Warning: This story contains disturbing details
A former youth support worker who was convicted of assaulting a 14-year-old boy in B.C. government care has been sentenced to two years in prison and three years of probation for the offence.
Matthew Arlen Porcher was 21 years old and employed by IDM Youth Services, which operates a number of group homes on Vancouver Island, when the assault occurred in April 2022.
After an emotionally difficult day, Porcher took the victim to his bedroom at a Victoria-area home and, believing the boy had fallen asleep, proceeded to touch his penis, buttocks and testicles.
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Gareth Morley convicted Porcher in a decision issued last December, concluding that the accused had “demonstrably lied to the court repeatedly” during the proceedings.
Morley issued his sentence in the case last month, and his reasons were published online this week.
Impact on the victim
The victim in the case – referred to throughout the sentencing decision as “J.R.” because of a publication ban intended to protect his identity – participated in both the trial and the sentencing hearing.
Described as an “extremely vulnerable” Indigenous youth in the care of the provincial Ministry of Children and Family Development, the victim has “developed problems with alcohol and has entered into the criminal justice system” since Porcher’s abuse, according to the decision.
J.R.’s victim impact statement, as described in the decision, said he suffers from “low mood” and has trouble sleeping since the assault. He told the court he “cannot stop thinking about the incident,” and that he blames his sleep problems for his difficulty holding a job in recent years.
Morley’s decision notes that Porcher’s conduct “reverberates to this day and may reverberate for the rest of J.R.’s life.”
“Like everyone else, J.R. deserved a childhood free of sexual violence,” the decision reads. “Mr. Porcher took that from him.”
Crown prosecutors in the case sought a sentence of 42 to 48 months in a federal prison, while the defence argued for a sentence of 20 to 24 months, which would be served in provincial custody.
Despite strongly condemning the offence in his decision, Morley determined that the appropriate sentence would be two years less a day, in line with the range proposed by the defence.
Aggravating and mitigating factors
Porcher’s assault of J.R. occurred at the end of what had been an ongoing and unethically close relationship, according to Morley’s previous decision finding Porcher guilty.
The court heard IDM Youth Services has several rules in place for the specific purpose of avoiding sexual exploitation of vulnerable youth in care – including a ban on touching them, with a limited exception for reciprocating hugs.
The rules also bar support workers from being in contact with the youth outside of work, including over social media, but the court heard Porcher not only exchanged text and Snapchat messages with the victim “regularly” prior to the assault, but had met with him in his car after curfew in parking lots on multiple occasions.
Porcher regularly gave J.R. back massages in the teen’s room, usually with the victim’s shirt off, according to the previous decision.
This ongoing conduct had led Porcher’s employer to order him to stop working with J.R. for three months. The sexual assault happened after what was supposed to be a two-hour meeting during which Porcher could explain the need for their separation.
Porcher’s repeated violation of his employer’s rules was one of several aggravating factors Morley identified in the case.
J.R.’s young age, Porcher’s position of authority, the impact on the victim, the duration of the offence and the fact that it occurred in J.R.’s home were all also aggravating factors, according to the decision.
“After the offence, Mr. Porcher continued to contact J.R., including after being advised not to by police,” the decision reads, listing further aggravating factors.
“Mr. Porcher tried to dissuade J.R. from identifying him, thereby attempting to subvert justice. Mr. Porcher had police training and so would have been particularly aware of this.”
There were also mitigating factors for Morley to consider, including Porcher’s lack of any prior criminal record and his young age at the time of the offence.
The judge also considered Porcher’s “positive community support” to be a mitigating factor, as was his willingness to participate in counselling and education as part of his sentence.
‘Collateral consequences’
Morley also made note of the “collateral consequences” of media attention on Porcher’s conviction. The offender’s reputation has been “permanently affected” by the coverage in a way that similar offenders – such as those whose names are redacted from court decisions due to publication bans intended to protect their victims’ identities – do not experience, the decision notes.
While the public shaming Porcher has endured is “deserved,” it also makes his circumstances different from those of an offender who was kept anonymous by the system, the judge noted.
“If a collateral consequence exists in one case but not in another, the person without the collateral consequence ends up, in effect, with a more lenient sentence for the same level of culpability and same circumstances of the offence and offender,” the decision reads, before noting that Morley did not intend to place “great reliance” on this factor in determining the appropriate sentence.
“Deserved consequences can still be collateral consequences, but the distinction should be kept in mind,” the decision reads. “I also want to emphasize it is important that there be no suggestion that the media should not cover matters like this so that it might result in a lower sentence.”
Sentence conditions
After credit for time served between his conviction and his sentencing, Porcher will spend 570 days behind bars before beginning his three-year probation.
Morley also ordered Porcher to have no contact with J.R. for 10 years and prohibited him from working in any job or volunteer role that involves being in a position of trust or authority over people under age 16.
He is also prohibited from communicating with anyone under age 16 unless it’s done “under the supervision of a person whom the court considers appropriate.”
“I want to emphasize the moral wrongness and harm to J.R. and to the community as a whole of what Mr. Porcher has done,” the decision reads. “That moral wrongness and that harm must be denounced and it must be deterred. I am of the view that this can be done with a sentence of two years less a day plus three years of probation.”
