime in Manitoba, given that being locked up is always a last resort for judges under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Under the Act, all reasonable alternatives to custody must be looked at before actually locking the cell’s — sorry, unit ‘s— door.
However, without a more comprehensive breakdown of how many youths recorded in the average were on probation or community supervision as part of a sentence, that’s a guess on my part.
But the also shows a massive disparity between the number of kids in provincial custody in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
Again, without wanting to jump to some wrong conclusion, it appears where there’s smoke there’s fire.
Youth crime in our province is a major, under-reported issue. But I’ve always said that.
Here’s the data for your perusal. Comments and thoughts welcome:
- (Courtesy Stats Canada)
Here’s a link to the statistics report, which was not subjected to an analysis by the agency. You can read how the data was sourced and the methodology there.
***(excluding Quebec, which did not report 2010 numbers).
-30-
—
I note with some irony that this post marks number 204 for this blog since its inception — 204 being the Manitoba area code.
311 in 2011 — a breakdown of sorts
View Larger Map
(Map of 311 service calls tied to addresses in 2011, by electoral ward. Click on a ward for more info)
Who calls 311?
What kind of workload is your city councillor facing every day?
Which areas of the city appear to need the most help in terms of access to services?
Can we accurately say that 311 calls suggest anything about a councillor’s workload?
These are questions I began to ask myself after a recent story about City Hall changing rules for adding new electoral wards.
Some say population growth should determine where any possible new wards should go. And, judging by the city’s own administration, population is the yardstick by which they go on to figure this out.
But others, including Coun. Harvey Smith, say that population alone doesn’t indicate who’s calling for services.
From my Jan. 13 story (it didn’t make it online for some reason…)
Smith provided the Winnipeg Sun with a list of 311 service calls from the month of December to illustrate his point.
The city-wide list shows that people living in the oldest — and poorest — wards made roughly three times the number of calls to 311 than those living in the wealthiest.
In that month, residents of the Mynarski and Daniel McIntyre wards (these include the St. Johns, William Whyte and West End areas) called 829 and 715 times respectively. The averaged average income between the two wards is $24,201.
People living in the relatively affluent Charleswood-Tuxedo and St. Charles areas made a respective 234 and 218 calls — the fewest in the city. Here, the averaged average income between the two areas is $42,892.
As it turns out, these findings weren’t just a blip on the December radar — they were consistent throughout the year, sometimes alarmingly so.
Over 2011 — calls for 311 service associated with a property broke down like this:
Mynarski and Daniel Mac (combined) = 30,250
Charles-Tuxedo and St. Charles (combined) = 10,852
That’s a nearly 3:1 ratio of call disparity between the poorest and most affluent areas of the city.
As well, I find it interesting to look at the number of “overdue” calls to 311 left over from the year.
One thing that can’t be said (based on the above data) is the poorer wards don’t get their calls answered to.
Mynarski, Daniel Mac and Point Douglas boast very low numbers of “overdue” calls.
St. Boniface and St. Vital have the highest (although still a very low number based on overall numbers)
What’s above is basically all the data I was able to get from the city. What I have doesn’t break down the kind of calls for service they are, but for that, we can head to Servicestat to break this down a bit. (Let’s take Mynarski and St. Charles — poor and rich — as an example)
In Mynarski, the top three 311 calls were based around overflowing AutoBins, potholes and graffiti. (1,932 calls combined)
In St. Charles, the most calls were for potholes, snow clearing from roads and missed garbage collection. (735 calls combined)
It’s simplistic, and completely unscientific, but the near 3:1 ratio again applies.
More later when I’ve had time to think on this a bit more.
Let me know what you think.
—
Note: thanks to the good folks at Winnipegelection.ca for providing an “open data” section on their still-functioning site. I was able to download the council ward data mask into Google maps and have the above map built in about 10 minutes. Invaluable.
Thanks as well to Steve West from the city.
For the record: Judge Sandhu on emergency mental-health services
Judge Fred Sandhu
I’m a big fan of provincial court Judge Fred Sandhu.
While I don’t always agree with every decision he makes, I respect his willingness to put his thoughts on the record.
Tuesday was no different. But instead of taking aim at Manitoba’s booze problem, he fired on the lack of emergency mental-health services available to people.
His long tirade came during a sentencing hearing for John Favell, a clinically depressed, alcoholic, criminal who is now serving his second federal bit for robberies.
