Kinesiology 4459A/B Lecture Notes - Lecture 18: Ringette, Indictable Offence, Summary Offence
20 Feb 2017
School
Department
Course
Professor
Lecture 18
R. v. Hepburn (2013)
• Female assistant coach (Hepburn) was 21 years old and was coaching under 14 (years old) female
ringette team. Hepburn had been a provincial and national level athlete. She was well liked by
the players, but an intimate relationship developed with one athlete (who’s name is protected
because of her age – the judge refers to her as “R” in the facts, but do not confuse that with “R.
v.” in the title of criminal cases - “R.” in the criminal case titles refers to the “Crown”).
• Hepburn and R communicated innumerable times between January 1, 2011 and March 29, 2011,
the period of time during which Hepburn was charged with having committed, and the jury found
her to have committed, this section 152 offence (the “Offence Period”). They communicated in
person, by telephone, by letter and by text message. Over the Offence Period they exchanged
easily in excess of 5,000 text messages alone.
• A few of those messages related to ringette matters and opinions exchanged. Far more of the
messages were about the maintenance, cessation, revival, continuance and secrecy of their
relationship.
Sexual interference
S.151 Every person who, for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or
with an object, any part of the body of a person under the age of 16 years
• (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14
years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
• (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a
term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a
term of 90 days.
• R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 151;
• R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 1;
• 2005, c. 32, s. 3;
• 2008, c. 6, s. 54;
• 2012, c. 1, s. 11;
• 2015, c. 23, s. 2.
Invitation to sexual touching
152 Every person who, for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a person under the age of
16 years to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any
person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the
person under the age of 16 years,
• (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14
years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
• (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a
term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a
term of 90 days.
• R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 152;
• R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 1;
• 2005, c. 32, s. 3;
• 2008, c. 6, s. 54;
• 2012, c. 1, s. 12;
• 2015, c. 23, s. 3.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
• There is a minimum sentence on each of Hepburn’s offences, of 45 days incarceration. This is a
relatively recent addition to the Code, but was in place at the time of Hepburn’s offences. By
imposing this minimum I understand Parliament to be expressing society’s view that no such
offender and no such offence should be treated so lightly as to not have to spend some time in
prison. (para. 21)
• Consent by a 13 year old is not possible at law; any conduct of a victim in any way perceived to
be consent cannot be considered in determining criminal liability. (para. 22)
• Therefore, while not a mitigating factor on sentencing, consent or the perception thereof can be
relevant to proportionality. (para. 24)
• I disagree with Defence counsel that the episodic touching offence here, in its totality, was
“fleeting”. Nevertheless she is correct when she described it as: “minimally invasive … and did
not involve any touching of genital areas or private parts. Further they did not involve any …
violence”. Yet I note that with each successive episode of touching, the degree of such contact
escalated. The trajectory was clear. Fortunately they were discovered before advancing further.
Therefore it remains at the low end of the gravity scale. (para. 25)
• The aggravating factors were, first and foremost, Hepburn’s position of trust. This arose in two
ways: as assistant coach to the victim’s Under 14 ringette team, and then further the trust reposed
in her by the victim’s parents. (para. 40)
• Second, Hepburn orchestrated times of secrecy and concealment with the victim. (para. 41)
• The third aggravating factor was the duration of the grooming process, despite frequent
opportunities to cease. (para. 42)
• As mitigating factors were Hepburn’s youth, remorse and the absence of any criminal record.
(para. 43)
• Sentence:
• “…I sentence you to 12 months and 18 months prison sentences respectively on the sections 151
and 152 offences, to be served concurrently, therefore a total of 18 months, plus two years of
probation. That probation shall be subject to the 10 conditions recommended in the Pre-Sentence
Report, with the no contact extended to include the victim’s family. In addition, as recommended
by the forensic assessor, you are prohibited from involvement in the coaching or mentoring of
underage players in any sport until you have successfully completed the sex offender treatment.”
(para. 64)
• Sentence:
• The Crown has applied for additional orders, specifically that Hepburn provide a DNA sample for
analysis, a weapons prohibition for 10 years and an order that she comply with the Sex Offender
Information Registration Act, which order will subsist for 20 years. In these circumstances those
are all mandatory and therefore the applications are granted. (para. 61)
• The sentence imposed was for a longer period of time than what the defence counsel was seeking
and what some commentators thought may be granted. This case, while unfortunate in many
ways, reinforces the principal that significant criminal sanctions will result, even if the sexual
exploitation of a minor was “minimally invasive … and did not involve any touching of genital
areas or private parts”.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Lecture 18: v. hepburn (2013, female assistant coach (hepburn) was 21 years old and was coaching under 14 (years old) female ringette team. Hepburn had been a provincial and national level athlete. They communicated in person, by telephone, by letter and by text message. Over the offence period they exchanged easily in excess of 5,000 text messages alone: a few of those messages related to ringette matters and opinions exchanged. Far more of the messages were about the maintenance, cessation, revival, continuance and secrecy of their relationship. 152 every person who, for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a person under the age of. 2015, c. 23, s. 3: there is a minimum sentence on each of hepburn"s offences, of 45 days incarceration. This is a relatively recent addition to the code, but was in place at the time of hepburn"s offences.
