[1] On January 21, 2000, Mr. Wormell was convicted by a jury of the following offences:

Count 1: Between the 1^st day of August, 1998 and the 10^th day of October, 1998, both dates inclusive, at or near Kamloops, Anglemont and Sicamous, in the Province of British Columbia, did sexually assault BL, contrary to Section 271 of the Criminal Code, AND AGAINST THE PEACE OF OUR LADY THE QUEEN HER CROWN AND DIGNITY.

Count 2: Between the 1^st day of August, 1998 and the 10^th day of October, 1998, both dates inclusive, at or near Kamloops, Anglemont and Sicamous, in the Province of British Columbia, did, for a sexual purpose, touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of his body, the body of BL, a person under the age of fourteen years, contrary to Section 151 of the Criminal Code, AND AGAINST THE PEACE OF OUR LADY THE QUEEN HER CROWN AND DIGNITY.

Count 3: Between the 1^st day of August, 1998 and the 10^th day of October, 1998, both dates inclusive, at or near Kamloops, Anglemont and Sicamous, in the Province of British Columbia, did, for a sexual purpose, invite, counsel or incite BL, a person under the age of fourteen years, to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of his body, the body of William John Wormell, contrary to Section 152 of the Criminal Code, AND AGAINST THE PEACE OF OUR LADY THE QUEEN HER CROWN AND DIGNITY.

Count 4: Between the 1^st day of August, 1998 and the 10^th day of October, 1998, both dates inclusive, at or near Kamloops, Anglemont and Sicamous, in the Province of British Columbia, did sexually assault DL, contrary to Section 271 of the Criminal Code, AND AGAINST THE PEACE OF OUR LADY THE QUEEN HER CROWN AND DIGNITY.

Count 5: Between the 1^st day of August, 1998 and the 10^th day of October, 1998, both dates inclusive, at or near Kamloops, Anglemont and Sicamous, in the Province of British Columbia, did, for a sexual purpose, touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of his body, the body of DL, a person under the age of fourteen years, contrary to Section 151 of the Criminal Code, AND AGAINST THE PEACE OF OUR LADY THE QUEEN HER CROWN AND DIGNITY.

Count 6: Between the 1^st day of August, 1998 and the 10^th day of October, 1998, both dates inclusive, at or near Kamloops, Anglemont and Sicamous, in the Province of British Columbia, did, for a sexual purpose, invite, counsel or incite DL, a person under the age of fourteen years, to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of his body, the body of William John Wormell, contrary to Section 152 of the Criminal Code, AND AGAINST THE PEACE OF OUR LADY THE QUEEN HER CROWN AND DIGNITY.

[2] On September 1, 2000, the Crown applied under Part XXIV of the Code to have Mr. Wormell designated a dangerous offender and detained for an indeterminate period. At the conclusion of submissions on September 29, I reserved judgment and set November 2, 2000 for delivery of my decision. On November 2, counsel for Mr. Wormell applied to adjourn sentencing on the ground that in October five justices of the British Columbia Court of Appeal had heard and reserved judgment on two dangerous offender appeals, and an intervention, described as R. v. Edgar, R. v. Johnson, and R. v. Bush. Counsel for Mr. Wormell asked the court to adjourn sentencing to await the outcome of the Court of Appeal's deliberations.

[3] I granted the adjournment sought and four subsequent adjournments requested by counsel for Mr. Wormell, over the objections of the Crown. The decisions of the Court of Appeal are still under reserve. However, I am satisfied that any further delay in sentencing Mr. Wormell is not warranted and in the Reasons that follow, I have dealt with submissions on the law in a manner that assumes the decisions of the Court of Appeal will be favourable to the offender.

[4] Section 753.(1) states:

[5] Section 752 states:

[6] Section 753. (4) states:

[7] Section 753. (5) states:

[8] I begin my statement of the facts I have found to be proved with recognition of the law that the Crown must, on a dangerous offender proceeding, as on any sentencing hearing, prove disputed facts beyond a reasonable doubt. R. v. Jack (1998) 104 B.C.A.C. 175, 170 W.A.C. 175, (B.C.C.A.).

[9] Mr. Wormell was 24 years old when he committed the first offence for which he has been convicted, and he was 65 years old when he committed the predicate offences for which he is presently being sentenced.

[10] Mr. Wormell has been sexually abusing children for four decades. The Crown has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, criminal acts by Mr. Wormell perpetrated against 13 children. Convictions have been entered in relation to 12 of the victims. Including the six most recent convictions, he has five convictions for sexual assault of children, five convictions for indecent assault of boys, two convictions for indecent assault of girls, one conviction for gross indecency, two convictions of touching children for a sexual purpose, and two convictions for inciting sexual touching by children.

[11] Little information is available about the circumstances of the first indecent assault conviction, which was entered on February 15, 1974. In a statement given to police during a later criminal investigation, Mr. Wormell said that the victim was the 9 year old son of friends.

[12] The circumstances of the offences in relation to the other 12 victims are set out briefly here:

1.    BW was indecently assaulted by Mr. Wormell between January 1, 1957 and December 31, 1958, when BW was between the ages of 6 and 8. BW lived with his parents in Esquimalt, B.C. Mr. Wormell was the minister at the church attended by BW and BW's family. Mr. Wormell and his wife lived in a residence connected to the church. Mr. Wormell arranged with BW's parents to have BW stay overnight at the Wormell home on four or five occasions when Mrs. Wormell was away from home. During these visits, Mr. Wormell touched BW's genitals and had BW touch Mr. Wormell's penis. After BW testified at trial, Mr. Wormell plead guilty to indecent assault of him.

2.    MFN was 8 years old in 1960 when Mr. Wormell indecently assaulted her over a period of 3 to 4 months. MFN's family attended a church in Powell River where Mr. Wormell conducted bible classes for young girls. He took a special interest in MFN and began to talk to her about female anatomy and about sexual intercourse. He kissed her on many occasions, putting his tongue in her mouth. During a camping trip, while Mr. Wormell's wife was a short distance down the beach, Mr. Wormell went into a tent with MFN where she was changing into her bathing suit. He took off his own bathing suit and persuaded MFN to touch his erect penis. Later that night while Mrs. Wormell was asleep next to MFN, Mr. Wormell fondled MFN's vagina. Mr. Wormell also took MFN on a walk in woods near her parents' home, took her clothes off and touched her vagina. He fondled her genitals several times while driving MFN to or from church functions. Mr. Wormell told MFN not to tell her parents, however, she eventually told her parents about Mr. Wormell's repeated assaults. Although Mr. Wormell initially proclaimed his innocence, he eventually plead guilty to a charge of indecently assaulting MFN.

3.    Mr. Wormell indecently assaulted RH on numerous occasions over a period of five years between 1971 and 1976. RH was 11 or 12 years old when the assaults began. Mr. Wormell was friendly with RH's parents who were members of a church in Victoria also attended by Mr. Wormell. Mr. Wormell volunteered to take RH and his brother swimming and on other recreational trips. Mr. Wormell paid special attention to RH, flattering him and telling him that they shared a special relationship. Mr. Wormell began introducing RH to sexual activity by playing games involving brief episodes of Mr. Wormell placing his hand on RH's genitals. This progressed to repeated incidents of Mr. Wormell fondling RH's genitals. RH was also persuaded to touch Mr. Wormell's genitals. These events occurred at public swimming pools, in Mr. Wormell's vehicle, and on a boat. One of the incidents occurred when RH's younger brother was present in bed with Mr. Wormell and RH. Mr. Wormell used various methods to persuade RH to comply with his requests for sexual activity. He pretended to have a special relationship with RH, gave and promised him gifts, and told RH that what they were doing was activity that loving adults shared. He also told RH that RH was at fault for what had happened. RH testified at the trial at which Mr. Wormell was convicted of sexual assault of RH and two others, and also testified on a voir dire in the trial leading to the convictions for which Mr. Wormell is currently being sentenced.

