IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
|
Citation: |
R. v. Camille, |
|
|
2018 BCSC 1595 |
Date: 20180814
Docket: 101253
Registry: Kamloops
Regina
v.
Gordon Camille
Before: The Honourable Associate Chief Justice H. Holmes
Oral Reasons for Sentence
|
Counsel for the Crown: |
S.E. Firestone |
|
Counsel for the Accused: |
K.M. Walker, QC |
|
Place and Dates of Sentencing Hearing: |
Kamloops, B.C. August 13-14, 2018 |
|
Place and Date of Sentencing: |
Kamloops, B.C. August 14, 2018 |
[1] I found Mr. Camille guilty of manslaughter for killing Dennis Adolph on January 26, 2016 in the room they shared at the Four Seasons Motel in the Valleyview area of Kamloops.
[2] The task now is to determine the appropriate sentence.
[3] The Crown submits that the applicable range of sentences is between 10 and 12 years’ imprisonment, and that the appropriate sentence in this case is 11 years’ imprisonment, less credit for the time Mr. Camille has spent in pre-sentencing custody.
[4] The defence submits that although the applicable range of sentences extends to about 12 years’ imprisonment, it starts at a lower point than the Crown suggests, namely at 7 years. The defence submits that Mr. Camille’s sentence should fall toward the lower end of the 7 to 12 year range, before credit for time in pre‑sentencing custody.
[5] I will first outline the offence and some of its effects, and some of the main details in Mr. Camille’s background, before then applying the relevant sentencing principles in light of those circumstances in order to determine the appropriate sentence.
[6] In brief overview, Mr. Adolph and Mr. Camille had been roommates at the motel since late 2015. At the time of the offence, Mr. Adolph was about 49 years old, and Mr. Camille was 65. They were friends, and some understood there to be a family relationship as well.
[7] On the night of January 25, the two were last seen returning together to the room at 8:15 p.m. Neighbours in the motel heard loud laughing and cackling during the night, but nothing suggesting an altercation.
[8] Mr. Adolph left the room at about 6:15 a.m. and spoke briefly to the motel’s owner-manager at the office, before returning to the room.
[9] Then, at about 6:52 a.m., Mr. Camille left the room and went to the office. However, no one responded and he returned to the room.
[10] Mr. Camille went to the office again at about 11:15 a.m. This time he asked the staff to call 911, telling them that Mr. Adolph appeared to be deceased. Mr. Camille then remained outside the room, close by, and cooperated with the emergency responders who then arrived.
[11] Mr. Adolph had died from loss of blood from the single stab wound Mr. Camille inflicted to his lower abdomen.
[12] Mr. Adolph had the exceptionally high blood-alcohol content of 400 mg% at the time of his death.
[13] As the defence urges, the reasonable conclusion from all the evidence is that Mr. Camille was also grossly intoxicated by alcohol around that time.
[14] More detail about the offence and my conclusions after the trial are found in the reasons for judgment indexed at 2018 BCSC 478.
[15] Words cannot convey the profound and far-reaching effects of an untimely death. Family members and friends of the deceased person are the most affected, but the community is affected as well. All of us suffer when we know that one of the members of the community has died at the hand of another. We in the community not only feel a painful empathy for those most affected by the loss, but also our sense of security is disturbed, our trust in others reduced, especially when, as with this case, the attack is on a friend and for no apparent reason.
[16] Ms. Denice Wennerstrom, who is Mr. Adolph’s twin sister, and Ms. Gwen Bob, who is a close family friend, explain in their victim impact statements some of the specific effects of their loss, as well as of the more general consequences I have just referred to. Both of them speak of Mr. Adolph as a loving and gentle person. They speak of the loss they suffer over and over again, when they momentarily expect him to telephone, and then realize that he never will do so again. In the guilt that survivors in this type of situation often experience, they wonder whether they should have done more to try to help Mr. Adolph with his struggle with alcohol. Most of all, they are sad to have lost him, and are sad that the other people – family members and friends – who valued him have lost him too.
