Despite a joint submission of one year in jail and 18 months probation, a Chilliwack provincial court judge sentenced Andrew Mullaly to 18 months jail and three years probation for the ongoing sexual assault of a girl between the ages of 11 and 16. (Facebook)

Chilliwack judge veers from joint submission, bumps up sex assault sentence

‘I find the joint submission is contrary to the public interest and I’m rejecting it’

A man convicted of sexually and emotionally abusing a teenaged girl for years was handed a sentence 50 per cent longer than requested in a joint submission by Crown and defence in a rare decision by a provincial court judge.

Andrew Mullaly elicited no emotion in courtroom 203 at the Chilliwack Law Courts on June 21 as Judge Andrea Ormiston sentenced him to 18 months jail followed by three years probation, the maximum allowed under the charge conviction.

Crown counsel Grant Lindsey and Mullaly’s lawyer Darrel Schultz had put forth a joint submission in April for one year in jail followed by 18 months probation.

Judge Ormiston decided that sentence for Mullaly who committed as many as two dozen acts of “sexual humiliation” on the girl between the ages of 11 and 16 was “not only unfit but one that is contrary to the public interest.”

In rejecting the joint submission, the judge pointed to a Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision that said joint submissions should not be rejected unless that sentence would be contrary to the public interest. In R v Anthony Cook, a decision delivered by Justice Michael Moldaver of the SCC, it was made clear that a joint submission should not be rejected lightly.

“Joint submissions promote the smooth operation of the criminal justice system,” Moldaver wrote. “The appellant gave up his right to a trial and any self-defence argument he may have had. In the end, the trial judge’s deviation from the recommended custodial sentence — by only six months — amounts to little more than tinkering.”

In Canadian law, judges are not bound by joint submissions, however, the courts are generally reluctant to divert from what is proposed by both Crown or defence assuming there is case law showing similar sentences for similar crimes.

Ormiston decided, however, that in this case the submission was indeed not in the public interest.

“I find that under the specific circumstances of this plea agreement, one year cannot be reconciled with the principles and ranges established in the authorities,” she said.

“I find the joint submission is contrary to the public interest and I’m rejecting it.”

Mullaly was charged with sexual assault, extortion and possession of child pornography for ongoing abuse of the girl from the time she was 11 until 16. The multi-year abuse and humiliation began with emotional “punishment” that expanded to repeated instances of sexual touching and sexual assault.

During the brief hearing on April 12, Lindsey read parts of a victim impact statement from the girl, in which she said she felt “used, manipulated, hopeless, ashamed.”

• READ MORE: Judge questions joint submission for Chilliwack man who sexually assaulted girl

It was then in court that Judge Ormiston first raised the spectre of rejecting the joint submission, based on her concerns about the serious nature of the facts, the brevity with which case law was presented, and the rushed nature of the hearing late on a Friday afternoon.

As part of the plea agreement, Crown proceeded summarily rather than by indictment, which meant the conviction to which he pleaded is substantially less serious than if it were to be heard in BC Supreme Court.

As the sentence was read out and he was taken away by a sheriff to jail, Mullaly expressed no emotion.

Another wrinkle in the case occurred after the April sentencing hearing when local Crown counsel — ordered by the provincial Public Prosecution Service — applied to extend the standard publication ban name on the identity of the victim to include Mullaly’s name.

• READ MORE: OPINION: When observation affects what is observed

The application, unsurprisingly supported by Mullaly, was left undecided upon between April and the June 20 appearance. In the interim, Judge Ormiston asked Crown to ask the victim her perspective on extending the publication ban to Mullaly.

“They are not concerned with the mentioning of his name in the newspaper,” Lindsey said in court on June 20.

Ormiston then explained how the singular concern of the court is of the privacy of the victim. She pointed to the fact that the Crown was not seeking a remedy for past instances when Mullaly’s name was used, and no evidence of a publication ban violation was presented in court.

“Today I have the added evidence that the victim does not share the Crown’s concerns,” she said, adding that there was nothing presented to her to explain why Mullaly’s name should not appear in print.

“I simply cannot make that finding on the specific evidence that has been heard here in court.”

She left the original publication ban on any information that could identify the victim in place, thereby leaving the onus on the media to not reveal her identity.


@PeeJayAitch
paul.henderson@theprogress.com

Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Get local stories you won't find anywhere else right to your inbox.
Sign up here

Just Posted

Citing stability, B.C. Premier calls snap election for Oct. 24

John Horgan meets with Lieutenant Governor to request vote

Two Abbotsford elementary schools record COVID-19 exposures, according to Fraser Health

‘Exposures’ defined as 1 positive case at school, ‘clusters’ as 2 or more, ‘outbreaks’ as widespread

60 middle school students in one Abbotsford classroom? It’s true, stunned parent is told

Parent says she was in disbelief when her son told her he was in a class with 60 other kids

Three Abbotsford candidates so far come forward for provincial election

Mike de Jong, Simon Gibson and Bruce Banman to toss hats in ring

COVID-19: 4 more deaths, 366 new cases in B.C. since Friday

A total of 8,208 people in B.C. have tested positive for COVID-19 since January

RCMP issue two $2,300 COVID fines at same Metro Vancouver vacation rental within 24 hours

Cpl. Mike Kalanj said it was ‘quite frankly appalling’ to see parties breaking COVID-19 rules

Here’s how voting amid a pandemic will happen in B.C.

Elections BC has worked with the provincial health office to determine safety protocols for voting

B.C. privacy commissioner will hear First Nations complaints about COVID

The hearing will rely on written submissions from the Indigenous governments as well as the Ministry of Health

Majority of Canadians support wearing masks during COVID-19, oppose protests: poll

Nearly 90 per cent felt wearing a mask was a civic duty because it protects others from COVID-19

Join Black Press Media and Do Some Good

Pay it Forward program supports local businesses in their community giving

Paper towel in short supply as people stay home, clean more, industry leader says

While toilet paper consumption has returned to normal levels, paper towel sales continue to outpace pre-COVID levels

Is it time to start thinking about greener ways to package cannabis?

Packaging suppliers are still figuring eco-friendly and affordable packaging options that fit the mandates of Cannabis Regulations

Group wants Parliament, courts to hold social media to same standard as publishers

Daniel Bernhard made the comments shortly after Friends of Canadian Broadcasting released a research paper

Most Read