4.    Mr. Wormell committed gross indecency on LDA between January 1, 1974 and December 31, 1979, when she was between the ages of 6 and 11. LDA met Mr. Wormell, whom she and her friends called "Uncle Bill", through family friends. Mr. Wormell took LDA and other children on recreational outings, and sometimes had the children, including LDA, stay overnight at his apartment in Victoria, and at a home owned by Mr. Wormell in Anglemont, B.C. Mr. Wormell told LDA he had money in his pants pocket and that she should reach into the pocket to retrieve the money. When she did, she discovered there was a hole in the pocket and Mr. Wormell was naked underneath. When LDA put her hand into Mr. Wormell's pocket to retrieve the money, Mr. Wormell held her hand against his penis. This occurred on more than one occasion. LDA observed Mr. Wormell playing sexual touching games with other children. He also had LDA and a boy MB, simulate sexual intercourse while on a bed with Mr. Wormell. He obtained LDA's cooperation by giving her gifts and telling her that he loved her. Mr. Wormell pleaded guilty to gross indecency in relation to LDA.

5.    Mr. Wormell indecently assaulted PK between January 1, 1979 and December 31, 1980 when PK was 12 years old. PK met Mr. Wormell through a neighbour. Mr. Wormell took PK and other children on recreational outings, to his home at Anglemont and once to Disneyland. Mr. Wormell encouraged PK and the other children to call him "Uncle Bill". Mr. Wormell paid for outings and activities, gave PK gifts, told PK that he was "special" and reassured PK that the activity between them was part of their special bond. Mr. Wormell touched and fondled PK's genitals on several occasions while they were driving in Mr. Wormell's vehicle. Mr. Wormell guided PK's hand to touch Mr. Wormell's genitals. On one occasion Mr. Wormell pulled PK's shorts down, kissed PK's penis and then put PK's penis in his mouth. PK observed Mr. Wormell playing games with other children that involved the children displaying their genitals. While on a trip to Disneyland, Mr. Wormell sexually assaulted P.K. in the hotel room when other boys were present. Mr. Wormell gave P.K. gifts, including the gift of a motorbike. Mr. Wormell plead guilty to indecent assault of PK.

6.    Mr. Wormell indecently assaulted JB between July 2, 1978 and July 1, 1981, when she was between the ages of 4 and 7. JB met Mr. Wormell through a church attended by her grandparents. Mr. Wormell stayed at her family's home on a few occasions. He told her he loved her. On more than one occasion while Mr. Wormell and JB were sitting beside each other on a couch, he took her hand, and put it through a hole in his pants pocket and held it against his penis. On another occasion during a walk, Mr. Wormell pulled down his pants and urinated in front of JB. He told her that the sexual touching was their secret, that she should not tell anybody and he bought her candy. Mr. Wormell initially pleaded not guilty to indecent assault of JB but changed his plea to guilty after his lawyer told him that JB's brother would corroborate her testimony and that several similar fact witnesses would also testify at the trial.

7.    Mr. Wormell sexually assaulted TM between 1979 and 1980 when she was 6 or 7 years old. TM met Mr. Wormell through her grandmother. Mr. Wormell took her swimming together with her brother, her cousins and other friends. Mr. Wormell touched her vagina over her bathing suit. He also told her to put her hand into his pants pocket to retrieve money. When she put her hand into the pocket there was a hole in the pocket and she had to touch his penis to retrieve the money from under his penis. Sometimes Mr. Wormell guided her hand into his underwear. These incidents sometimes occurred in the basement of her family's home and sometimes in Mr. Wormell's apartment. Mr. Wormell stayed overnight at her family's home on occasion and Mr. Wormell encouraged TW to observe him while he was urinating with his genitals exposed.

8.    Mr. Wormell sexually assaulted KTS between May 1, 1988 and May 1, 1989, when KTS was about 10 or 11 years old. KTS testified at the trial at which Mr. Wormell was convicted of sexually assaulting JJW, KTS and KS. KTS did not testify at the trial of the present charges, or during this dangerous offender proceeding, and I have no details of his victimization except those provided by KS and JJW.

9.    Mr. Wormell sexually assaulted KS between May 1, 1988 and May 1, 1989, when KS was 8 or 9 years old. KS is the younger brother or KTS. The boys met Mr. Wormell through church. Mr. Wormell took the two boys, and another boy, JJW, on recreational outings, and had them stay overnight at his home. He played sexual touching games with the boys, which involved Mr. Wormell touching KS's penis and buttocks. Mr. Wormell also touched KS's penis when they were together in Mr. Wormell's vehicle. KS also observed Mr. Wormell touch KTS's penis. KS testified at the sexual assault trial at which Mr. Wormell was convicted of assault on KS, KTS and JJW.

10.    Mr. Wormell sexually assaulted JJW between October 15, 1988 and December 1, 1988, when JJW was 10 years old. JJW was a friend of KS and KTS. Mr. Wormell took JJW on outings, including hiking and camping trips. Mr. Wormell fondled JJW's penis, and asked JJW to expose his genitals to Mr. Wormell. JJW observed Mr. Wormell touch KTS's penis. JJW testified at the trial at which Mr. Wormell was convicted of sexual assault on KS, KTS and JJW.

11.    The three offences committed against BL occurred between August 1 and October 10, 1998, when BL was 10 years old. Mr. Wormell met the mother of BL and his brother DL at a church the boys attended with their mother in Sicamous. Mr. Wormell was a lay-preacher at the church. Mr. Wormell approached BL's mother, who was involved in a difficult common law relationship, and offered to act as a surrogate grandparent to BL and DL. He allowed both boys to call him "Grandpa Bill". Mr. Wormell took the boys to various swimming pools in nearby and more distant towns, took them for drives in his truck, and for overnight visits at his home at Anglemont. He also visited them at their home. Mr. Wormell encouraged the boys to demonstrate which of them loved him the most and to compete for his attention, affection and gifts. He gave them gifts. He encouraged them to undress by telling them stories about games played by other boys that involved genital display. He also gave BL and DL money to undress in front of him. Mr. Wormell initiated the sexual offences by inviting BL to reach into the waistband of Mr. Wormell's pants to retrieve money. Mr. Wormell placed the money under his penis so that BL would have to touch and move Mr. Wormell's penis in order to retrieve the money. On other occasions Mr. Wormell held BL's hand against Mr. Wormell's penis, both over his clothing, and through the open fly of Mr. Wormell's pants. Mr. Wormell also fondled BL's penis, over and under his clothing, kissed BL's penis, and held BL's penis against his own penis. Mr. Wormell pleaded not guilty to charges in relation to BL and BL testified at the trial.

12.    The three offences committed against DL also occurred between August 1, 1998 and October 10, 1998 when DL was 8 years old. Mr. Wormell asked DL to retrieve money from under Mr. Wormell's penis by reaching into the waistband of his pants. Mr. Wormell offered DL and BL money to undress in front of him. On one occasion, Mr. Wormell unfastened DL's pants, and fondled and kissed his penis. On another occasion Mr. Wormell pulled down his own pants, took DL's pants off, hugged DL and simulated sexual intercourse. Mr. Wormell pleaded not guilty in relation to charges involving DL and DL testified at the trial.

