Statement by defence
By lawyer Michael Edelson at the sentencing of Russell Williams Thursday:
Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, the defence is well aware that on the two first-degree murder charges the mandatory life sentences are to be imposed this morning.
With respect to the sentences remaining on the docket, we take no issue with what Crown counsel is proposing, the 10 years on the sexual assaults and forcible confinements and the one year on each of the break and enters, to be served currently with the life sentences.
Your Honour, as defence counsel for Mr. Williams, we acknowledge that the Crown’s presentation of the evidence against him, with its graphic description, disturbing photographs and chilling narrative of his sinister crimes, has left a deep and indelible mark on everyone associated with this case. The defence is further faced with the reality that, in light of Mr. Williams’ pleas of guilty, there is in essence nothing that can be said to change the legal outcome and consequences here today.
The defence is therefore confronted with a legal paradox. We are at a sentencing hearing and yet we are faced with the fact that there is no submission that can be made to alter the maximum sentence that our client will soon receive. But that does not necessarily end it. It does not because the societal goals of sentencing are meant to transcend the imposition of statutorily mandated minimum sentences, even when that sentence is a life imprisonment sentence. While the retribution and punishment of two concurrent life sentences will be foremost in the minds of many, the reality is that Mr. Williams’ pleas may serve to provide some measure of reparation in the context of criminal justice for the harm done to his victims and to the communities in which he committed his crimes.
In the context of criminal proceedings, it is not the role of the defence to specifically address the victim impact resulting from our client’s crime. But we wish to acknowledge their suffering and also to publicly declare that we empathize with these victims and what they’ve had to endure. Their pain is incalculable and really beyond our comprehension.
Mr. Williams’ pleas, in and of themselves, demonstrate a public acknowledgement of the harm he has caused and the salutary effect that may flow from his pleas of guilty. When gauging the significance to be assigned to his pleas, it is important to consider we live in a society where despite whatever crimes one might have been charged with and regardless of how overwhelming the evidence is purported to be, the accused has a constitutionally enshrined right to declare “I am not guilty” and proceed to trial. When this happens, the person is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law until the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt each and every essential element of every charge.
It should be acknowledged that the act of pleading guilty to even a single count of first-degree murder in Canada is a rarity. Mr. Williams’ exceedingly uncommon pleas to first-degree murder are further accentuated by the fact that he, through his instructions to counsel, has expedited his case through the courts with unprecedented speed and efficiency in a legal system which can, by necessity, generate significant delays that often exacerbate the emotional suffering of those affected by the case. In so doing, he has lessened the turmoil that is generated when facts as damaging as those we have heard are required to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a lengthy trial as opposed to this case where they have been placed before the court in an agreed statement of facts.
We must also consider that a case of this magnitude and potential complexity, notwithstanding the purported strength of the evidence, if challenged in court could take several years to reach its ultimate conclusion.
When confronted with the evidence and the investigatory process that was rapidly unfolding, Mr. Williams struggled but ultimately he decided to confess. Once that decision was made, he thereafter demonstrated an unusual and unwavering level of co-operation with the police over many days. His confession was extremely detailed and led to the recovery of virtually all of the electronics and much of the physical evidence that has been placed before the court during the preceding three days. As a result of his interview with the police, the authorities were able to lay 82 counts of break and enter, relating to 48 victims. However, it is important to know that only 17 of the 48 homeowners had reported to the police that their homes had been broken into. The Belleville and the Ottawa police services thoroughly investigated 17 homes that were the subject of the break and enter offences, and until he confessed, they were unable to identify a suspect.
It is important to note that subsequent to his Feb. 7 confession, Mr. Williams consented to further police interviews on Feb. 11, 16, 17, March 4, 5 and 11. These subsequent interviews occurred after he had the opportunity to receive legal advice relating to whether he was required to co-operate. As we know, an accused in our country is not required to assist the police in the furtherance of the case against him.
Between paragraphs 295 and 320 in the agreed statement of facts, there’s a detailed enumeration of the extent to which his complete co-operation with the police was made concerning these crimes. In addition to this co-operation with the police, on Feb. 9 he asked the military chaplain who was visiting him to inform the police that further audio and visual evidence could be found in his Tweed home. His confession was detailed and comprehensive. Although Sgt. Smyth initially doubted that he had confessed fully given the age at which he started to commit these offences as set out in paragraph 315, an extensive police investigation to date has not resulted in any evidence relating to other offences being committed by him as confirmed in paragraph 360. Moreover, it should be noted that when the police were unable to locate Ms. Lloyd’s body, he actually physically led them to her.