You can read my story here to get the flavour of what Favell did and the help he sought — but was denied — before he started drinking and robbing again.
I thought it was important — to put the judge’s full comments on the record, and I present it verbatim (for the most part) below. Sandhu is largely speaking directly to him.
I’ve said this many times before. I don’t see why people who feel they’re alcoholic can’t manage their lives either by drugs or alcohol and they go into a medical facility and ask for medical help, why can’t they get it right away?
I don’t understand that.
Because if you went into a hospital and said, ‘I’ve got cancer,’ … they’d give you treatment.
But apparently if you go in and you have a broken brain, you don’t get treatment.
I don’t understand that, because this could have been prevented.
All of this could have been prevented if they’d taken you, if there was a bed.
If they had more than 30 spaces at all the psychiatric hospitals in the city — that’s all they have, and they’re full all the time and people like you who walk in there and say, ‘I’m in a mental emergency,’ they won’t take you because your not a danger to yourself and you’re not a danger to others. Or they don’t think you are. So they don’t let you in.
Because there are people that are in these psychiatric beds, the ones that are clearly a danger to themselves or clearly a danger to others.
And people who are kind of maybe not a danger, well, ‘you’ll just have to walk home.’
Because you’re not horribly bad, just kind of mildly bad.
To me, it seems short sighted. You should have gone to that hospital, you should have gone for an assessment for seven days, stabilize you and out you go.
And then there wouldn’t be five victims out there.
And you wouldn’t be spending six years in jail at $100,000 a year.
…
You’re a half million dollar man already. And that it would have taken is a few thousand to get you some treatment.
It doesn’t make sense.
-30-
A wish for 2012
This may be my last post for 2011, and I’m going to keep it short.
I have a wish for the city in 2012, which quickly approaches.
There’s been tons of furor, chatter, theorizing and even anger about photo radar enforcement in recent days. Links here, here and here for example.
The contract with ACS comes up for renewal late next year. Many, including city alderman Scott Fielding, want the program to die a quick death.
I say no. I say keep it. On a few conditions.
Those being:
1. That there be an admission by powers that be that the program exists to create revenue, with safety effects a contributing factor, as well, the contract with ACS should also be made public.
2. That the city divorce the administration of the program from the Winnipeg Police Service.
3. Following 2, that as the city mulls setting up a Transportation Authority as its currently doing, the photo enforcement program be controlled and administered by same.
This authority should also have an ombudsman position to arbitrate public complaints about the use of photo radar.
The biggest problem I personally have with the program is that it tarnishes the reputation of the police service, especially when the service itself has not much to do with the administration of the program. it ain’t cops sitting in those mobile radar cars, folks.
Quite frankly, it’s just embarrassing for the cops to be called on the carpet each time there’s public outcry about the tactics employed.
As well, divorcing the responsibility from the police would help cure old wounds that photo radar takes, in some way, a boni fide policing job away from the police.
The three measures listed, I believe, would increase accountability around the program and it’s uses.
It would also diminish the damage it’s done to the reputation of the police service over time.
-30-
An (inconclusive) answer to a question that’s always plagued me
(We're obviously talking about a different kind of Warrant)
Just how many warrants are in Manitoba police computers gathering dust?
It’s something I continually have asked myself for the last few years until today, when I was given something of an answer.
It’s 20,000, give or take a few.
That was Det. Sgt. John O’Donovan’s reply to my question at the official unveiling of an RCMP-Winnipeg police warrant (read: ‘Fugitive’) squad today.
His official reply was “more or less.”
You can read all about it here. The unit is already claiming some success in catching crafty crooks who evade the law — sometimes for years,
Now, while that number seems quite large, it’s important to remember that a single offender can be the subject of several warrants at a time.
That person’s arrest can lead to the execution of several warrants.
But realistically, the quoted number of 20,000 really means nothing has changed on the outstanding warrants front since late 2006.
From Mike McIntyre (@mikeoncrime) and the Winnipeg Free Press (@winnipegnews), Nov. 6, 2006 (Can’t provide a link, sorry):
Unexecuted warrants gather dust in system
… Winnipeg police have long complained they don’t have the adequate resources to execute the majority of arrest warrants, which end up simply gathering dust in their system.
Police told the Free Press last month there are more than 20,000 outstanding warrants currently in the system for a number of alleged offences, including federal parole violations.