[13] The testimony of LDA, RH and PK establishes that in addition to the 13 victims already discussed, other children were also drawn into Mr. Wormell's deviant sexual activities. Mr. Wormell has generally denied having committed any of the offences, including those to which he pleaded guilty. However, Mr. Wormell did, on one occasion, admit to Stephen Anthony, a probation officer, that he had had victims in addition to those involved in the offences for which he had been convicted.

[14] There can be no doubt that Mr. Wormell has demonstrated a failure to control his sexual impulses in the past. A review of the dates of the offences against known victims indicates that there have been periods - even periods of several years - when there have been no known offences. However, Mr. Wormell eventually resumes his criminal activity.

[15] Dr. Lohrasbe, the Crown's psychiatric expert witness, and Dr. Lamba, the court-appointed psychiatrist, testified about the harm suffered by children who are sexually abused.

[16] Dr. Lohrasbe's evidence is that a common consequence for a molested child is sexual confusion, both about sexual identity, and confusion resulting from the fact that the molested child often experiences both pleasure and guilt. The victim's self-esteem is often affected. Psychosomatic symptoms, such as bed-wetting, and complaints of aches and pains are often exhibited. Some victims become sexual offenders themselves.

[17] Dr. Lamba's report described the effects of Mr. Wormell's sexual abuse on past and prospective victims in the following terms:

[18] Dr. Lamba testified that research suggests that children who have been sexually abused suffer distress at the time the offences are committed, at the time the offences are disclosed and when they are required to testify at trial. Individuals who were sexually abused as children are three times more likely to suffer depression during their lifetime than those who were not abused. Victims of sexual abuse are at greater risk of suicide, substance abuse and relationship dysfunction.

[19] There can be no doubt that many of Mr. Wormell's past victims have suffered serious emotional and psychological harm as a result of Mr. Wormell's criminal acts. The victims have expressed feelings of sadness, shame, guilt, embarrassment and loss. Several of the victims, now adults, who testified as similar fact witnesses at trial, or testified on the sentencing hearing, broke down and cried during their testimony.

[20] In addition to the sexual acts perpetrated upon them, the victims were subjected to emotional manipulation. Mr. Wormell encouraged all of his victims to feel affection for him, even to feel sorry for him. He told them he loved them, that they were special, that he felt a special bond with them. He took advantage, in several instances, of particularly vulnerable children - children who needed and craved attention and affection. LDL testified, for example, that Mr. Wormell was the only adult male figure in her life at the time he was offending against her.

[21] Mr. Wormell offered himself to his victims and to their families as a substitute uncle or grandparent. He bribed the children with gifts and money, gave and withheld or threatened to withhold affection and treats, encouraged the children to compete among themselves for his attention and affection. He encouraged the children to feel responsible for and complicit in the criminal acts perpetrated upon them.

[22] RH, in particular, has suffered lasting emotional and psychological problems that he has tried to resolve through counselling. His relationships as an adult have been adversely affected by his experiences as a child at the hands of Mr. Wormell.

[23] JB, in a victim impact statement prepared on July 28, 1992, approximately ten years after she was assaulted, stated that she felt violated, and continued to have nightmares and flashbacks. She also experienced what appears to have been psychosomatic abdominal pain. A recent telephone call from Mr. Wormell had reduced her to hysterical crying. JB testified that at age 14, when she started dating, she had trouble establishing relationships, and developed an eating disorder. She was eventually referred to a counsellor, to whom she disclosed the assaults by Mr. Wormell.

[24] I had the opportunity to observe firsthand the devastating effects Mr. Wormell's criminal activities had, in the short term, on his most recent victims, DL and BL. The fallout from his actions included their temporary removal from their mother's care and placement in foster care.

[25] Shortly after the boys disclosed the assaults, they were interviewed by RCM Police officers who made a videotape of the interviews. During that interview, and at trial, the boys demonstrated that they were uncomfortable, embarrassed, sad, angry and hurt by what had happened to them, and confused about their feelings towards Mr. Wormell. DL and BL, according to victim impact statements prepared by their mother, have become nervous, distrustful and fearful of being left with strangers. Their mother also described herself as emotionally devastated, unable to sleep, anxious, nervous and tense. She has experienced feelings of shame and guilt that she allowed Mr. Wormell to have access to her sons, and feels confused, betrayed and angry.

[26] I am satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Wormell has injured and caused pain to his past victims, and that the result would be no less devastating for future victims if Mr Wormell is not prevented from the commission of further offences.

[27] Mr. Wormell was born on July 22, 1933. There was nothing unusual about his childhood. He denies having been the victim of sexual or physical abuse. There is no history of substance abuse or poverty. Mr. Wormell appears to be of normal or even above-average intelligence.

[28] Mr. Wormell is the oldest of four siblings. His father worked in a steel mill and his mother was a housewife. He grew up in the lower mainland, graduated from high school at North Vancouver Senior Secondary in 1950, and worked for a short time after graduation as a parking supervisor in downtown Vancouver.

[29] Between 1952 and 1956 Mr. Wormell attended the Lighthouse of International Four Square Evangelism Seminary, where he trained to be a minister. Following his graduation, he worked as a pastor at Esquimalt Four Square Church. Mr. Wormell had married in 1957. The couple separated in 1963 and divorced in 1973.

[30] Mr. Wormell was ordained in 1958. In 1960 Mr. and Mrs. Wormell moved to Powell River where Mr. Wormell became a minister at Cranberry Lake Church. He stayed there until December 24, 1962. He was forced to resign as pastor when information about his sexual abuse of MFN came to the attention of members of the church. The matter was not reported to police, but Mr. Wormell was forced to leave the church.

[31] Despite having resigned as a pastor, Mr. Wormell has remained active in the congregations of various churches, sometimes filling the role of lay pastor. He has often, although not invariably, used his association with the church to gain access to victims. He befriended families in the congregation, and through his relationship with the parents, gained access to the children.

[32] From 1963 until late 1972, Mr. Wormell worked for a car rental company in Vancouver, where he was promoted several times. After leaving the car rental company, he found employment with Credit Tel, a credit recording company, where he worked from 1973 until February 1984, eventually being promoted to manager for Vancouver Island. While employed at Credit Tel, Mr. Wormell purchased a lot and home in Anglemont, B.C., near Shuswap Lake.

[33] Mr. Wormell was convicted on February 15, 1974 of indecent assault on a male and sentenced to 1 day in jail and a $500 fine. Mr. Wormell has continued to maintain that he is innocent of that offence, although he plead guilty to it. His claim is that he was convicted only because he was found in possession of a photograph of a 9 year old boy changing from his underwear into his pajamas. He maintains that he did not even take the photograph himself. However, Mr. Wormell's explanation must be rejected, since those facts could not found a conviction for indecent assault.

[34] In 1983 Mr. Wormell was accused of sexually assaulting a child whose identity has not been disclosed. Mr. Wormell denied having committed the offence. On the advice of his lawyer, he agreed to seek psychiatric counselling, and no charges were laid. A report of probation officer Stephen Anthony, prepared in August 1995, indicates that Mr. Wormell did not actually take the counselling.

[35] Mr. Wormell left his job with Credit Tel in 1984 and moved to his Anglemont home. He started a recreational vehicle rental business, but it was unsuccessful. He returned to Victoria in 1985 and took a job as credit manager with a cement company where he remained until 1988. He worked for about a year with an asphalt company, and then received employment insurance for about a year.

