By MARK BONOKOSKI
In the wake of Attorney General Michael Bryant's controversial and headline-grabbing legislation earlier this year that put the muzzle to pit bulls, one would think the appeal Crowns under his command would jump on any criminal case where the breed played a particularly ugly role and the dog's handler got off lightly in the courts.
But apparently not.
From this point onward, parental guidance is advised.
Back in August, a now-17-year-old Scarborough girl -- her name protected by the Youth Criminal Justice Act -- was sentenced by Justice Paul Robertson to 20 months probation after pleading guilty to the Criminal Code offence of "compelling bestiality" -- as in using a neighbour's pit bull as a sexual weapon in the anal rape of a then-12-year-old boy.
There were conditions on the girl's probation order, of course, including counselling to address "sexual offending and anger management."
The Crown prosecutor, Kim Motyl, had sought a custody and community supervision order of 18 to 20 months, all to be followed by a year probation and counselling.
She also requested an order for the girl's DNA to be submitted to the federal database, as well as the conviction being registered under the high-profile designation of "serious violent offence."
Both were denied.
Believing the sentence did not adequately reflect the crime, Kim Motyl's boss, Tony Loparco, appealed to the Crown's appeal office on Bay St. where it was reviewed and then rejected.
"We never comment on the reasons," said Brendan Crawley, a spokesman at the Office of the Attorney General, the overseer of the Crown's office.
"That's it. There is nothing more to be said."
The facts of the case are as follows: In August 2003, the then-15-year-old girl was hired by a neighbour in her apartment building to look after her pit bull terrier while she went away to the west coast, and left her explicit instructions not to bring any other person into the apartment.
The police report is three pages long. And it is graphic.
It has the girl attending the apartment to feed the pit bull, and taking along the 12-year-old "victim" who also lived in the same building. They were sitting on the couch when the dog climbed up and began "humping" the boy.
Both, according to the report, thought it was "funny."
"We need to get rid of his horniness," the girl reportedly said, and then instructed the boy to get down on the floor on his hands and knees where she then forcibly pulled down his pants and underwear, and put the pit bull in position.
The boy told her to stop -- that it was "no longer funny."
But it wasn't about to stop.
"The victim began crying in pain," reads the police report. "After about 10-15 seconds of the dog penetrating the victim, the accused began hitting the dog on the head to break him off. The accused instructed the victim not to tell."
Back at his own apartment, the boy initially told his mother that his "puffy" face -- swollen from crying -- was the result of banging his head on a shelf. After he went to the bathroom and discovered he was bleeding, however, he let the entire story spill out, including showing her the scratches on his back that were consistent with claw marks.
According to the police, the boy's mother confronted the girl, but did not immediately report it to the police because she feared the girl was not only a bully, but a member of a gang in that end of Scarborough.
It was only after a social worker at the boy's school called the mother to discuss her son's increasingly bad behaviour did the mother disclose the events of that summer. The social worker, in turn, called Children's Aid who, in turn, called the cops.
The girl was originally charged with three criminal counts, one for compelling bestiality, one for bestiality on a person under the age of 14, and another for sexual assault.
The last two charges were withdrawn when the girl pleaded guilty to the first count. During the sentencing, Judge Robertson said that, despite the Crown's prosecutor's use of the words such as "repugnant" and "perverted," he could find "no evidence before him that the physical injuries (to the boy) were anything more than transient in nature."
He also said he "would not equate this offence with one of incest or a serious sexual assault" that would result in "psychological damage far in excess of the physical nature."
"The offence before me was spontaneous, lasting about 10, 15 seconds," said the judge. "It started as an ill-advised joke between friends."
It was Tony Loparco, the head Crown in Scarborough, and prosecutor Kim Motyl's boss, who asked for the appeal.
"From a legal perspective, I knew the appeal would likely be turned down, simply because the girl will soon be 19," said Loparco. "That, and the fact that young-offender rulings are rarely changed.
"But, was it worth a try? Yes, it was," said Loparco. "Imagine what that boy went through, with a pit bull.
"Sometimes you just despair for humanity.