[17] The Court and counsel have had the benefit of the report of Dr. Kulwant Riar, dated June 6, 2018. Dr. Riar did not have the opportunity to interview or examine Mr. Camille, but he reviewed numerous materials from previous proceedings and assessments. Counsel agree that Dr. Riar’s report offers a helpful summary of the details of Mr. Camille’s background, and I agree. The report is not offered in this sentencing proceeding for any opinion it expresses.
[18] The Court was also assisted by the letter written by Ms. Dora Demers, who is Mr. Camille’s cousin but was raised as his sister. The letter, which Mr. Walker read aloud, added detail and brought to life the circumstances before and after Mr. Camille was sent to residential school, and it made clear the importance of family, including extended family, in Mr. Camille’s community and culture.
[19] To summarize the key points of Mr. Camille’s background, I can do no better than to quote several passages from the succinct notes Mr. Walker provided during his sentencing submissions.
[20] As to Mr. Camille’s general background, and his alcohol and drug abuse, Mr. Walker’s notes say this:
Mr. Camille’s Background
Mr. Camille was born a member of the Canoe Creek Band and Shuswap Tribe. He is 68 years old and suffers from a variety of health issues including severe arthritis which has led him to require, at times, the assistance of a walker and caused a deformity of his hands. He also has significant hearing loss.
Mr. Camille has had a difficult upbringing and subsequent problems with drugs and alcohol. His father left his mother when he was 6 years old and Mr. Camille only saw him once after that. His remaining childhood, teenage years, and young adulthood have been surrounded by tragedy.
Mr. Camille is one of the few surviving members of his immediate family. With the exception of his cousin Dora Demers, who continues to live in Kamloops, he lost four brothers and both parents all by the age of 34. His two older brothers died in infancy. His mother and father died in separate car accidents. In a more violent end, his twin brother, Carl William, had his “throat slit” in 1979, and Mr. Camille saw his body lying on the ground shortly afterward. His other brother Larry was shot to death by a .30-30 rifle somewhere in the U.S.A. This was not the only violence Mr. Camille experienced during his formative years.
In 1958 Mr. Camille was removed from his mother’s care and placed in multiple residential schools. He reports that between the ages of roughly 8‑14 years old he suffered ongoing sexual abuse at the hands of a priest. He recounts that during his stay at St. Joseph’s residential school, he would receive chocolate bars and pop in return for sexual favours. He was raped on at least one occasion and it was roughly around the same time that he reports witnessing his mother and sister get “gang-raped”. After his stay in Residential School, and corresponding sexual abuse, he was moved to and from various boarding homes. Some of the foster parents were good people. But in Grade 11, Mr. Camille was moved to a family in Clinton where the foster parents were - in his words - disinterested alcoholics who were only interested in government money.
Despite these events, Mr. Camille eventually completed grade 12 and in 1989 attended Caribou College in Kamloops (now TRU) where he engaged in a number of arts courses. His cousin Dora Demers who was attending at the same time stated that Mr. Camille showed great potential and got good marks but that ultimately alcohol derailed his attempts at higher education. His first criminal conviction was for break and enter and theft at the age of 24 for which he received a suspended sentence.
During his 20’s and 30’s Mr. Camille was employed in a variety of jobs around 100 Mile House. Some of the jobs included general labourer, ranch-hand, tree-faller, skid operator, tree spacer, horse logger, construction worker etc. Since 2001, however, Mr. Camille has been unable to work as a result of his arthritis. Because of this, he has relied on social assistance and disability payments to carry on.