[36] Complaints to police by some of Mr. Wormell's victims led to an investigation in 1989 that coincided with Mr. Wormell's departure from his employment. Two RCM Police officers interviewed Mr. Wormell at the Colwood Detachment on Vancouver Island on May 26, 1989.

[37] I am satisfied that Mr. Wormell lied to the police during this interview. He claimed that he had taken children to a swimming pool only "possibly once or twice" and that he couldn't recall ever taking any kids on an outing without another adult present. He claimed he was innocent of the offence for which he had been convicted in 1974 and that he had only plead guilty because he'd been given bad advice by his lawyer.

[38] He told police "I have never sexually abused any children". He repeated this denial several times during the interview. He said that the thought of a homosexual relationship with a boy or adolescent male was "repugnant" to him. When asked about RH, a victim he assaulted repeatedly over a period of several years, Mr. Wormell's response was "I think I know a (RH)". When asked about the biblical commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness", Mr. Wormell claimed he was telling the truth. He claimed he had no idea why KTS and KS were making allegations against him.

[39] In this interview, as in subsequent interviews, Mr. Wormell attempted to use chronic health problems to obtain sympathy and divert attention away from his criminal activities. He told the officers he had health problems, and made several references to having a bleeding ulcer.

[40] As a result of this investigation, Mr. Wormell was charged with three counts of sexual assault involving the victims KS, KTS and JJW. He entered a plea of not guilty. He was convicted on April 5, 1990, of three counts of sexual assault against the 3 boys, following a trial in Provincial Court at which the three victims, and several similar fact witnesses, testified. Sentencing was adjourned to July 4, 1990 and a pre-sentence report was ordered.

[41] The pre-sentence report was prepared by probation officer Bill Phillips on April 20, 1990. According to the report, Mr. Wormell continued to deny that he had sexually assaulted the three boys, and he continued to deny commission of the offence to which he had plead guilty in 1974. He stated that he did not believe that his relationship with the three victims had had any negative impact upon them. He told Mr. Phillips that he did not believe that he had a problem of any kind with respect to being sexually attracted to children.

[42] Mr. Wormell told Mr. Phillips that he was facing seven additional charges of sexual assault, that he had not sexually assaulted any of the victims, and that he intended to plead not guilty to all of those charges.

[43] In his report, Mr. Phillips stated:

[44] When Mr. Wormell appeared on July 4, 1990 for sentencing on the three sexual assault charges of which he had been convicted on April 5 following a trial, the other seven outstanding charges were also brought forward and disposed of. Mr. Wormell pleaded guilty to five of the seven counts - four counts of indecent assault on males, one count of indecent assault on a female and one count of gross indecency. The Crown entered a stay on the remaining two counts. Some of the victims of these offences had testified as similar fact witnesses at the earlier trial.

[45] In submissions on sentencing on July 4, 1990, counsel for the Crown sought a sentence of incarceration of one to two years less a day, and three years probation.

[46] Mr. Wormell told Provincial Court Judge Brahan that Mr. Wormell's only brother was dying of pancreatic cancer, and that Mr. Wormell had recently had to have his dog euthanized. He told the court that Mr. Wormell was financially ruined, unemployed and in debt.

[47] Mr. Wormell's counsel also told the court that Mr. Wormell's health was failing. He said that Mr. Wormell had lost 44 pounds in 14 months. He said that Mr. Wormell had bleeding ulcers. He told the court that Mr. Wormell had severe arthritis in his knees, left wrist and neck. He told the court that Mr. Wormell had suffered a mild stroke in November 1989.

[48] Counsel for Mr. Wormell told Judge Brahan that in light of Mr. Wormell's deteriorating health specific deterrence was not necessary. Counsel said:

[49] Counsel for Mr. Wormell also pointed out that Mr. Wormell had plead guilty to some of the charges. Counsel said that this:

[50] Counsel also pointed out that although Mr. Wormell had plead not guilty to some of the charges, he had not testified and therefore had not expressly denied having committed the offences. Counsel urged the court to sentence Mr. Wormell to a term of less than two years so that he could be incarcerated at Stave Lake Correctional Centre where he could participate in a sexual offender treatment program.

[51] Judge Brahan imposed a sentence of 2 years less a day and three years probation on all counts, to be served concurrently. Mr. Wormell was ordered to take any psychiatric or psychological counselling recommended by his probation officer.

[52] Mr. Wormell was incarcerated at the Stave Lake Correctional Centre from July 4, 1990 until November 4, 1991. Between October 5, 1990 and his release, Mr. Wormell participated in a sex offender treatment program. The sex offender group met for a minimum of three hours each week, with each group limited to ten inmates. Bruce Etches, a registered psychologist, led the group.

[53] Mr. Etches testified that he has no specific recollection of Mr. Wormell. By referring to his notes, however, and a summary he had prepared just prior to Mr. Wormell's release, he was able to say that after the first few months in the group, during which Mr. Wormell was "very quiet", his participation improved "dramatically".

[54] Based on his notes, Mr. Etches believed that Mr. Wormell did admit to his offences during one of the group sessions.

[55] However, according to Mr. Etches' notes, Mr. Wormell demonstrated defensiveness, a tendency to focus on others rather than his own offending, and a tendency to intellectualise and ignore his own emotions. Mr. Etches noted that during his last session, Mr. Wormell delivered a "sermon" to the group which tended to emphasize his own victimization during his 16 months in prison, but that Mr. Wormell also stated that he had developed increased empathy. Mr. Etches report concluded:

[56] Mr. Etches was not prepared to agree with the suggestion put to him in cross-examination that Mr. Wormell would benefit from a further intensive sexual offender treatment program. He was concerned that Mr. Wormell's tendency to intellectualise his behaviour would be an impediment to effective treatment.

[57] It is interesting to note that while Mr. Etches seemed slightly more optimistic about Mr. Wormell's potential to benefit from treatment than most of the professionals who have worked with or assessed him, Mr. Wormell's own perception of the sexual offender treatment program indicates he perceived little benefit from it. He subsequently told probation officer Stephen Anthony that he felt he was treated terribly by Dr. Etches, and that Dr. Etches despised him.

[58] Following Mr. Wormell's release from incarceration on November 4, 1991, he returned to his home in Anglemont. He began doing seasonal construction work for The Narrows village, and later started his own business, called North Shore Mr. Fixit, which he operated out of his home in Anglemont.

[59] As a condition of his probation, Mr. Wormell was required to report to a probation officer and Michael Forhan was assigned to supervise him. Mr. Forhan kept notes of Mr. Wormell's appointments. The notes indicate that Mr. Wormell told Mr. Forhan he was confident he would not re-offend, and that he did not consider himself at risk to re-offend. Mr. Wormell told Mr. Forhan he had many health problems, including a double hernia, bleeding and perforated ulcers, arthritis, tendonitis, bursitis, and constipation.

[60] In June 1992, Mr. Wormell informed Mr. Forhan that he had been charged with another offence dating back to the 1970's. Mr. Wormell denied having committed the offence. He confronted Mr. Forhan, upset that Mr. Forhan did not appear to believe Mr. Wormell's protestations of innocence.

[61] While continuing to maintain that he was innocent, Mr. Wormell asked Mr. Forhan what sort of disposition he could recommend if Mr. Wormell plead guilty. Mr. Forhan told Mr. Wormell that if asked to be a witness on sentencing, his testimony would indicate that he considered Mr. Wormell to be in denial about his sexual offending.

