Vernon Courthouse

(CHARLOTTE HELSTON / iNFOnews.ca)

VERNON - A judge has thrown out a mandatory minimum sentence of one year in jail for a Vernon man accused of having sexual relations with minors.

Dylan Scofield was 22 years old when he met two 15-year-old girls via social media sites Facebook and MeetMe. He was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, sexual interference of a person under 16. On Friday, March 16, he was sentenced to a six-month conditional sentence, served in the community instead of behind bars.

Although the girls consented to the activity — including unprotected intercourse — the Criminal Code of Canada states individuals under 16 cannot legally consent to sexual activity. Laws passed in 2012 by the Conservative government put a one year mandatory minimum on sexual offences involving minors, however judges can deviate from that if the sentence is deemed cruel and unusual punishment.

Court heard that Scofield is mentally challenged, possibly suffering from Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. In a January 2018 decision, Justice Gary Weatherill noted that Scofield didn’t graduate high school, struggles with social interactions, and has poor impulse control. A psychologist said he does not appear to have a tendency to pursue underage girls. She found that he has a low to moderate risk of reoffending without ongoing support and supervision, but programs that improve his coping and social skills may help. 

At sentencing, Scofield’s lawyer Jonathan Avis argued the mandatory one-year jail term was unconstitutional given the circumstances, and Weatherill agreed.

“This is an important and difficult case. Mr. Scofield committed very serious offences. He had sexual relations with two 15-year-old girls… and in doing so, they were both damaged. One has had to go into therapy and has not been able to attend school. The pain and other effects of what Mr. Scofield did continue up to today and will probably go on for a long time,” Weatherill said in his reasons for sentencing.

Weatherill said Scofield, now 26, has never been in trouble with the law before and has already paid a heavy price for his mistakes, including being arrested, placed on bail conditions, and having the stress of sentencing hanging over him for two-and-a-half years. 

Canadian law makes a “close in age exception” where a 14- or 15-year-old can consent to sexual activity if their partner is less than five years older. The age difference between Scofield and his victims was six years, however Weatherill said that “Scofield’s cognitive disabilities and impaired executive decision-making brought his maturity and reasoning to that of a much younger person well within the five-year age exception” which diminished his moral blameworthiness.

“I have found this a difficult case. On the one hand Mr. Scofield, who albeit had the chronological age of 22 at the time of the offences but was intellectually much younger, had multiple sessions of sexual relations with two 15-year-old girls over a period of some six months. On the other hand, he is intellectually challenged, clearly has psychological and cognitive issues, and has the same or even less mental maturity as the complainants,” Weatherill said.

While serving his six-month conditional sentence, Scofield is banned from communicating with the victims and must attend counselling as directed by his supervisor. He is also prohibited from using online dating sites for two years. If he breaches his conditions, he will serve the remainder of his sentence in jail.

“Mr. Scofield, I hope you think long and hard about your actions and the harm you have caused to (the victims), their families, those closest to them, and the impacts on your community. Your decisions in life can have repercussions and reverberations that you may not feel but can profoundly affect others,” Weatherill said.

In striking down the mandatory minimum, Weatherill critiqued the idea of having set sentences for crimes. 

"While Parliament’s intention — to sanction all sexual offences against children with a term of imprisonment — seems clear, there are a number of potential exceptions or safeguards that could have been included in the section, which would have allowed a sentencing judge discretion not to impose a mandatory minimum sentence in cases that would otherwise offend the Charter. This could have been accomplished in a number of ways, including a more tailored approach to the application of the mandatory minimum, or allowing sentencing judges the discretion not to apply the mandatory minimum in circumstances where to do so would be grossly disproportionate."

To contact a reporter for this story, email Charlotte Helston or call 250-309-5230 or email the editor. You can also submit photos, videos or news tips to the newsroom and be entered to win a monthly prize draw.

We welcome your comments and opinions on our stories but play nice. We won't censor or delete comments unless they contain off-topic statements or links, unnecessary vulgarity, false facts, spam or obviously fake profiles. If you have any concerns about what you see in comments, email the editor in the link above. 

News from © iNFOnews, 2018