Alcohol and Drug Abuse
Now and in the past, Mr. Camille has acknowledged that he has a problem with alcohol, that he uses it to self-medicate, and has expressed a desire to get help. In 1996 Mr. Camille admitted he used drinking to numb his pain and that he was having a hard time quitting. In 1988 he attended AA and remained sober for two years. In 1996 he expressed a readiness to speak to a counsellor regarding his alcohol abuse and issues with sexual abuse and being taken away from his mother as a child. By the end of that year he was regularly attending counselling and attended a treatment centre. In 2004, after pleading guilty to aggravated assault and three counts of breach of probation, including alcohol consumption, he said to the court: “I have a bad alcohol problem and I’m sorry that this actually happened. I was feeling if I did not get into trouble now, I will probably die in a back alley somewhere from alcohol.” Again in 2004 he attended detox for six days and was waiting to go to a residential treatment centre. In May of 2005, he was drinking while on probation and expressed that he was not doing well. He said he wanted to get into detox and attend AA as soon as possible. Finally, while on probation in 2008, he again stated that he was planning to go to detox.
These instances suggest that Mr. Camille recognized some time ago the grasp alcohol has had on his life. They suggest a yearning to control the disorder rather than have it control him, and also that his alcohol use is closely tied to the traumatic events of his childhood.
[21] As to Mr. Camille’s health, Mr. Walker’s notes say the following:
Mr. Camille is 68 years old and suffers from poor health including severe arthritis, deformities of his hands, and acute hearing loss. He complains of constant pain coming from his right abdominal area - something he suspects is a result of a failing liver. He acknowledges that this pain is likely a result of chronic life-long alcohol abuse. Having said that, he has not had a drink since he was taken into custody in early February 2016.
Mr. Camille’s mental health should also be taken into consideration. Although he has not been formally diagnosed with dementia or cognitive decline, it is clear from communicating with him that he struggles to maintain coherent, linear thoughts. At times he is rambling, confused, and bounces back and forth in time during conversations. This may be a symptom of his hearing loss but he himself recognizes an inability to think or communicate as he once did. While he easily remembers events of his childhood, he struggles with short-term memory of recent events. Though not determinative, these are all commonly known as early symptoms of dementia.
[22] Mr. Camille has a criminal record of 13 offences, including a previous offence of manslaughter and about six other offences of violence, most of them serious offences, such as aggravated assaults in 1995, 1998 (two charges involving two victims), and 2008. There are large gaps between the offences of violence, which offences date back to the manslaughter in 1984 and extend until an aggravated assault with a knife in 2008. However, most of those offences were committed against friends or acquaintances, or, in the case of the manslaughter, a common law partner, and took place for no discernible reason. Intoxication on Mr. Camille’s part, usually by alcohol, seems to have contributed heavily to each offence of violence, and likely to all of the offences on his record, whether violent or not.
[23] As to Mr. Camille’s behaviour when in custody, Mr. Walker’s notes summarize the numerous indications that Mr. Camille poses no problem at all when in that setting, and, rather, is a model prisoner:
In Custody Behaviour
Mr. Camille is a model prisoner when in custody. In 1998 while at a custody centre, staff noted that he was a “very quiet man, hardly known to be on the unit, stayed primarily in his cell, reading or sleeping.” In the summer of 1999 while in KRCC he was said to be “absolutely no problem.” Later that winter, staff reported that he had a good attitude, was polite and did his own things. In 2004 he was again in custody and his conduct was good. In 2009 there were several entries of him being no problem, being quiet and doing a good job cleaning. He was also described as respectful and polite. Since his February 2016 incarceration at KRCC, staff have primarily highlighted concerns with his health where it was again noted that he was hard of hearing, had severe arthritis and hand deformities. Management-wise they say he is of no concern. They describe him as a quiet, non-problematic, elderly inmate.
[24] The offence of manslaughter carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. No minimum sentence applies in the circumstances of this case.
[25] The general principles that govern the determination of a sentence within that vast range are expressed in s. 718 of the Criminal Code and the neighbouring sections, and are given more precision in the case authorities that apply those principles.
[26] Crown and defence counsel agree that the sentencing principles that must prevail in this case are denunciation of the conduct, deterrence of similar conduct by Mr. Camille or by others, and the protection of the public. Mr. Camille’s rehabilitation is important, but it must yield in the determination of his sentence. This is because the offence was so serious, and it followed other, generally similar offences over an extended period, despite numerous efforts to help Mr. Camille overcome the addiction that makes him a risk to others.