[62] On September 22, 1993, Mr. Wormell plead guilty to indecent assault of JB. He told Mr. Forhan that he decided to plead guilty after his lawyer told him that JB's brother was going to corroborate her testimony and that eight of Mr. Wormell's previous victims would testify as similar fact witnesses. He told Mr. Forhan that his lawyer had obtained agreement from Crown counsel that she would not seek a sentence of incarceration. Mr. Wormell received a suspended sentence and 3 years probation for his offence against JB, which was added to the period of probation he was already serving for his previous offences.

[63] Mr. Forhan had delayed sending Mr. Wormell for therapy on the ground that Mr. Wormell had to establish himself financially, and because the criminal charges involving JB were pending. He believed that Mr. Wormell's term of incarceration had had a significant impact on Mr. Wormell and that sheer fear of going back to jail might deter Mr. Wormell from re-offending. Nevertheless, he felt that Mr. Wormell should be supervised for the remainder of his probation by a specialized supervision team, and that further group therapy was advisable.

[64] Mr. Forhan referred Mr. Wormell to a counselling program for assessment and treatment. Unfortunately, and clearly incorrectly, the director of that program assessed Mr. Wormell as low risk to re-offend because of his poor health and extreme fear of being incarcerated, and Mr. Wormell was not admitted to the program. There is no evidence that Mr. Wormell sought treatment on his own.

[65] Mr. Forhan testified in cross-examination that Mr. Wormell showed up promptly for all scheduled appointments during the time he was on Mr. Forhan's caseload, and that as far as he knew Mr. Wormell had complied with the terms of his probation order while under Mr. Forhan's supervision. Mr. Forhan also stated, however, that he had reservations about whether Mr. Wormell had been rehabilitated.

[66] On March 16, 1995, Mr. Wormell was transferred to the caseload of probation officer Stephen Anthony. Mr. Anthony had special training in supervision of sex offenders. Mr. Anthony kept notes of his meetings with Mr. Wormell. Mr. Wormell told Mr. Anthony he was suffering from angina and was waiting to have an angiogram and possibly an angioplasty. Mr. Anthony recorded his view that Mr. Wormell:

[67] Mr. Anthony came to believe that Mr. Wormell was "extremely manipulative".

[68] Mr. Wormell told Mr. Anthony that he had no sex drive and that his best defence against re-offending was his fear of jail.

[69] He said that his religious beliefs would keep him safe from re-offending. The latter assertion could not be more ironic, and clearly indicates Mr. Wormell's lack of insight into his offending behaviour. Mr. Wormell met most of his victims at or through a church. He assaulted one child in a residence attached to the church where he was a minister, assaulted a second child when she was a student in his church bible study group, and assaulted a third child while driving her to and from church. He met his two most recent victims, BL and DL, through church.

[70] An assessment of Mr. Wormell's risk to re-offend was completed by Mr. Anthony on March 12, 1996. The assessment indicated that Mr. Wormell's motivation and receptivity to treatment were both low, and his overall risk to re-offend, in the short and long term, was high. Mr. Anthony testified that he felt that Mr. Wormell did have opportunities to re-offend and that he was difficult to monitor because of the remote location of his residence.

[71] Mr. Anthony testified that he was concerned that Mr. Wormell did not acknowledge any sexual arousal or sexual fantasies, and had no appropriate sexual outlets. Mr. Wormell reacted strongly to any attempt to make him discuss his sexual offences, using his heart condition and other health problems to divert the discussion.

[72] Near the end of his term of probation, Mr. Wormell and Mr. Anthony completed a form titled "Plan to Live By". The notes written by Mr. Wormell in preparation for completion of the Plan demonstrate little empathy for his victims, and a focus on his own perceived victimisation. Mr. Wormell wrote:

[73] The Plan is written in Mr. Anthony's handwriting, but portions appear to have been dictated by Mr. Wormell, since they are stated in the first person. Under the heading "I am most likely to re-offend under the following circumstances:" these words appear:

[74] Mr. Wormell's probation ended on September 21, 1996. He began sexually assaulting DL and BL less than two years later.

[75] The reports of Dr. Lohrasbe and Dr. Lamba satisfy me, beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Wormell is likely to commit further sexual offences against children if not prevented from doing so.

[76] Both psychiatrists testified that Mr. Wormell is a pedophile. They said that the fact that he offends against children of both genders across a fairly wide age-spread places him at higher risk than pedophiles who have a more specific arousal and offence pattern. Dr. Lohrasbe's report to the court, summarized, states:

[77] Dr. Lamba placed Mr. Wormell in the category of offenders at high risk of re-offending sexually. He stated that Mr. Wormell's readily discernible denial of his sexual offending and the fact that Mr. Wormell sees himself as the victim increase the risk that he will re-offend.

[78] Mr. Wormell refused to be interviewed by Dr. Lohrasbe and by Dr. Lamba. He was interviewed by Dr. Haymond, a registered psychologist retained by Mr. Wormell's counsel. Dr. Haymond disagreed with the opinions of Dr. Lohrasbe and Dr. Lamba that Mr. Wormell is at high risk to re-offend sexually against children. His opinion is that Mr. Wormell is at low risk to re-offend.

[79] Despite the fact that Dr. Haymond had the opportunity to interview Mr. Wormell, where his opinion conflicts with that of Dr. Lohrasbe, or Dr. Lamba, I prefer the latter opinions. In general, I found Dr. Haymond's methods of conducting his assessment of Mr. Wormell to be flawed. He obtained little or no advantage from the opportunity to interview Mr. Wormell because he failed to obtain necessary and relevant information. He spoke in generalities, relied on facts and assumptions that are not supported, or were contradicted, by the evidence at trial and on the sentencing hearing. His opinions were strongly undermined in cross-examination.

[80] Cross-examination of Dr. Haymond revealed that he conducted a superficial interview of Mr. Wormell. He failed to explore issues relevant to risk assessment, such as the extent to which Mr. Wormell acknowledges his sexual deviancy, and whether Mr Wormell feels any empathy for his victims.

[81] Dr. Haymond claimed to have spent 11 or 12 hours interviewing Mr. Wormell, but had made only 6 or 7 pages of notes. He agreed that during the last interview on July 5, 2000 he made no notes at all.

[82] Dr. Haymond testified that Mr. Wormell does admit that he has offended sexually against children. In his report, Dr. Haymond stated:

[83] Despite Dr. Haymond's statement that Mr. Wormell expressed a "complete recognition", Dr. Haymond agreed in cross-examination that Mr. Wormell never described himself as a pedophile, and he did not ask Mr. Wormell to admit to any specific offence or act. He obtained no details from Mr. Wormell concerning the offences. He agreed in cross-examination that Mr. Wormell was reluctant to talk about the offences.

[84] In fact, Dr. Haymond testified, although he did not include it in his report, that during his first visit with Mr. Wormell, Mr. Wormell denied having committed the offences and that it was not until his third visit with Mr. Wormell that Mr. Wormell made any acknowledgement of guilt. Dr. Haymond testified that this acknowledgement consisted of a statement to the effect of "I'm guilty", and "I seem to like young people".

[85] Dr. Haymond did not ask Mr. Wormell any specific questions about his victims, the number of victims, any previously undisclosed victims, or the specific sexual acts or offences he perpetrated.

[86] Dr. Haymond's notes of his interview with Mr. Wormell are sketchy. On the topic of Mr. Wormell's acknowledgement of his criminal behaviour, Dr. Haymond recorded only the ambiguous phrases: "Admitted. Ashamed. Admits inclination towards children."

[87] Dr. Haymond's opinion is that Mr. Wormell is not a psychopath. However, he agreed in cross-examination that it is relevant to an assessment of psycopathy to know if the offender has lied in the past about his offences, and that he had not attempted to determine if Mr. Wormell had lied in the past. His explanation was that all sexual offenders lie about their offending.