Sgt. Kelly Dennison said many offenders have more than one warrant against them, sometimes as many as 10.
The latest Crime Scene Golden Crown award
(The Golden Crown Award)
The second-ever Golden Crown, handed out to some of the best examples of Manitoba prosecutors trying to deter and denounce unlawful conduct goes to…
Manitoba prosecutor Courtney St. Croix — for her handling of a particular youth court case that is, in my experience, exceptional in its thuggery.
Some preface is needed:
It would be very easy for Crowns (I’d surmise) when handling certain youth cases anyways, to simply throw up one’s prosecutorial hands and be done with things. Make a deal for probation and close the book on it.
The YCJA, and its emphasis on rehabilitation of young criminals first can (and some in the public overtly agree) thwart some citizens’ views of actual justice being done.
Those arguments are always met with a version of the same argument: “They’re just kids, and we don’t give up on kids.”
Now while that’s a worthwhile credo, sometimes kids do, to put it mildly, the darndest things.
—
Such was the case of now-16-year-old ‘S’, who faced the music Wednesday for her participation in two robberies in summer 2010.
My Winnipeg Sun story is here for the gist of things and to give the full flavor from the victim’s perspective of how serious the crime was, here in the robbery capital of Canada.
(Aside: How many other untold horror stories like this are out there?)
What’s interesting about the case is that the co-accused got a short, sharp shock in jail, despite her lesser degree of participation. Held the victim down and gave her one kick.
Not so for S. She walked away Wednesday with two years of supervised probation, admittedly with some stringent conditions for the first few months.
Despite randomly picking a stranger to attack, brutally beat and strangle for no apparent reason — two days after robbing another guy behind a 7-11 — S won’t do any real time.
Quoth the victim:
“The experience was terrifying. I remember pure terror and thinking I may die because people I have never met randomly decided that it might be so,” the victim, her voice often choking with emotion, said. “I vividly recall looking into (her attacker’s) eyes and saying, ‘Please don’t do this,’ right before she threw the first punch.”
Her pleas made no difference, she said. She told court she remembers being kicked in the head countless times and strangled with a scarf and a headphone cord as she lay prone, pinned to the ground by a co-accused — another teen girl. She eventually blacked out, she said.
The judge in the case, Sandra Chapman, cited her lack of criminal record, a somewhat positive PSR and a show of remorse as being among the reasons to keep her out of the MYC.
But I can’t help but feel it was the presence of the teen’s cooing newborn in court that really paved a jail-free road for her.
“I cannot ignore the importance of a mom to a baby at early stages,” Chapman said, who added putting her in juvie jail may simply aid in her re-involvement in crime.
All that aside — Crown attorney St. Croix walked into court that morning and asked — no, pushed — for the girl to go to real jail for what what was labeled a serious violent offence — a Crown request Chapman called “not unreasonable” in light of S’s brutal act.
And for that, Ms. St. Croix garners the second-ever Golden Crown award. Thanks for trying.
-30-
Bill C-10 and the YCJA: an important note
Sgt. Smith to teen shoplifter, by phone: ‘This is Sgt. Smith of the Winnipeg police. I understand you are being held for shoplifting. I am hereby warning you.’
Teen shoplifter: ‘Huh?’
Smith: ‘I am warning you.’
Teen: ‘OK?’
-end conversation
[Three days later, different store, same cop, same shoplifter, by phone]
Sgt. Smith: ‘This is Sgt. Smith of the Winnipeg police. I understand you are being held for shoplifting. I am hereby cautioning you.’
Teen: OK.
Sgt. Smith: ‘You are hereby cautioned.’
-end conversation
It’s often stated that the kids who actually wind up in custody at the youth centre and have to go before a judge are just the top of an iceberg in the city in terms of the number of offences committed by kids.
Under the YCJA — and its current focus on rehabilitation and ‘meaningful consequences’ for kid offenders — there’s a huge number of diversion tactics, known as extra-judical measures and sanctions that are often used as a first, last resort to scare non-violent kids from crime and keep them out of the court system.
|
These sanctions can range on a quasi-sliding scale from a police warning and caution [as evidenced above from a real-life example] to Crown warnings and cautions and voluntary referrals to programming etc.
In other words, it’s a number of ‘first, last chances’ before actually being charged with a crime and having to come to court.