[27] The Crown and the defence do not disagree about the aggravating and mitigating circumstances relating to the offence and to the offender, Mr. Camille.
[28] As to aggravating circumstances, Mr. Camille has a lengthy criminal record, as I have noted. Furthermore, his record includes a number of very serious offences of violence, including manslaughter and four aggravated assaults.
[29] Alcohol was a significant factor in each previous offence of violence, as Mr. Camille appears to have recognized. However, he has been unwilling or unable to overcome the addiction that places him at such high risk of seriously harming other people, despite a substantial amount of intervention and treatment over the years.
[30] Also aggravating is that Mr. Camille attacked Mr. Adolph in Mr. Adolph’s own home, where he ought to have been able to feel safe.
[31] In addition, Mr. Adolph was extremely vulnerable at the time, likely lying on his back on his bed, and, as I have noted, in a state of heavy intoxication which, I find, must have had him almost or entirely incapacitated, and possibly unconscious.
[32] There are also mitigating circumstances to be considered.
[33] Crown and defence counsel referred to the most important of these as the many “Gladue factors”, meaning the circumstances in Mr. Camille’s background as an Indigenous person that led him to abuse alcohol and other substances, and which have limited his ability to gain control of his addiction. I described these earlier, by quoting from Mr. Walker’s written notes. Key are the tragic loss of many members of Mr. Camille’s immediate family, many of them in traumatic circumstances, as well as his own traumatic experiences, including abuse over an extended period while he was at residential school.
[34] I take into account also Mr. Camille’s advanced age and his poor physical health.
[35] Courts have often noted that offences of manslaughter cover a vast spectrum, ranging from what is sometime called near-accident through to what is sometimes called near-murder. A fit sentence for the particular offence must reflect the offender’s degree of moral blameworthiness in the particular offence to be sentenced. The measure of moral blameworthiness takes account of a wide range of considerations relating to the conduct of the offender and the circumstances in which the offence was committed. Chief Justice Fraser described them in R. v. Laberge, 1995 ABCA 196 at para. 21 as follows (cited with approval in R. v. Stone, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 290 at para. 247):
Therefore, the court must look not only at the physical characterization of the act itself, but must assess a range of other considerations. These include the choice of weapon used to effect the unlawful act, the degree of force the offender used in perpetrating the act, the extent of the victim’s injuries, the degree of violence or brutality, the existence of any additional gratuitous violence, the degree of deliberation involved in the act, the extent to which the act reflected forethought of action or planning, the complexity of the act, what, if anything, provoked, the act, the time taken to perpetrate the act and the element of chance involved in the resulting death.
[36] Mr. Camille was morally blameworthy for using a weapon – the knife – against Mr. Adolph, and stabbing him fatally. However, there is no indication that he planned to do this, or even that he gave any thought to violence against Mr. Adolph beforehand. The act of stabbing Mr. Adolph was not complex. Mr. Camille used an ordinary kitchen knife that was likely close to hand. As I have noted, Mr. Adolph was likely lying on his back incapacitated or unconscious, and, as I explained in my reasons for judgment after the trial, the stab wound did not require much force. Mr. Camille inflicted no additional or gratuitous violence.
[37] The Crown submits that the range of sentences for second offences of manslaughter starts at 10 years’ imprisonment. The Crown relies on R. v. Sipes, 2013 BCSC 383, R. v. Baldwin, 2017 ONSC 5040, and R. v. Beaulieu, 2007 MBPC 9, aff’d 2007 MBCA 115.
[38] I agree that in many cases, an offender’s second offence of manslaughter will require a sentence of at least 10 years’ imprisonment. However, I do not view that result as a bright line, defining a floor for sentences in cases of that type. More attention is required to the particular circumstances of the offence to be sentenced and of the offender.
