Warning: This story contains disturbing details A B.C. senior has been sentenced to four and a half years behind bars after being convicted of sexual interference against his adolescent granddaughter. The 70-year-old man, whose name is subject to a publication ban intended to protect the identity of the victim, was convicted last year. He received his sentence in B.C. Supreme Court in Prince George last week. ‘Profound impact’ on victim Justice Andrew Majawa’s sentencing decision includes a brief summary of the behaviour he concluded the grandfather had engaged in as part of the sexual interference conviction. The decision describes the grandfather watching pornography with his granddaughter “on a number of occasions,” sometimes with his penis exposed, and there were at least two incidents of sexual touching. In one instance, the court heard there was “skin-to-skin contact” between their genitals. The indictment described the sexual interference as occurring between Jan. 1, 2016 and Nov. 6, 2021, according to the decision. During that time, the victim was “between the ages of six or seven and 11 years old.” The granddaughter, referred to in the decision by the initials S.L., provided a victim impact statement to the court. “She describes the profound impact the offender’s conduct has had on her emotional and physical state,” the decision reads. “The abuse has led to disordered eating, body dysmorphia and self harm. It has made it nearly impossible for S.L. to attend school for approximately five years and she has fallen significantly behind both academically and socially. The abuse has impacted her ability to trust and have healthy relationships with adults. She is worried that she will not be able to function at a normal job or in school.” Abuse of trust Crown prosecutors sought a sentence of four to six years, while the grandfather’s defence suggested an appropriate sentence would range from a low of two years less a day, followed by three years of probation, to a high of three and a half years of incarceration. After weighing various aggravating and mitigating factors, Majawa settled on a sentence near the low end of the Crown’s range. The judge found the grandfather’s breach of the trust inherent in his relationship to the victim to be a significant aggravating factor. “As the victim’s grandfather, and at times a person who acted in a role akin to a guardian, the offender should have been a person that the victim could be safe with and whom she could rely upon to protect her,” the decision reads. “Instead, he was the exact opposite.” Among the mitigating factors were the offender’s lack of a prior criminal record and his compliance with the terms of his release from custody while awaiting trial and sentencing. The judge also noted letters of support for the grandfather—referred to in the decision by the initials A.L.S.—from family and community members. “This, in my view, speaks positively to the offender’s prospects for rehabilitation and to a lesser likelihood of re-offending upon his release,” Majawa’s decision reads. “However, the positive reputation he has in the community does not have a mitigating effect for an offence that is largely committed in private.” In addition to imposing a four-and-a-half-year prison sentence, Majawa ordered the offender to provide DNA samples to the court and comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for 20 years after his eventual release. For 10 years following his release, the offender must not attend places where children under 16 can reasonably be expected to be present, hold any position of trust or authority over people under that age, or have any contact with someone under that age without supervision. He is also banned from possessing certain weapons for 10 years and from possessing prohibited and restricted firearms for life, according to the decision.. “In my view, this sentence reflects the significant harm done to the victim and the importance of deterring the accused and others from committing this offence in the future,” the decision reads. “It also reflects the offender’s high level of moral blameworthiness. While I have considered the offender’s age and health considerations, the sentence I have imposed does not allow A.L.S.’s personal circumstances to overtake the court’s consideration of the impact that the sexual assault had on S.L.”
