JOHNATHAN TREMBLEY | BRIAN PATTISON
JAIL TERMS DIFFER GREATLY FOR CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
Stratford Beacon Herald – May 1, 2013
Two very different men, from different backgrounds and circumstances, were both sentenced to jail terms Tuesday for sex crimes against children.
The first, Johnathan Trembley, pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault and was sentenced to 90 days in jail and two years of probation. He must attend counselling, provide a DNA sample and avoid places where children under 16 might be present like swimming pools and parks, among other conditions.
The second, Brian Pattison, pleaded guilty to four counts of touching a child under 16. He was sentenced to two years less a day, two years probation, must provide a DNA sample, participate in a sex offender program while in jail and also must avoid places children under 16 might be present like schools and community centres upon his release.
In sentencing Trembley, Superior Court Justice Roland Haines accepted the guilty plea as a mitigating factor. Also in his favour; Trembley was not in a position of authority over the victim.
Defence lawyer John Sipos asked there be no jail time but if jail time was handed down that it be served intermittently to allow for employment.
Haines said 90 days, a submission made by the Crown, was fair and appropriate.
“Such victimization in childhood can lead to lifelong struggles,” Haines said.
He added, while addressing Trembley, “I’m encouraged by the efforts made by you to seek help and the supports you have in place.”
Crown attorney Mike Murdoch and Sipos were farther apart in their sentencing submissions for Pattinson.
Sipos asked for two years less a day, which would keep Pattison out of a federal penitentiary. Murdoch asked for three years, which would put him in a federal penitentiary.
Sipos argued while there was a breach of trust, there was no violence and the nature of the assaults was at the lower range — in some instances he rubbed the victims’ bottoms.
“There is no insignificant sexual assault but in the continuum it was less invasive,” Haines agreed.
Pattison also pleaded guilty quickly and saved the victims from testifying and has tried to make amends, Sipos said.
Murdoch argued although the offences were not violent, they still take the sexual integrity of the victim. It’s the lasting scar in the minds of victims that must be considered, he suggested.
Pattison apologized for his actions.
“I don’t understand why I do the things I do,” he said.
Haines believed he was remorseful and called it a “difficult case.”