A man who was sentenced to 18 months in jail after pleading guilty to sexually assaulting his now ex-fiance while she was in the psychiatric ward at University Hospital of Northern B.C. has been released on bail while the court decides whether to give him a new trial.
The woman had raised a concern that after spending time in custody, the man, who cannot be named under a court-ordered publication ban against information that could identify the alleged victim, would blame her for the time he's spent behind bars and seek revenge on her.
In an interview with The Citizen earlier this month, she went so far as to say she feared for her life.
But during a hearing before B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ron Tindale on Friday, it was noted that the man lived up to the conditions of his bail for more than a year between the day he pleaded guilty and the day he was sentenced.
While out on bail, there must be no contact, either directly or indirectly, with the woman under the conditions imposed during the hearing. He will be allowed to work and live with his current fiance in Prince George.
Tindale also ordered that any complaints of the man breaching his conditions be brought before him and warned that if there is any allegation of him violating the conditions, the man will be back in custody.
After he had originally pleaded guilty, Crown and defence counsels presented a joint submission for a sentence of three years probation. But provincial court judge Shannon Keyes found the case law did not support such a lenient term and, in September, sentenced him to the jail term.
She also commented that 2 1/2 years in jail would have been more appropriate. But in exchange for pleading guilty to the charge, the offence was treated as a summary conviction, and so subject to a lighter sentence than if it continued as an indictable offence.
Although he described the application for a new trial as unusual given that the man had pleaded guilty, Tindale found the application was "not frivolous" prior to granting bail.
Defence counsel is questioning whether the legal definition of consent was met.
Despite pleading guilty, the man claimed during an interview for a pre-sentence report that the sex was consensual. Keyes found that irrelevant given the victim was in no condition to give consent.