While Bill C-10, the federal government’s omnibus crime bill, won’t remove these measures [that I know of], it does propose to make a major change that should prove revealing regarding their effectiveness.
Judges will now be told of them in court, and Crowns can rely on prior uses of extrajudicial measures as a reason for jail in indictable [serious offences]
Today, I’ve yet to hear of a judge be told of a kid’s pre-criminal history, of efforts made by police and justice officials to give them chances to get right or else.
The YCJA reads as follows today:
Clause 173: Relevant portion of subsection 39(1):39. (1) A youth justice court shall not commit a young person to custody under section 42 (youth sentences) unless…(c) the young person has committed an indictable offence for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years and has a history that indicates a pattern of findings of guilt under this Act or the Young Offenders Act, chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985; or …
A youth justice court shall not commit a young person to custody under section 42 (youth sentences) unless(c) the young person has committed an indictable offence for which an adult would be liable to imprisonment for a term of more than two years and has a history that indicates a pattern of either extrajudicial sanctions or of findings of guilt or of both under this Act or the Young Offenders Act, chapter Y-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985; or
It’s another, dare I say, clever way of the federal government to try and put some sharper teeth into our youth justice laws.
It’s also one I have yet to hear word one about.
The question is: does so-called small crime like shoplifting pave the way towards more substantive offences?
Some authorities say yes — and the tale of ‘Burglar Jimmy’ is one example of this.
The only issue I can see with the proposed rule is that now cops and Crowns will have to keep detailed records of how many times they gave Jimmy a chance before he burned down the house or mugged the maid. I’m not 100 per cent sure they do right now.
[See comment below].
-30-
As an aside: Could we please legislate in C-10 the addition of that peculiar British vernacular where being convicted of a crime, or getting arrested is referred as: “Got done for?”
Example: “I got done for drink drive when I was 18 and never got my license back,” said Ms. Butterfarthing.
Mr. Bear goes to downtown Winnipeg
(James Hope Howard/Slurpees and Murder)
William Bear’s penchant for getting whacked out on sniff and wandering around downtown Winnipeg scaring people because of the large knife he carries in his pants likely saved his life.
The irony of existence sometimes amazes me. So does its cruel sadness.
Such was the case of the 34-year-old chronic substance abuser, who, (setting aside his criminal record) has racked up 53 documented Intoxicated Persons Detention Act arrests in his relatively short adult life.
He was picked up on Fort Street after a frightened member of the public called 911 to report a weirdo was walking around downtown in broad daylight with the weapon. Police rush into the area, and find Bear, staggering around.
In the plastic shopping bag he was carrying was a king can of beer.
Given his long and dated history with Winnipeg’s finest (and the fact he was out on ‘supervised’ probation), Bear’s locked up and spends the next 33 days behind bars.
A few days after he’s nabbed, the Austin Street rooming house he once called home is firebombed — allegedly by a woman looking to get payback on a relative but missed the target, killing five people Bear likely knew.
Bear’s arrest “might have saved his life,” Judge Fred Sandhu heard today.
In any event, Bear’s released soon after the fatal fire and picked up again just recently causing a disturbance outside the Main Street Project. Cops note he’s got a black rag soaked in paint thinner on him.
In the plastic shopping bag he was carrying was a can of beer.
By Friday, Bear, who hails from Berens River, is likely going to be back in the city.
But — despite his truly awful personal circumstances — he could be considered one of the lucky ones. He’s obtained help from a program to get him into housing and is on the waiting list for the Bell Hotel on Main Street.
For his part, Bear swears he’s headed straight from jail to a detox program, but said he wasn’t interested in staying at the Sally Ann in the interim due to some issues with drinking and drugs on its doorstep.
He was carrying the knife in his pants because of the brutal assaults many shelter-less people experience in the city, he said.
“This city’s kind of rough,” the soft-spoken Bear said. “People carry guns, people carry knives.”
Sandhu expressed worry that Bear — with his history of getting out of his mind on sniff — could end up harming or even killing someone without really realizing what he was doing.
However, given the nature of the charges he pleaded guilty to, there’s little Sandhu could do to keep Bear locked up.
“If you’re walking down the middle of the street and there’s nobody there, might be a couple of panhandlers … or somebody that you think [is] selling drugs, how do you feel? Normally, you’d think, ‘this is not very safe,’” Winnipeg police Chief Keith McCaskill told the Winnipeg Sun’s editorial board on Wednesday.