[88] Dr. Haymond had not read the transcript of Mr. Wormell's evidence at the trial of the most recent offences. He appeared to be unaware that Mr. Wormell had plead not guilty, and that he had testified under oath that he had not sexually assaulted BL and DL. In relation to the two most recent victims, DL and BL, the only notes made by Dr. Haymond were "1998 - two boys - admits it - not under probation - no treatment at the time". Dr. Haymond did not attempt to elicit more information.

[89] Dr. Haymond said he had not made any attempt to assess whether Mr. Wormell felt any empathy for his victims and did not try to assess whether Mr. Wormell recognized that his victims did suffer harm. Dr. Haymond did note that Mr. Wormell appeared "sad" but when asked what that meant, Dr. Haymond said that Mr. Wormell was sad about what had happened to him, not about what he had done to his victims.

[90] Dr. Haymond conceded in cross-examination that in assessing risk to re-offend it is necessary to have a comprehensive understanding of the offender's offence cycle, but agreed that he didn't explore Mr. Wormell's offence cycle with Mr. Wormell. He did not ask Mr. Wormell about his offence cycle, or about his emotional state before he offended. He said he didn't need to know what triggered Mr. Wormell's offending.

[91] Dr. Haymond also conceded that he had made errors in scoring the Sexual Offender Risk Appraisal Guide, a risk assessment instrument he administered to Mr. Wormell. Other evidence indicates that Dr. Haymond's assessment of Mr. Wormell, including the weight he gave to certain "dynamic" factors in the risk assessment instrument he employed, is unreliable.

[92] Dr. Haymond had the opportunity to conduct "collateral" interviews, with Mr. Wormell's brother and sister, and with three correctional officers. However, Dr. Haymond agreed in cross-examination that he would have come to the same conclusions about Mr. Wormell without benefit of the collateral interviews. Little relevant information seems to have been obtained from the siblings. The information provided by the correctional officers indicates that they monitored Mr. Wormell's health.

[93] It is clear that much of Dr. Haymond's interviews with Mr. Wormell focused on Mr. Wormell's descriptions of his health problems. Dr. Haymond concluded that Mr. Wormell's medical condition is deteriorating. The evidence does not support this opinion. In fact, it establishes that Mr. Wormell's medical conditions are chronic and that there has been little if any change over the past decade. The evidence establishes that Mr. Wormell suffered from the same medical conditions he now complains of before and during the time that he committed the offences against DL and BL.

[94] Dr. Lohrasbe testified convincingly that Mr. Wormell's deviant sexual behaviour is unlikely to "burn-out". He said:

[95] Dr. Haymond suggested that Mr. Wormell's medical problems make him less attractive to the families he uses to gain access to children. I disagree. If anything, Mr. Wormell's somewhat nondescript and apparently frail appearance makes him even more dangerous, since parents and children may perceive him as safe, reassuring, and harmless - the "Grandpa Bill" persona that enabled him to gain access to his two most recent victims.

[96] Mr. Wormell's chronic medical problems have not deterred him from the commission of his past offences and his condition in no way disables him from commission of similar offences in future. I conclude that nothing about Mr. Wormell's health makes it unlikely that he would, if given the opportunity to do so, commit sexual offences.

[97] Dr. Haymond testified that another dynamic factor he took into account in assessing Mr. Wormell to be at low or medium risk to re-offend is Mr. Wormell's compliance with and respect for authority. He says that these characteristics make Mr. Wormell less likely to re-offend and also make him a good candidate for supervision in the community.

[98] The evidence does not support this opinion. I have already referred to the comments of Mr. Forhan and Mr. Anthony regarding Mr. Wormell's superficial compliance with supervision. Mr. Wormell has lied to the police in the past. He has typically denied guilt, to the extent of continuing to deny guilt even after pleading guilty. He appeared to have no compunction about lying under oath at the trial of his most recent offences. This history of lying to police officers, probation officers, judges and juries does not indicate to me that Mr. Wormell respects authority.

[99] Mr. Wormell refused to participate in the psychiatric assessment ordered by this court. He refused to be interviewed by the psychiatrists appointed by the court or by the Crown.

[100] Dr. Haymond noted in his report that "Mr. Wormell does not get a 'kick' out of breaking rules." However, Mr. Wormell has engaged in very risky behaviour in the past in order to obtain the sexual gratification he seeks. He offended against one victim while his wife was lying asleep beside her. He sexually assaulted some of his victims in the presence of other children, and engaged in games involving genital display and/or touching when several children were present. Some of his offences have been committed in public places, including in swimming pools and in the woods near one of the victim's homes. He offended against DL in DL and BL's home, when he knew that their mother was expected to arrive at any moment.

[101] For all of these reasons, I lack confidence in the opinions expressed by Dr. Haymond. I have taken into account the fact that neither Dr. Lamba or Dr. Lohrasbe had the opportunity to interview Mr. Wormell. However, they did not have that opportunity because Mr. Wormell refused to be interviewed. The failure of Dr. Haymond to take advantage of the opportunity he had to interview Mr. Wormell means the other two experts' opinions are not entitled to any lesser weight.

[102] Dr. Lamba did not have an opportunity to assess whether Mr. Wormell displays psycopathy. However, he testified that his assessment of Mr. Wormell's risk to re-offend is not based on an assumption of psychopathy, and that if psychopathy is present, the risk that Mr. Wormell will re-offend is even higher.

[103] My preference for the opinions of Dr. Lamba and Dr. Lohrasbe rests on what I consider to be their superior expertise and greater experience with the assessment of long term and dangerous sexual offenders. I have also taken into account the fact that they did not base their opinions on assumptions that have been shown to be inaccurate, and the fact that they both arrived independently at similar conclusions.

[104] I am convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Wormell has shown a failure to control his sexual impulses in the past, and that there is a likelihood that he will cause injury, pain or other evil to other children through failure to control his sexual impulses in future.

[105] These tests having been met, the Criminal Code appears to require me to find that Mr. Wormell is a dangerous offender, and mandates the imposition of a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period.

[106] However, counsel for Mr. Wormell submits that the court must consider whether Mr. Wormell can be treated, and whether treatment within a determinate period, or treatment combined with post-release supervision could sufficiently reduce the likelihood that Mr. Wormell would re-offend. Counsel for Mr. Wormell submits that the court must consider "treatability" and "supervisability" at this stage of the analysis, since the court lacks the discretion to refuse to impose an indeterminate sentence of detention once the finding of dangerous offender has been made.

[107] Alternatively, counsel for Mr. Wormell submits that the court has a "residual discretion" to refuse to declare an offender to be a dangerous offender, even if he meets the criteria of s.753.(1), and may instead sentence the offender to a determinate sentence, or find the offender to be a "long term offender" under s.753(5) of the Code.

[108] Counsel for Mr. Wormell relies, in making this submission, on R. v. Lyons (1987) 37 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.). In that case the court rejected an argument that the earlier dangerous offender provisions of the Code constituted "cruel and unusual punishment or treatment". In upholding the provisions, the court mentioned, as one of the factors taken into account, the fact that the court had the discretion not to designate the offender as dangerous, or to impose an indeterminate sentence, even in circumstances where all of the criteria had been met.

[109] In R. v. Neve, [1999] A.J. No. 753, the Alberta Court of Appeal, considering the earlier dangerous offender provisions of the Code, said at p. 10:

[110] Our Court of Appeal appeared to take a different approach in relation to the present dangerous offender provisions in R. v. Dow, (1999) 134 C.C.C. (3d) (B.C.C.A.) 323, (application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied). R. v. Dow is one of the cases the British Columbia Court of Appeal has been asked to reconsider.

