What was supposed to be a sentencing hearing Thursday morning turned into renewed question of a man鈥檚 guilt in a bizarre turn of events.
A 27-year-old Summerland man, who can鈥檛 be named due to a publication ban, was accused of sexual interference with a pair of minors during a movie night, and pleaded guilty to the charge, but leading up to his sentencing hearing came to disagree with some of the core points of the charges.
鈥�(Sexual assault) is a very broad concept, and it may not meet the criteria. But at least at this point, all we were prepared to do today is we understood from the last hearing was to come here and give the facts on sentencing,鈥� defence lawyer Don Skogstad said in court.
鈥淎nd then we find out that the Crown can鈥檛 prove their case. We鈥檙e not going first; we don鈥檛 have to and we don鈥檛 want to.鈥�
Ultimately, the issue has come down to a disagreement about the facts, but Skogstad spoke cryptically about where the disagreement lay.
That said, he did acknowledge there was a guilty plea already entered, saying he felt it was due to the 鈥渂road concept鈥� of sexual assault. He hinted that the defence鈥檚 alleged offences would have fallen on the less severe end of that spectrum, even questioning whether there was illegal conduct.
鈥淭he most you could say was there was close contact with another person and not involving the private parts of the body,鈥� Skogstad said. 鈥淭hat could be considered sexual assault.鈥�
Skogstad flirted with the idea of getting into a trial over the matter, but failed to charge headlong into an expungement application to revoke the guilty plea, for which there is an exceptionally high legal bar to clear.
鈥淭hat鈥檚 not been decided your honour. I don鈥檛 have those instructions today. My instructions today, ever since the last hearing, was to be prepared to deal with the facts on sentencing,鈥� Skogstad said. 鈥淎nd we are. We鈥檙e here.鈥�
But Crown was unable to proceed with the sentencing hearing, with no witnesses to corroborate aggravating circumstances in the instance 鈥� and Crown lawyer Andrew Vandersluys, sitting in for lawyer Anne Lerchs, indicated the prosecution was having difficulties moving forward with such fundamental disagreements on the charges and without knowing what the full details of what is being disputed.
鈥淗is client denies it. If what鈥檚 being read is denied, we鈥檙e at the very heart of the charge,鈥� Vandersluys said. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 see how a guilty plea can be maintained if all that happened was close contact in the presence of another person. That鈥檚 not sexual assault.鈥�
Judge Gregory Koturbash appeared perplexed by the change of circumstances with the defence, agreeing that the sentencing should not move forward without knowing from where the main denials arose.
But Skogstad remained mum on the issue, asserting he had no legal obligation to spill the defence before the Crown has brought forward all of its evidence.
鈥淚t just doesn鈥檛 make sense to me. I鈥檝e never seen something like this,鈥� Koturbash said, with Skogstad expressing much the same.
鈥淭hey have to prove some event that amounts to sexual assault,鈥� Skogstad responded, but was cut off by Koturbash who said the Crown didn鈥檛 need to prove the crime 鈥� it had been admitted through a guilty plea.
The hearing grew tense between Skogstad and Koturbash, who disagreed on whether or not the defence needed to delve its side of the story to proceed.
鈥淵ou need to help me along, here, and say on what basis you entered a guilty plea,鈥� Koturbash said, adding it is not up to the Crown to prove the defendant鈥檚 guilt. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a sentencing now. We鈥檙e dealing with a sentencing. He鈥檚 foregone the right to have a trial. He is not presumed innocent. He is guilty.鈥�
In the case of one of the minors, Skogstad denied any guilt on the part of the defence, claiming that person had turned 16 before the incident occurred.
鈥淚f that fact is denied in and of itself, that鈥檚 a big problem,鈥� Vandersluys said.
鈥淗e probably needs to retain different counsel,鈥� Koturbash added, to which Skogstad said he would likely be consulting with other lawyers.
After a lengthy adjournment to discuss the issue with his client, Skogstad told the court more time would be needed to determine how to move forward.
@dustinrgodfrey
dustin.godfrey@pentictonwesternnews.com
Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