Perception of safety downtown is just as important as the reality, McCaskill said.
If people perceive they’re unsafe, then it’s really the same effect is if they’re actually unsafe.
The goal is to get more people — including cops — into the area on a permanent basis.
McCaskill said he believes having the police headquarters right in the heart of downtown will help as more cop cars will be around, and more officers will be in the skywalks and on the ground as they go about their days.
For example, crime — especially vehicle break-ins — drops noticeably when a Jets game is on, he said yesterday.
The equation: more people, more activity equals fewer problems. Better perception. Better perception of safety.
The police service is already involved a crime prevention through environmental design study in the area, and has pledged more cops and bike patrols for 2012.
But it must be said: as efforts to continue to try and get more people into the beleaguered area, we as a society have to do more to help people in circumstances like Bear’s get right — if they want the help.
Barring that, we need to implement a system to keep the chronically drunk, high or vagrant out of the downtown proper — no matter the time of day.
Loitering in front of MEC? Off you go. Camped out in front of Portage Place or Giant Tiger? Sayonara.
It’s the only way downtown will ever have a chance to truly change its image and make it a truly genuine option as a place to live in Winnipeg.
-30-
‘In Camera’
It’s always sad — and immediately curious — when you see a pregnant woman in the prisoner’s dock in court decked out in the dull grey uniform of Remand Centre inmates. ***(see note at bottom)
Such was the case today with Laura Lee Monias, 34.
Monias, a mother of an 18-month-old and just a few weeks shy of having her second child, appeared today to deal with several charges, many of them for failing to appear in court.
She was picked up recently after months on the lam from a bail plan that sent her to live at an unlocked treatment centre, something often reserved as a last-ditch plan for people with serious issues.
She walked away from it after a week or two. She says she simply got another bed at a different facility. Who knows.
She also pleaded guilty today to her fourth impaired-driving related conviction since 1998.
Monias is at the point where mandatory minimums apply due to her record of getting behind the wheel while drunk.
I was conflicted. I felt sorrow for her and her predicament, but at the same time glad that she faced a guaranteed period of jail time given the risk to the public she posed.
After her recent arrest she was bail denied, likely prompting her desire to plead guilty and get the punishment over with.
On Jan. 29, 2009, Monias crashed on the Trans-Canada highway (it was minor, no injuries) while speeding, according to witnesses. Another car also wound up in the snowy roadside ditch.
Police who rushed to the scene suspected she was drunk after she admitted to drinking at a cousin’s home in Winnipeg a few hours earlier.
In the car she was driving — she somehow had a learner’s permit despite three prior drive over .08s — was a beer cap and some open liquor.
She was also with her so-called driving supervisor who was also suspected to be drunk. Charges were dropped against him last year.
Her efforts to blow a sample in an ASD for the cops failed miserably — she alleged the act of providing a breath sample reminded her of being abused as a child in some way. I won’t get into it.
By my math, she was a few months pregnant at the time with her first-born.
What followed was a series of catch and release arrests as she repeatedly failed to deal with the charge, leading to her most recent detention and guilty plea.
Judge Careena Roller called her behaviour “selfish and dangerous.” The judge spoke of the lost trust between Monias and society because of her scofflaw attitude.
“That behaviour gets jail sentences. It’s just that simple,” Roller said.
But the judge, likely feeling conflicted as well, offered Monias a big break by sentencing her to the mandatory minimum of 120 days in jail (23 left to serve after credit for dead time is factored in).
But she also offered the soft-spoken mom concurrent time on three fail to attend courts and a bail breach from the absconding from the treatment centre — something she said she doesn’t normally do, and isn’t required to by law.
She’ll likely be out in time to celebrate the birth of her newborn in the absence of correctional officers. I’m glad for that. Mostly for the baby.
It’s just my opinion, I know, but while sitting and listening to her case, my mind drifted to what kind of life her kids would have if she doesn’t get it together, and quick.
Monias’ isn’t some big story, certainly not one I’d expect to see written up in the newspaper.
But my reading of the public’s interest prevents me from simply disregarding her case — another that references a major problem society has, but not major enough to warrant real ink.
Regardless of what I may feel about it.
Booze rears its head once again.
Just pointing it out.
-30-
***
Hers was yet another case I’ve come across recently where it didn’t appear on the official docket the media gets every day. Showing up at these hearings draws stares from the lawyers.