[111] No reference was made to Neve in Dow. The offences had been committed before the amendments to the dangerous offender provisions of the Code, but the sentencing hearing concluded after the new provisions were in effect. At p. 334, Justice Lambert, speaking for the court, said:

[112] On September 6, 2000, the British Columbia Court of Appeal released its judgment in R. v. Poole, [2000] B.C.J. 1787, 2000 BCCA 481. This case fell entirely within the amended and present provisions of the Code. The issue of "residual discretion" was raised by counsel for the offender and dealt with by Justice Lambert, speaking for the court, in the following paragraph at p.5:

[113] Justice Stromberg-Stein took this approach in R. v. Driver, 2000 BCSC 0069, although she concluded that it made no difference whether the factor of "treatability" was considered as part of the assessment of "threat", or as part of a residual discretion to decline to designate an offender as a dangerous offender.

[114] Accepting that part of the assessment of likelihood to reoffend involves consideration of the potential impact of future treatment on the risk posed by the offender, I turn now to consider whether the Crown has proved that Mr. Wormell is likely to continue to pose a high risk to re-offend even if he receives treatment and counselling.

[115] At the same time I shall consider the submission of counsel for Mr. Wormell that following a determinate sentence of incarceration, Mr. Wormell could be adequately monitored and supervised in the community to an extent that would make it unlikely that he would re-offend.

[116] Counsel for Mr. Wormell did not seriously maintain that Mr. Wormell is likely to benefit from treatment alone to the extent that he would no longer pose an unreasonable risk to the community on release. In my view, the Crown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Wormell is unlikely to benefit from sexual offender treatment such that his level of risk to re-offend will not remain high.

[117] Drs. Lohrasbe and Lamba pointed to many factors supporting this conclusion, and others are made evident by Mr. Wormell's own testimony at the trial in January 2000. I consider the following factors to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the risk posed by Mr. Wormell is unlikely to be reduced by treatment:

• the wide range of ages of his victims,
• the number of identified victims
• that the victims included children of both genders
• that Mr. Wormell's offending behaviour is of a high frequency and a predatory nature
• that although Mr. Wormell has in the past offended against victims with whom he has established a relationship, that relationship has sometimes been of very short duration, and Mr. Wormell has committed sexual assaults in circumstances with a high risk of detection;
• lack of appropriate sexual outlets or interests
• strong denial and Mr. Wormell's refusal, except in instances of "strategic" acknowledgement, to accept responsibility for his actions
• Mr. Wormell's complete lack of empathy for his victims
• Mr. Wormell's willingness to lie about his actions to police, probation officers and under oath at trial
• Mr. Wormell's perception of himself as the victim
• Mr. Wormell's preoccupation with his own health and manipulative use of medical conditions to attempt to divert attention from his offending.

[118] Mr. Wormell has never voluntarily sought treatment. The previous treatment he received at the Stave Lake Correctional Centre was believed by Dr. Etches to have been of benefit to Mr. Wormell, although Mr. Wormell appears to have perceived it as further victimisation. It is true that there was a period of time following incarceration, treatment and probationary supervision during which Mr. Wormell appears to have refrained from committing further offence. However, he did re-offend within six years after treatment, and within two years after completing probation.

[119] In addition, there is the fact that there have been similar extended gaps between known offences in the past without treatment, but in every case, Mr. Wormell has eventually sought out new victims.

[120] Drs. Lohrasbe and Lamba agreed that an offender's denial of his own behaviour and lack of empathy for his victims are impediments to successful treatment. Mr. Wormell has demonstrated not only strong denial, but also a complete lack of recognition of the harm he has done to his victims.

[121] Mr. Wormell pleaded not guilty to the charges in relation to DL and BL. He had the right to require the Crown to prove its case, of course. However the result was that the boys had to testify at trial, and they were subjected to rigorous cross-examination that reduced them to tears. The boys were accused of having fabricated their testimony. They were pressed to agree that their mother was a neglectful parent and a substance abuser. In cross-examination, the boys' mother was falsely accused of having encouraged the boys to concoct allegations against Mr. Wormell.

[122] Mr. Wormell not only pleaded not guilty. He took the stand and testified. He adamantly denied having committed the offences. He blamed the victims, and their mother. He suggested, in effect, that it was her fault for leaving him alone with the boys. He said the boys were badly behaved. He demonstrated, throughout his testimony, a complete lack of empathy for BL and DL in particular, and for all of his victims in general.

[123] Although Mr. Wormell did plead guilty in relation to some of his earlier offences, there is no reason to believe that he did so in order to spare his victims the trauma of testifying at trial. Rather, the evidence indicates that he pleaded guilty only when it was clear that conviction was inevitable, or that there was the possibility that he could reduce the consequences to himself, as, for example, by having a number of convictions sentenced concurrently.

[124] Mr. Wormell did not testify at the sentencing hearing. He had the right, of course, to decline to do so. He also refused to be interviewed by Drs. Lohrasbe and Lamba. This leaves the court in the position of having no direct evidence that Mr. Wormell acknowledges responsibility for any of the offences that he has, undoubtedly, committed, and no demonstration of remorse, and no ability to assess the sincerity of the vague acknowledgements referred to by Dr. Haymond in his testimony.

[125] I have not forgotten the testimony of Dr. Haymond that Mr. Wormell acknowledged guilt and that he stated that he was willing to accept treatment. However, that evidence is, at best, hearsay. R. v. Abbey, (1982) 68 C.C.C. (2d) 394, and R. v. Allender, (1996) 70 B.C.A.C. 241. As the court noted in R. v. Bakker (1999) BCCA 0084, at para. 28:

[126] Mr. Wormell has not expressed to this court any remorse for his actions. He has failed to demonstrate sympathy or empathy for his victims. He declined to be interviewed by either the Crown-appointed, or court-appointed psychiatrists, who might have assisted the court in assessing the extent to which, if at all, Mr. Wormell is committed to rehabilitation.

[127] Mr. Wormell's conduct may be contrasted to that of other offenders who have demonstrated some potential for rehabilitation. In R. v. Howse, unreported, Beames, J., Kelowna Registry, B.C.S.C. No. 20000308, March 8, 2000, Justice Beames noted that the offender had entered a guilty plea and consented to the introduction of all evidence in a documentary form to spare his victims the further trauma of testifying. Mr. Howse pleaded guilty even though he knew the Crown intended to seek dangerous offender designation. Justice Beames also noted that Mr. Howse:

[128] Mr. Wormell's situation is also quite different from that of the offender in R. v. McFarlane, unreported, Fabbro, J., Prov. Court of B.C., Castlegar Registry No. 9661C2, May 27, 2000, where both the court-appointed psychiatrist and Dr. Haymond, who testified for the offender, concluded that the offender was a candidate for treatment. The court there noted that:

[129] These factors are not present in relation to Mr. Wormell. Mr. Wormell has demonstrated strong denial, a willingness to lie about his criminal activities, a lack of empathy, and misguided reliance on his religious beliefs to deter him from the commission of future offences. He has failed to establish open and collaborative communication with probation supervisors.

[130] I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no likelihood that sexual offender treatment during a determinate period of incarceration would reduce the risk Mr. Wormell poses to the community to an acceptable level.

