Garnett Frederick Smith argued he wasn’t criminally responsible due to an illness of the brain. But in the judge’s decision, which was read in the Windsor court house Feb. 21, Judge Alan Tufts stated that there could be no other inference but that these acts were for a sexual purpose, regardless of Smith’s state of mind at the time.
Smith was charged with nine offences stemming from four different complainants. Each one involved some form of sexual touching, luring, or exposing his genitals to children under the age of 16 between 2013 and 2014 in Windsor.
Smith’s primary defence during the trial was that he wasn’t aware of the severity of his actions while he was doing them because of a mental disorder, which impacted his judgement.
The Crown’s evidence included an agreed statement of facts from the complainants and testimony from one witness, the mother of one of the children.
Smith's defence attorney called an expert witness, who specializes in brain disorders.
After hearing the testimony of the expert, the court ordered a Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) report.
Tufts said the report led to reasonable grounds for an assessment of Smith to determine whether or not he suffered from a mental disorder.
This led to a Section 16 application by Smith’s attorney through the Criminal Code, which states: "No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong."
However, a mental health doctor concluded that Smith did not qualify, but did say that the accused suffered from a mild dysfunction of the brain. The Section 16 application was denied.
During one of the four incidents, the Crown's evidence said Smith lowered his pants and forced a child of approximately eight years in age to touch his penis while he touched her backside under her clothes. This incident occurred in 2014 in Windsor. Smith was found guilty of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, exposing his genital organs and sexual assault for this incident.
Evidence from another complainant in the trial was dismissed because of a lack of evidence.
A third complainant was attending a hockey game at the Hants County Exhibition Arena with her family when, according to the Crown's evidence, Smith exposed himself inside the skate shop. Smith was charged with invitation to sexual touching and exposing his genitals in relation to the incident.
A fourth complainant, who was at the same arena in October 2014, encountered Smith at the same skate shop and, according the agreed statement of facts, was interacting with Smith when he asked, “Can you keep a secret?” Smith pulled down his pants, exposing his penis, leading to more charges.
A mother of one of the victims testified that she had asked Smith about the incident. She told the court that Smith said he knew he had exposed himself to a child, but did not know why he had done it.
“The Crown has proven the actus reas (action) of both offences beyond a reasonable doubt,” Tufts said. “The issue remains whether or not this was for a sexual purpose.”
Tufts said that the incident with the first complainant was clearly a sexual assault.
Tufts also said the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that at least some of these acts were committed for a sexual purpose.
“There is simply no other inference that could possible be drawn than this was for a sexual purpose. It is irrelevant that the accused was not sexually aroused or showed no signs of sexual arousal," Tufts said.
“I’m satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused invited that complainant to touch him for a sexual purpose, that he touched (her) for a sexual purpose, that he exposed his genital organ to her for a sexual purpose and he sexually assaulted her."
Smith was found guilty of touching minor, inviting the sexual touching of minor, exposing genitals to minor, and sexual assault.
A pre-sentence report will be prepared before the judge determines how Smith will sentenced on April 21. Smith's charges come with a minimum jail time sentence that could be increased to several years.
Smith’s lawyer, Tim Peacock, said he may be making a constitutional challenge, and will give the judge notice of whether or not this will proceed by March 14.
Smith was released and remains under conditions.
Garnett Frederick Smith argued he wasn’t criminally responsible due to an illness of the brain. But in the judge’s decision, which was read in the Windsor court house Feb. 21, Judge Alan Tufts stated that there could be no other inference but that these acts were for a sexual purpose, regardless of Smith’s state of mind at the time.
Smith was charged with nine offences stemming from four different complainants. Each one involved some form of sexual touching, luring, or exposing his genitals to children under the age of 16 between 2013 and 2014 in Windsor.
Smith’s primary defence during the trial was that he wasn’t aware of the severity of his actions while he was doing them because of a mental disorder, which impacted his judgement.
The Crown’s evidence included an agreed statement of facts from the complainants and testimony from one witness, the mother of one of the children.
Smith's defence attorney called an expert witness, who specializes in brain disorders.
After hearing the testimony of the expert, the court ordered a Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) report.
Tufts said the report led to reasonable grounds for an assessment of Smith to determine whether or not he suffered from a mental disorder.
This led to a Section 16 application by Smith’s attorney through the Criminal Code, which states: "No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong."
However, a mental health doctor concluded that Smith did not qualify, but did say that the accused suffered from a mild dysfunction of the brain. The Section 16 application was denied.
During one of the four incidents, the Crown's evidence said Smith lowered his pants and forced a child of approximately eight years in age to touch his penis while he touched her backside under her clothes. This incident occurred in 2014 in Windsor. Smith was found guilty of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, exposing his genital organs and sexual assault for this incident.
Evidence from another complainant in the trial was dismissed because of a lack of evidence.
A third complainant was attending a hockey game at the Hants County Exhibition Arena with her family when, according to the Crown's evidence, Smith exposed himself inside the skate shop. Smith was charged with invitation to sexual touching and exposing his genitals in relation to the incident.
A fourth complainant, who was at the same arena in October 2014, encountered Smith at the same skate shop and, according the agreed statement of facts, was interacting with Smith when he asked, “Can you keep a secret?” Smith pulled down his pants, exposing his penis, leading to more charges.
A mother of one of the victims testified that she had asked Smith about the incident. She told the court that Smith said he knew he had exposed himself to a child, but did not know why he had done it.
“The Crown has proven the actus reas (action) of both offences beyond a reasonable doubt,” Tufts said. “The issue remains whether or not this was for a sexual purpose.”
Tufts said that the incident with the first complainant was clearly a sexual assault.
Tufts also said the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that at least some of these acts were committed for a sexual purpose.
“There is simply no other inference that could possible be drawn than this was for a sexual purpose. It is irrelevant that the accused was not sexually aroused or showed no signs of sexual arousal," Tufts said.
“I’m satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused invited that complainant to touch him for a sexual purpose, that he touched (her) for a sexual purpose, that he exposed his genital organ to her for a sexual purpose and he sexually assaulted her."
Smith was found guilty of touching minor, inviting the sexual touching of minor, exposing genitals to minor, and sexual assault.
A pre-sentence report will be prepared before the judge determines how Smith will sentenced on April 21. Smith's charges come with a minimum jail time sentence that could be increased to several years.
Smith’s lawyer, Tim Peacock, said he may be making a constitutional challenge, and will give the judge notice of whether or not this will proceed by March 14.
Smith was released and remains under conditions.