[39] I note that many of the cases on which the Crown relies (in respect of second offences of manslaughter) involved a greater degree of violence or brutality – sometimes much greater – than was involved in this case.
[40] Restraint is required in the sentencing of Indigenous offenders, for the reasons eloquently explained in Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688 and Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13, and by virtue of s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code. Mr. Camille falls squarely into the category of offenders whose backgrounds the Supreme Court of Canada has asked courts to view closely and with great sensitivity to the profound consequences of their life experiences.
[41] This is not to discount the equally important principle that, as the Crown submits, victims of Indigenous offenders are entitled to the law’s protection.
[42] The defence relies mainly on R. v. Herman, 2010 BCSC 1682, and R. v. Clarke, [2003] O.J. No. 1966, where the sentences were each 9 years. In Herman, the conduct was more violent and vicious than Mr. Camille’s, and there were no significant mitigating circumstances. However, in Herman, the Crown described the applicable range as between 2 to 12 years, and suggested 10 years’ imprisonment for the particular offender given the aggravating circumstances, including the very lengthy record with many offences of violence, the brutal nature of the attack, and the failure to render any assistance to the victim. In that context, the 9‑year sentence fell very near the top of the articulated range. In Clarke, there were some aggravating circumstances similar to those in this case, but the mitigating circumstances were greater – the offender was relatively young, at 29, and had no criminal record, he was provoked into the attack, and he had acknowledged responsibility for it.
[43] In my view, Mr. Camille’s sentence should be somewhat longer than those in Herman and Clarke, though not as long as the Crown suggests.
[44] Mr. Camille, please stand. I am going to impose sentence.
[45] For your offence of manslaughter of Dennis Adolph, I sentence you to 9 ½ years’ imprisonment.
[46] I am told that you have been in pre-sentencing custody for 921 days as of today. You will have credit for 1 ½ times that period, which I will round to 46 months.
[47] That leaves 68 months (or 5 years and 8 months) remaining to be served.
[48] Have a seat, please. There are some ancillary orders, and I wish Mr. Camille to be seated given his health.
[49] The offence is a primary designated offence according to s. 487.04. There will be an order requiring you, Mr. Camille, to provide a sample of bodily substance suitable for a DNA analysis. I make that order under s. 487.051(1).
[50] A firearms prohibition order is mandatory. The period of the prohibition will be for life. That order is made under s. 109(1)(a) and 109(3). Mr. Camille, for the rest of your life, you are to have no firearms, no ammunition, and no explosive substances, and I strongly advise you to stay away from any form of weapon whatsoever.
[51] Ms. Firestone, you are seeking a forfeiture order. That relates to what, please?
[52] MS. FIRESTONE: That relates to the exhibits seized by the RCMP. Essentially, it is any of the exhibits seized by the RCMP in the course of the investigation. That includes the knives, the sheets from the bed, the –
[53] MR. WALKER: My Lady, maybe, perhaps the best thing that can be done on this is that I do not disagree that my learned friend is entitled to a forfeiture order with respect to some of the exhibits. Perhaps what we can do is she can provide a list of the exhibits that are intended to be forfeited and I will sign it and approve it as to form and perhaps we can forward it to you for your consideration?
[54] THE COURT: Certainly. Is that agreeable, Ms. Firestone?
[55] MS. FIRESTONE: Yes, absolutely.
[56] MR. WALKER: [FURTHER EXPLANATION OF TYPES OF ITEMS SEIZED]
[57] THE COURT: All right.
[58] THE COURT: Finally, a victim surcharge is mandatory, I believe –
[59] MR. WALKER: Yes, My Lady.
[60] THE COURT: – under s. 737(2)(b)(ii). I believe it is $200. Do counsel have a submission on that?
[61] MR. WALKER: I have no submission on that, My Lady.
[62] MS. FIRESTONE: No, My Lady.
[63] THE COURT: Then that order will go, as well.
[64] Thank you. We will adjourn.
“The Honourable Associate Chief Justice H. Holmes”