SELECTED CASE LAW
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR:
In  NJ No 307 (NLPC), Mr. S had a history of failing to obey orders under recognizance, undertakings and probation. The court noted that these types of orders failed to provide security for those he was prohibited from contacting because Mr. S ignored those orders. He was convicted of uttering threats against his former spouse, Ms. S, and her friend, Mr. BS, and failing to comply with an undertaking that prohibited contact with either of those people. He breached this order a few days after it was put in place.
Mr. S had called Ms. S’ home in the middle of the night, approached her at a club, where he assaulted her friend and threatened Mr. BS, and was drinking alcohol, despite being prohibited from drinking. He was arrested and released on a recognizance, which he breached by calling Ms. S at her work and home several times. He would let the phone ring 20 times before hang-ing up, and he called her from another province when he was not supposed to leave Newfound-land.
Mr. S expressed no remorse, no empathy for his victims, and would not assure the court he would not contact the victims again. The court stated:
These type of offences strike at the heart, purpose and intent of our system of criminal justice. These offences rob their victims of any sense of security that the Court might attempt to provide to them from its orders. They make the Court look impotent. Victims of crime quickly learn that court orders provide them with no respite from unwanted and uninvited contact. [Mr. S] has proven to [Ms. S], [Ms. K] and to [Mr. BS], that the police and the courts are unable or unwilling to adequately deal with him. It must be disheartening to victims of crime to complain to the police, to see an offender appear in court and be released pursuant to an order prohibiting contact, only to be contacted by the offender again, to complain to the police again, to see the offender arrested again and for the offender to be released by the police or by the court on yet another undertaking prohibiting contact.
Mr. S pleaded guilty to breaches of probation, assault, breaches to undertakings, and harassing phone calls. He was sentenced to 12 months’ incarceration, three years’ probation, and orders included a DNA order, a no contact order with Ms. S, Ms. K and Mr. BS, and a prohibition from calling or entering their places of employment, being on any street they live on, or going to any bar they are in. This sentence was longer than what was recommended by the Crown. The court noted that Mr. S was a persistent and repeat offender who ignored orders and targeted the same victims.
  NJ No 307 (NLPC) at para 42.
Criminal Offence(s): Harassing Communications