[131] Counsel for Mr. Wormell submits, however, that Mr. Wormell's dangerousness can be adequately managed in the community, following treatment during a determinate period of incarceration, by the imposition of a 10-year supervision order with appropriate conditions. Counsel for Mr. Wormell argues that Mr. Wormell has been compliant with supervision in the past, and that the Crown has failed to prove that Mr. Wormell cannot be prevented from committing future crimes by means other than a penitentiary sentence of indeterminate length.

[132] Counsel for Mr. Wormell submits that Mr. Wormell could be adequately supervised in the community after a lengthy determinate period of incarceration. Counsel submits that the court should decline to find Mr. Wormell to be a dangerous offender and should instead find him to be a long term offender. Counsel submits that the court should impose a determinate sentence of no less than two years, followed by a period of supervision in the community for a period not exceeding ten years.

[133] Counsel for Mr. Wormell relies, in this regard, on the decision of our Court of Appeal in R. v. Turley, [1999] BCCA 294. Turley had been convicted of the predicate offences before the coming into force of the present provisions of the Code on August 1, 1997. The trial judge had made a finding that Mr. Turley was a dangerous offender. However, he noted that previous treatment seemed to have had some temporary beneficial results, that the accused had demonstrated a desire to get help by carrying on with treatment for some time on a voluntary basis, that the accused possessed the requisite qualifications to achieve possible success through continued treatment, and that there was reason to hope. He imposed a determinate sentence of 7 years.

[134] By the time the appeal was heard, the new provisions of the Code were in force. Justice Hall, speaking for the court, said that if the Code had not been amended, the court "would have had to seriously consider whether the trial judge was correct in failing to impose an indeterminate sentence". He continued:

[135] Later, Justice Hall said:

[136] As I understand it, R. v. Turley is the second of the two previous decisions that the Court of Appeal has been asked to reconsider.

[137] Turley appears to suggest that the Court has a discretion, notwithstanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt making out the prerequisites for s. 753. (1), to choose instead to find the offender to be a long term offender.

[138] Justice Beames of this court appears to have followed similar reasoning in R. v. Howse, cited earlier. At p. 21, she said:

[139] Both Turley, which is a decision that "straddled" the old and new provisions, and Howse, which involved crimes committed after the new provisions came into force, appear to have read the provisions of s.753 as giving the court the option of finding an offender to be a long term offender, even though the Crown has proved that he is a dangerous offender. In effect, the court seems to ask itself "Is this offender more like a dangerous offender, or more like a long term offender?" and sentences the offender accordingly.

[140] Although I would, with great respect, point out that this approach appears to disregard the specific language and intent of the statutory provisions, I have applied this approach in the analysis that follows.

[141] There is evidence that Mr. Wormell complied with the reporting conditions imposed upon him during the periods he was under probation, and during his interim release prior to his conviction on the most recent charges. There is no evidence that Mr. Wormell committed further offences while on probation, or during interim release prior to trial on the predicate charges.

[142] I am not satisfied, however, that Mr. Wormell's apparent ability to refrain from the commission of offences while under relatively short and determinate periods of supervision, should cause me to have a doubt about the necessity for the imposition of an indeterminate sentence.

[143] Counsel for Mr. Wormell submitted that an experienced probation officer like Stephen Anthony, with special training about sexual offenders, could adequately supervise Mr. Wormell in the community and ensure that he would not/could not re-offend. However, although Mr. Anthony conceded that so far as he knew, Mr. Wormell had not re-offended while under his supervision, he did not positively affirm that, in his opinion, Mr. Wormell would not re-offend under supervision.

[144] Mr. Anthony's notes reveal the limitations of supervision. He noted on August 31, 1995:

[145] The notes of Mr. Phillips and Mr. Anthony and their testimony at the sentencing hearing do indicate that Mr. Wormell was apparently compliant while under their supervision. It appears, however, that both probation officers believed that Mr. Wormell was simply biding his time - maintaining a façade during the meetings, but when pressed to discuss his offences, hiding behind a barrage of complaints about his health, his financial problems, and his employment problems.

[146] Probation officer Michael Forhan noted on September 28, 1992:

[147] Following a visit to Mr. Wormell's residence on September 14, 1995, probation officer Stephen Anthony noted that conditions regarding Mr. Wormell's residence had been met. However, he also recorded:

[148] Dr. Lamba reviewed the reports of Mr. Wormell's conduct while on probation. Dr. Lamba noted that while Mr. Wormell did not miss appointments, he would characterize Mr. Wormell as having taken an "oppositional" stance, revealed by Mr. Wormell's complaints about supervision, and use of his physical condition to avoid discussions he didn't like. Dr. Lamba said that Mr. Wormell's "disengaged" and "oppositional" behaviour under supervision is not a factor indicating that he is at lower risk to re-offend.

[149] As noted earlier, Mr. Wormell has rarely admitted to his offending behaviour, except in a vague and general way, and only when it appeared to be to his advantage to do so. He has never voluntarily sought treatment. He has demonstrated that he is prepared to lie, under oath, about his activities. He did so, I conclude, in testifying before the jury at his most recent trial. He is skilled at manipulating his victims, and attempts to manipulate those charged with his supervision.

[150] Counsel for Mr. Wormell submits that Mr. Wormell has always followed the same pattern in finding and grooming his victims. He argued that Mr. Wormell has always found his victims through a church, and that he has always groomed his victims for several months before offending against them. He suggests that as a condition of release and supervision, Mr. Wormell could be prohibited from attending any church. He submits that because Mr. Wormell grooms his victims for some time, his relationship with a child would be detected by his supervisor before he could re-offend.

[151] These submissions are not supported by the evidence. Although Mr. Wormell met most of his victims through his involvement with a church, that pattern has not been invariable. He met some victims in other ways, including being introduced to them by other children. He had known some of his victims, including BL and DL, only a very short time before he began to abuse them.

[152] Dr. Lamba's evidence demonstrates that offenders with the strong drive possessed by Mr. Wormell will modify their approach in order to find victims to gratify their needs.

[153] Dr. Lohrasbe's testimony supports this conclusion.

[154] Mr. Wormell has a strong need to engage in this particular form of deviant behavior. He has no other sexual outlets. Even when he was married, he assaulted children. His need for sexual gratification is so extreme that he has been willing to engage in very risky behaviour.

[155] The Crown does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused will re-offend. I must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a "likelihood" that he will inflict harm. R. v. Currie, (1997 115 C.C.C. (3d) 223.

[156] I am satisfied, based on the evidence presently available, that there is no prospect that even at the end of a lengthy determinate sentence, the risk Mr. Wormell poses to the community could be adequately managed through supervision, even assuming that supervision would last for the rest of Mr. Wormell's life.

[157] I do not believe that Mr. Wormell is motivated to try to control his behaviour. I believe that in a situation where Mr. Wormell could not "bide his time" until the end of a period of probation, he would find a means to circumvent supervision, if not detection. Mr. Wormell is not entitled to any more chances. Forty years of offending is enough. There must be no more victims. It would be unrealistic to expect that Corrections Canada could devote the resources that would be required to provide 24-hour supervision of Mr. Wormell in the community for ten years or any other period. I am convinced that anything short of that will not provide the protection the public is entitled to receive. The evidence available to me at present does not cause me to believe that Mr. Wormell's dangerous behaviour can ever be adequately controlled in a non-custodial setting, even with close supervision.

[158] Accordingly, the Crown has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Wormell is a dangerous offender and that I should not exercise any residual discretion I may have to find him to be a long term offender, or to sentence him to a determinate sentence. I order that he be incarcerated in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period.

"W.G. Baker, J."
The Honourable Madam Justice W.G. Baker