J. 1996 C.R. SK 6458-6465 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Her Majesty the Queen -v­ Delma James CROWELL DECISION ON SENTENCING Heard Before: The Honourable Justice J. Michael MacDonald at Halifax, Nova Scotia Oral Decision: August 28th, 1997 Written Release of Decision: December 3, 1997 Counsel: Bernadette Macdonald for the Crown Christopher Manning for the Defence At the outset, want to thank both counsel for their very thorough and helpful submissions. The Accused has plead guilty to five theft related charges. The total amount of money involved for all five counts exceeds $64,000. He is 43 years of age, and a former Chief of Police for the Town of Kentville. He used his position of authority as police chief to commit these crimes. The principles of sentencing that have developed over the years in this Country have recently been codified. They are set out in s. 718 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The relevant subsections are: 718. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: (a) to denounce unlawful conduct; (b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences; (c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary; (d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders; (e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and (f) after promote essential responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community. Section 718.1 provides: sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. Section 718.2 (a) (iii) provides: court that imposes sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: (a) sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, (iii) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused position of trust or authority in relation to the victim... shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances; (b) sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances; (c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh; (d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and (e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders. The Nature of the Crimes: The Accused, as stated, has plead guilty to five counts involving theft related offences. Included within these counts is litany of some twenty separate offences all of which are too ­numerous to review in detail today. They can however be summarized as follows: The first count involves thirteen offences over period of four years against the Town of Kentville involving an amount of money of $28,876.96. The second count involves three offences from September of 1993 to October of 1994 against the Province of Nova Scotia Safe Graduation Fund in an amount of $11,692.43. The third count involves an offence from July 1993 to October 1994 against the Atlantic Association of Chiefs of Police in the amount of $17,328.37. The fourth count involves two offences from 1989 to December of 1993 against the Annapolis Valley Chiefs of Police involving an amount of $5,312.00. The fifth count involves an offence from April 1991 to February 1992 against the Nova Scotia Chiefs of Police Fall Conference in an amount of $1,286.19. Thus for all charges we have total amount involved of $64,495.95. The Accused's Personal Circumstances: The Accused is 43 years of age. He has grade 12 education. He has been police officer since 1975 in various locations in Atlantic Canada. He became Chief of the Kentville force in March of 1988 and remained in that position until the Fall of 1994. He is married with two children. Aggravating Factors: As the statutory guidelines provide am to consider all aggravating factors. In this regard consider the following: Mr. Crowell committed these offences while in position of trust. He used his position of authority to plot and scheme against his unsuspecting colleagues and associates. police chief in community the size of Kentville is normally held in high esteem and often blindly trusted. Secondly, these offences obviously involved significant amount of premeditation as revealed by the detailed forensic report exhibited before me. Mr. Crowell was involved in detailed and sophisticated premeditated series of schemes involving the use of trust accounts and the creation of false documents. Thirdly, consider Mr. Crowell's "modus operandi" to be an aggravating factor. Mr. Crowell has created widespread and tremendous web of deceit against trusting and well-intentioned organizations. The scope of this deceit is astonishing. Particularly offensive are the charges against the Safe Graduation Fund; circumstance where hard working people are trying to promote something positive. Mr. Crowell used his position of authority to commit theft against that fund. Also troubling is the offence involving the expense claim purportedly submitted on behalf of colleague (who himself was decent enough to stay with relatives as opposed to making travel claim only to have Mr. Crowell steal this money). It is also troubling to consider the offence involving Mr. Crowell's squandering the efforts of the late Chief Innis (when Chief Innis attempted to secure grants from the Province for worthy cause). Mitigating Factors: am as well obliged to consider mitigating factors in this matter. The fact that Mr. Crowell has plead guilty is significant mitigating factor. His guilty plea has saved the administration of justice an incredible amount of time, effort and money. He has also saved up to sixty-six witnesses potential embarrassment, discomfort and inconvenience. Secondly, Mr. Crowell has no criminal record and obviously he has been industrious throughout his lifetime. Thirdly, it is clear from the circumstances of this case that Mr. Crowell has lost his career as result of his involvement in these incidents, and that the sentencing process today is in fact an addition to the humiliation he and his family have endured. Conclusion: Thus in sentencing you today Mr. Crowell, am satisfied that by pleading guilty to these serious crimes you have been specifically deterred, and further rehabilitation should not be major consideration for me. After all you have brought humiliation and disgrace upon yourself. You once held position of prominence and respect in your community. Your actions have now earned you the label of “thief”. In these circumstances do not feel that you are candidate to reoffend. However, premeditated crimes of this nature by individuals in positions of trust must be met with punishment that will emphasize general deterrence. Unfortunately there have been all too many individuals who used positions of trust to commit theft related offences. Arguably the most sacred of all trust is that of peace officer sworn under oath to uphold and enforce the law. Your sentence Mr. Crowell must serve as a message of deterrence to all individuals holding positions of authority. The late Pace, J.A., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court (Appeal Division) in v. Hennigar (1983), 58 N.S.R. (2d) 110 at page 116 noted: ...in crimes of sophisticated nature carried out by intelligent people in planned and subtle ways against ...trusting people the sentence must be such not only to deter the offender but also to deter those who might follow his example. This message is especially important for all other peace officers who may be inclined to abuse their positions of trust. Peace officers serve on the front line of our justice system. Their integrity must be beyond reproach. You have shamefully tarnished that image and in so doing you have done tremendous injustice to your profession. Your unlawful conduct must be denounced by significant period of incarceration To do otherwise would be serious disservice to the statutory principles that have just referred to. In light of all the circumstances of this case am prepared to accept the joint recommendation of counsel calling for combined sentence of twenty months. can assure you that but for your guilty plea (and the other mitigating factors), your term of incarceration would have been much lengthier. I sentence you Mr. Crowell to four months consecutive on each count for a total of twenty months incarceration in a provincial institution. I direct that a restitution order be prepared under s. 738 of the Criminal Code of Canada to provide for restitution for the five victims in the amounts as detailed in Exhibit 3. make no recommendation to the Correction Services as to where you will be incarcerated or when, if at all, you would receive temporary leaves of absence. The able submissions made by your counsel before me can be made with equal vigour to the Correctional Services. It is within their bailiwick to determine those two issues. J. Michael MacDonald
The offender, a former police chief, plead guilty to five theft related charges. The amount of money involved for all five counts was $64,000. He used his position of authority as police chief to commit the crimes. The offender did not have a criminal record. The offences were premeditated, and directed against trusting and well-intentioned organizations. Sentencing the offender to four months consecutive imprisonment on each count, for a total of twenty months, and ordering restitution to the victims,  that the sentence must serve as a message of deterrence to all individuals who hold positions of trust and authority. This message is particularly important to police officers, whose integrity must be beyond reproach.