"It's frightening. It truly is frightening."
http://torontosun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Bonokoski_Mark/2005/11/04/1291748.html
In the wake of Attorney General Michael Bryant's controversial and headline-grabbing legislation earlier this year that put the muzzle to pit bulls, one would think the appeal Crowns under his command would jump on any criminal case where the breed played a particularly ugly role and the dog's handler got off lightly in the courts.
But apparently not.
From this point onward, parental guidance is advised.
Back in August, a now-17-year-old Scarborough girl -- her name protected by the Youth Criminal Justice Act -- was sentenced by Justice Paul Robertson to 20 months probation after pleading guilty to the Criminal Code offence of "compelling bestiality" -- as in using a neighbour's pit bull as a sexual weapon in the anal rape of a then-12-year-old boy.
There were conditions on the girl's probation order, of course, including counselling to address "sexual offending and anger management."
The Crown prosecutor, Kim Motyl, had sought a custody and community supervision order of 18 to 20 months, all to be followed by a year probation and counselling.
She also requested an order for the girl's DNA to be submitted to the federal database, as well as the conviction being registered under the high-profile designation of "serious violent offence."
Both were denied.
Believing the sentence did not adequately reflect the crime, Kim Motyl's boss, Tony Loparco, appealed to the Crown's appeal office on Bay St. where it was reviewed and then rejected.
"We never comment on the reasons," said Brendan Crawley, a spokesman at the Office of the Attorney General, the overseer of the Crown's office.
"That's it. There is nothing more to be said."
The facts of the case are as follows: In August 2003, the then-15-year-old girl was hired by a neighbour in her apartment building to look after her pit bull terrier while she went away to the west coast, and left her explicit instructions not to bring any other person into the apartment.
The police report is three pages long. And it is graphic.
It has the girl attending the apartment to feed the pit bull, and taking along the 12-year-old "victim" who also lived in the same building. They were sitting on the couch when the dog climbed up and began "humping" the boy.
Both, according to the report, thought it was "funny."
"We need to get rid of his horniness," the girl reportedly said, and then instructed the boy to get down on the floor on his hands and knees where she then forcibly pulled down his pants and underwear, and put the pit bull in position.
The boy told her to stop -- that it was "no longer funny."
But it wasn't about to stop.
"The victim began crying in pain," reads the police report. "After about 10-15 seconds of the dog penetrating the victim, the accused began hitting the dog on the head to break him off. The accused instructed the victim not to tell."
Back at his own apartment, the boy initially told his mother that his "puffy" face -- swollen from crying -- was the result of banging his head on a shelf. After he went to the bathroom and discovered he was bleeding, however, he let the entire story spill out, including showing her the scratches on his back that were consistent with claw marks.
According to the police, the boy's mother confronted the girl, but did not immediately report it to the police because she feared the girl was not only a bully, but a member of a gang in that end of Scarborough.
It was only after a social worker at the boy's school called the mother to discuss her son's increasingly bad behaviour did the mother disclose the events of that summer. The social worker, in turn, called Children's Aid who, in turn, called the cops.
The girl was originally charged with three criminal counts, one for compelling bestiality, one for bestiality on a person under the age of 14, and another for sexual assault.
The last two charges were withdrawn when the girl pleaded guilty to the first count. During the sentencing, Judge Robertson said that, despite the Crown's prosecutor's use of the words such as "repugnant" and "perverted," he could find "no evidence before him that the physical injuries (to the boy) were anything more than transient in nature."
He also said he "would not equate this offence with one of incest or a serious sexual assault" that would result in "psychological damage far in excess of the physical nature."
"The offence before me was spontaneous, lasting about 10, 15 seconds," said the judge. "It started as an ill-advised joke between friends."
It was Tony Loparco, the head Crown in Scarborough, and prosecutor Kim Motyl's boss, who asked for the appeal.
"From a legal perspective, I knew the appeal would likely be turned down, simply because the girl will soon be 19," said Loparco. "That, and the fact that young-offender rulings are rarely changed.
"But, was it worth a try? Yes, it was," said Loparco. "Imagine what that boy went through, with a pit bull.
"Sometimes you just despair for humanity.
"It's frightening. It truly is frightening."
http://torontosun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Bonokoski_Mark/2005/11/04/1291748.html
