The hearing was only half over, but the lawyer for a man who police believe is a risk to the public wanted the judge to render his decision before all the evidence was presented.
After the Crown’s only witness had testified and before calling any witnesses herself, Ellen O’Gorman stood in provincial court in St. John’s Friday and requested that Judge Mike Madden render a directed verdict in the case of her client, Barry Edward Sinclair.
The 55-year-old Sinclair isn’t facing any criminal charges, but is the subject of an RNC-filed application that seeks to have him placed on a recognizance under Section 810.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada — a preventative measure meant to restrict the movements and behaviour of an individual.
The RNC believes Sinclair, an ex-convict, will commit “serious personal injury” offences against women, and wants him to adhere to certain conditions as a way of protecting the community.
However, after hearing the testimony of Const. Stephen Picco, who filed the application on behalf of the RNC, O’Gorman said there are not enough grounds to believe Sinclair will commit a serious personal injury crime, and as a result, shouldn’t have to abide by such stringest conditions.
“We’re not talking about someone with a violent history,” O’Gorman told the judge.
Known as the Halifax “Sleepwatcher,” Sinclair has previous offences that include breaking into women’s homes and watching them before fleeing when seen. His long criminal record includes convictions for trespassing at night in 2012, criminal harassment in 2002, being unlawfully in a dwelling in 1992 and a 30-year-old sexual assault conviction (1987).
His latest conviction was in February 2013, when he was given a five-year jail term, with a year’s credit, for a break and enter with intent conviction in Halifax. While five counts of voyeurism were dismissed, police say the break-in had a “voyeuristic aspect” to it and that he intended to watch a woman.
When Sinclair was freed in February 2017 and came to St. John’s, the RNC arrested him and filed the Section 801.2 application in court.
At that time, Sinclair agreed to sign an undertaking with certain conditions, including that he report to the RNC once a week, abstain from drugs and alcohol, and adhere to a curfew, but he refused to adhere to other RNC-requested conditions, including that he undergo counselling for sexual offences and allow officers to photograph him if his appearance changes.
O’Gorman pointed out Sinclair has not breached any of his conditions since then.
During Picco’s testimony, he said the RNC made the decision to file the 810.2 application based on several reports from Halifax police, Sinclair’s parole officers and other corrections staff members.
Picco said having reviewed all the reports and after speaking with many corrections officials who dealt with Sinclair, there was a common “theme” in that he never took responsibility for the sexual nature of his crimes. He said Sinclair continued to deny there was any sexual purpose to his crimes, and showed no remorse.
Picco said Sinclair “did the bare-minimum” of the required sexual counselling programs and that there were other incidents that caused concern.
He said Sinclair was accused of watching a seven-year-old girl in a washroom and was seen watching female corrections officers in the washroom and shower while he was serving a sentence in Springhill, N.S.
However, on cross-examination, O’Gorman pointed to a report regarding Sinclair’s rehabilitation treatment that states Sinclair completed all 17 sexual counselling sessions, was an active participant, was punctual and acknowledged the harm he had done to others.
“So, the progress report paints a different picture than your testimony,” O’Gorman said to Picco.
“Yes, to some extent,” Picco replied.
O’Gorman also noted that a public advisory was issued when the media learned Sinclair was in the province. She noted it caused uproar in the community and in the building where Sinclair lived. O’Gorman said Sinclair has not breached any of his conditions and also suggested Sinclair was being hounded by officers, who frequently checked on him — almost daily in the middle of the night during one two-week period.
The judge will hear arguments on the directed verdict request on Jan. 22.
Twitter: TelyRosie