Failing to Put Promises into Practice: Comparing R v Siwicki with the Goals Established by Manitoba’
Updated: 23 hours ago
Author: B Ulrich
Introduction
On 9 March 2018, the Manitoba Provincial Government released its Criminal Justice System Modernization Strategy. In the accompanying news release, the government expressed a need to address the high number of incarcerated adults in the province. (1) The modernization strategy suggests that more frequent use of alternative measures to incarceration, including restorative justice practices, could be an effective way of tackling the issues that plague the justice system in the province. While in theory, this strategy sounds impressive, in practice the courts have shown inconsistency when deciding whether a restorative or rehabilitative approach is appropriate in a given situation.
The recent Manitoba Court of Appeal (MBCA) decision, R v Siwicki, exemplifies the courts’ unwillingness to break old habits or make necessary changes to their current sentencing practices. In this case, a significant period of incarceration was imposed by the MBCA even after the accused had demonstrated significant positive steps towards rehabilitation in the community. The MBCA failed to take advantage of an ideal opportunity to move forward with the goals set out by the province’s modernization strategy. Instead, the court’s decision reflects the dated sentencing practices that have played a part in the growth of the current issues faced by our justice system.
Facts
The accused in this case, Ronald Siwicki, pled guiltily to criminal negligence causing death (s. 219 CC) following the passing of his 89-year-old mother, Elizabeth Siwicki. On November 21, 2014, Mrs. Siwicki fell from her bed and was unable to get up. Until the time of her death, twenty-six days later, the victim remained in the same position on the floor. The accused, who was her primary care-taker, provided Mrs. Siwicki water and meal replacement beverages but did not call for medical assistance at any point over the twenty-six days. The cause of the victim’s death was determined to be advanced decubitus ulcers (bedsores) which, according to a pathologist, were completely preventable had the accused provided a reasonable level of care.(2)
A pre-sentence report was prepared for the original sentencing hearing. This report provided significant information on the accused’s background, as well as, details on the significant life changes he had made since the time of the offence.(3) The accused struggled to become independent throughout his entire life and was described as immature, indecisive, and passive. A significant reason for this was Mr. Siwicki’s dependence on his mother. The accused lived with his mother, relied on her for financial support, and hardly if ever disobeyed her requests. At the time of the offence, Mr. Siwicki believed that he was acting in accordance with his mother’s wishes by not reaching out for medical assistance, as she had previously refused to go to the hospital.(4) Following his mother’s passing, the accused made several positive changes in his own life by addressing his own health issues, supporting himself financially, and receiving counselling to address his needs.(5) At the time of the trial, a report from the John Howard Society described the once over-dependant Mr. Siwicki to now be thriving in the community.(6)
When Mr. Siwicki received his initial sentence of 3 months in custody, the sentencing judge in the lower court made it clear that the rehabilitation of the accused had been accomplished as a result of the positive changes he had made in his life.(7) On appeal, it was decided that Mr. Siwicki’s progress in the community and his personal circumstances before the offence should be given less weight in the sentencing decision and that the court should simply focus on the severity of the offence itself. Therefore, the MBCA increased the accused’s term of incarceration to two-years minus the time he had already served. In the written conclusion, LeMaistre JA stated, “While the personal circumstances of the accused mitigate the sentence in a meaningful way, general deterrence and denunciation are the primary sentencing principles and, therefore, the gravity of the offence must be reflected in the sentence imposed”.(8)
Discussion
The decision to substantially increase Mr. Siwicki’s sentence in the current cases has significant negative impact in two noticeable areas. First, Mr. Siwicki’s rehabilitation progress will be greatly interrupted. Following the commission of the offence, Mr. Siwicki had finally taken steps to adequately care for his own physical and emotional needs. The John Howard Society report shows how Mr. Siwicki was excelling in the community for quite possibly the first time in his life.(9) By increasing Mr. Siwicki’s period of incarceration, the courts are essentially undoing all of the progress that has been made in his life. The MBCA has made it clear through this decision that they would rather punish Mr. Siwicki’s inaction than see a member of the community learn from his mistakes or fix the harm he has caused in the community. Mr. Siwicki was taking responsibility for his actions by addressing the issues that led to the commission of his offence and was rewarded with an added two-years of incarceration.
Second, this sentence goes against the province’s vision of limiting the number of incarcerated adults in the province. In the ten years prior to the release of the Criminal Justice System Modernization Strategy, the number of adults in provincial custody in Manitoba increased by 64%. (10) Reducing this number was one of the main goals of the province’s new strategy and it was suggested that more restorative justice practices and a rehabilitative approach to sentencing would be the primary tools used to do so. However, when presented with ideal circumstances to divert a low-risk individual away from the corrections system, the court decided against it. I have no doubt that if the ideas proposed by the modernization strategy were regularly practiced some of the stress on the courts and corrections systems would be reduced. The issue remains that the courts continue to rely on incarceration and refuse to take a restorative approach when the opportunity presents itself. This case is representative of the larger issue that stands in the way of the province’s ability to address the existing faults of the justice system. When the courts prioritize the need to punish over the need to address the real needs of offenders, how can we expect the number of incarcerated adults to diminish?
Conclusion - Moving Forward
R v Siwicki provided the Manitoba Court of Appeal with an opportunity to take a meaningful step towards the goals set out by the Province of Manitoba’s Criminal Justice System Modernization Strategy and give a low-risk individual the chance to rehabilitate in the community. Instead, the MBCA’s decision discouraged any hope that the province was willing to make real change and fix the issues plaguing the criminal justice system. A criminal justice system modernization strategy is nothing more than a publicity stunt if the goals of the strategy are not considered and applied in the decisions of them court. If the province wants to make any progress towards limiting the number of incarcerated adults in Manitoba, it must give suitable offenders, like Mr. Siwicki, a real chance to make positive changes outside prison walls.
Sources
1) Government of Manitoba, Manitoba Government Announces Criminal Justice System Modernization Strategy, 2018, accessed 19 November 2019, online: <https://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?item=43302&posted=2018-03-09>.
2) R v Siwicki, 2019 MBCA 104, at 2
3) Ibid, at 3
4) Ibid, at 4
5) Ibid, at 5
6) Ibid, at 6
7) Ibid, at 12
8) Ibid, at 15
9) Ibid, at 6
10) Government of Manitoba, Criminal Justice System Modernization Strategy, 2018, accessed 19 November 2019, online: <https://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/pubs/criminaljusticereform.pdf>.
