Dad Who Raped, Impregnated Special Needs Daughter Sentenced to Mere House Arrest by Woke Judge
A recent sentencing decision in Nova Scotia, a province located in eastern Canada, has ignited a fierce debate about the intersection of justice, race, and the law.
The case involved a Canadian judge who factored race into her decision when sentencing a black father to house arrest rather than prison for committing incestuous acts with his intellectually disabled adult daughter, the U.K. Daily Mail reported.
In June 2022, Halifax provincial court Judge Ann Marie Simmons issued a decision that has since gained national attention after a Nova Scotia appeals court ruling was published in late August.
The case revolved around a 59-year-old father, identified as R.B.W. in court documents, who pleaded guilty to engaging in sexual intercourse with his biological daughter between September 2018 and June 2019.
Both the father and his daughter had been diagnosed with having mental disabilities.
This disturbing case remained hidden from the public until the summer of 2019 when the daughter, then 23 years old, gave birth to a child with severe medical issues and developmental delays, according to the outlet.
Concerns raised by a medical geneticist prompted police involvement, and the child is now in foster care.
During the initial sentencing, Simmons handed down a conditional sentencing order, commonly known as house arrest.
Halifax provincial court Judge Ann Marie Simmons cited RACE as a factor in sentencing a black dad to house arrest for impregnating his intellectually disabled adult daughter instead of jail in 2022.
It came to light in a Nova Scotia appeals court ruling just published.🤨 pic.twitter.com/zlD3b5Rnry
— Mr Pål Christiansen (@TheNorskaPaul) September 11, 2023
However, Crown prosecutors appealed the decision, arguing that it was excessively lenient and legally inappropriate for the crime of incest.
At the sentencing hearing, prosecutors advocated for a prison term ranging from four to six years, drawing upon precedents set in similar cases.
Nevertheless, Simmons, who was appointed in 2017, viewed these precedents as mere guidelines.
She highlighted R.B.W.’s remorse and low likelihood of reoffending as pivotal factors in her decision, according to the Daily Mail.
Moreover, she emphasized that the father and daughter’s roles in the incestuous act were viewed as “equal” since the daughter was an adult, contending that the father did not employ grooming, threats, or force to commit the crime.
The case took a controversial turn when Jamie Sarkonak, in a column for the National Post following the appeal ruling, suggested that race may have played a decisive role in Simmons’ judgment.
Sarkonak pointed out that the judge specifically noted that previous offenders in similar cases were not of African Nova Scotian heritage.
“When deciding whether offenders of such heritage should serve house arrest or jail, the court wrote that ‘a more nuanced approach’ was required. In short, a racial discount was to be applied,” Sarkonak wrote.
Simmons’ decision also took into account a relatively new feature of the Canadian legal system known as Impact of Race and Culture Assessments (IRCAs), the Mail reported.
These assessments provide pre-sentencing reports that inform judges about systemic racism and other disadvantages faced by “black or racialized person’s interactions with the justice system,” according to Legal Aid Ontario.
The judge ruled that the “moral culpability of an African Nova Scotian offender has to be assessed in the context of historic factors and systemic racism, as was done in this case,” a controversial decision that influenced the appeals court.
In her Aug. 23 opinion, Appeals Justice Anne S. Derrick endorsed considering systemic racism in sentencing decisions, stressing that it wasn’t necessary to establish a “causal link” between systemic factors and the offense to take them into account, particularly for African Nova Scotian offenders, the UK Daily Mail reported.
In a three-judge appeal panel, Justice Joel E. Fichaud supported Derrick’s analysis, while Justice David P.S. Farrar dissented.
Farrar contended that house arrest wasn’t legally applicable for incest, a crime with a maximum prison term of 14 years, citing the gravity of the offense and R.B.W.’s elevated moral culpability.
“I cannot rule out a prison sentence. Incest is a very serious crime and RBW’s moral culpability is high,” the justice stated in his dissent, arguing the defendant deserved a two-year sentence.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