He also interpreted for the investigators the computer coding system and complex file storage system which the Crown has alluded to. These folders and drives contained the digital evidence to which reference has been made in many counts before the court. It is important to note that apart from minor contextual changes and correcting minor factual inaccuracies, Mr. Williams agreed to the very early versions of the statement of facts as has been presented to this court. Our client asserted clearly and early in the process his intention was to plead guilty to all his crimes. This is acknowledged in the agreed statement of facts in paragraph 315.
We are aware that there is scarcely anything we could say about his past, his position, or his accomplishments that the court is not aware of. Our client has been the topic of scores of media stories, opinions and speculations. The juxtaposition of his revered and respected position of colonel and base commander against his abhorrent and unthinkable actions has served to raise the awareness of this case and his life to a level that has rarely been experienced in Canadian legal history.
In a typical sentencing hearing where the nature and the length of the punishment may be an issue, it would be incumbent upon the defence to tell the court all that needs to be said about the background of the offender. In the context of this case and particularly in light of the extensive media coverage it has generated, it would be naive to think that there is much left to disclose about our client’s past and personal circumstances at the time of the offences. There are undoubtedly many questions about what factors motivated Mr. Williams to commit these heinous crimes. These questions include what triggered the escalation of his criminal conduct, his loss of control, his obsessive behaviour. The reality is that these questions and the presence or absence of answers will play no role in the determination of the sentence that he will receive. The exclusive determinative factors impacting on sentence are his acceptance of responsibility and his pleas of guilt.
Notwithstanding his unwavering intention to plead guilty, the professional obligation of defence counsel and the administration of justice requires further steps be taken to assure this court that we have carried out due diligence to determine 1) that the standard of criminal responsibility was met in this case; 2) that Mr. Williams was able to properly instruct counsel; and 3) that his decisions were predicated upon him being fully informed. It is hoped that perhaps in time his pleas of guilty might be viewed as an act of atonement by those that he has scarred. He cannot stand before this court and expect forgiveness. Indeed, from a fundamental and moral perspective, one could debate whether he’s even entitled to ask for forgiveness. We can, however, hope that the act of pleading guilty might in some way at some time aid in the healing process. That hope, however, will be tempered by the harsh and sad reality that it is unlikely that anyone affected will likely ever fully recover from his crimes.
As a man about to receive two concurrent life sentences, he has destroyed not only the lives of his victims and their loved ones, he has also ruined his own life and has irreparably damaged the lives of those who were closest to him. I hasten to clarify that this discrete submission is not meant to raise any sympathy for our client, but his personal self-destruction is not to be ignored. The calculus of a life sentence is emphatically simple. It means that he will be in prison for the rest of his life and that he will only be eligible to apply for parole after serving 25 years. Mr. Williams pleaded guilty knowing that he will receive the most severe punishment that our criminal justice system can mete out.
We would also be remiss if we did not quell the media speculation that he or we as his counsel made any attempt to secure special custodial or institutional consideration. This is simply not the case.
One of the hallmarks of our democracy is that we maintain our sense of dignity and our adherence to the rule of law even when punishing those convicted of committing the most horrifying crimes. We pride ourselves on doing so in a manner that commands respect for the administration of justice and we try to ensure that our courts are open and transparent to the public and media. Such, we hope, was the case with this hearing. Our common law and the codifications of the principles of sentences remind us that this day should not be viewed one-dimensionally through the lawyers’ prism. This day is not only about punishment and retribution. This day must also be viewed through the lens of the victim, focusing on loss, remembrance, sorrow and emotional pain. The dots on the exhibit maps illustrate the physical location of the crimes, but the emotional impact of these offences has been seismic, starting with the immediate impact on the victims themselves. And thereafter, reverberating outwards to impact the families, the friends, and the communities. It does not stop there. The impact continues to reverberate into the greater community and the Canadian Forces family. Indeed, these shock waves have rocked the Canadian public at large and have generated a sense of incredulity, anger and enormous sadness and sympathy for all of the victims and their loved ones. Russell Williams knows that he stands at the epicentre of these shock waves and now, as signalled by his pleas of guilt, he is prepared to take responsibility for the damage that he has caused.
... could be PB will get some brownie points for digging up more dirt on RW. These guys rat each other out for a few more smokes or a Mars bar.
